The Cost of Compromise

Very often when the question of "same-sex marriage" is debated the popular challenge thrown at those who wish to retain marriage for what it has always meant will be "What difference would it make to you if they changed the definition?" Oh, to be fair, they rarely openly admit that they're changing the definition. They are, but usually it's more like "What difference would it make to you if gay people got married?" And, of course, it's considered the "kill shot", the question that ends the argument. From their perspective, it would make no difference to marriages defined as "man and woman", "husband and wife", if they changed to "man and man" or "woman and woman".

A big part of the reason that this seems to be the case (it isn't; it just seems to be) is, in fact, the erosion of gender roles entirely. It is the onslaught of radical feminism that has, in its efforts to bring about "gender equality", sought to dismantle any perception of gender differences. Oh, sure, there are the obvious physical differences, but inside we're all the same. There is no "female", no "male", no gender-based roles. We even get this in Christendom today with the egalitarian movement. "Doesn't the Bible say that in Christ there is no male or female?"

So, what difference will it make to me if society redefines "marriage"? First, I need to point out that it already has. Marriage was "for life" and "for offspring". Sure, sure, some couples couldn't have kids. A few could but wouldn't because of a medical danger or something. But the general rule of thumb was that marriage was for life and procreation was the norm. If you couldn't have kids, that was a sad thing, not a good thing. Before the push of a homosexual agenda, those shifts already occurred. Now we get this.

It's no secret that the past few decades have transformed traditional gender relationships. Both men and women are operating by a whole new set of rules. Instead of celebrating Mother's Day or Father's Day, some schools are celebrating Parent's Day to accommodate kids from the wide diversity of families today.

I'd like to point out to my detractors who assure me that no one is suggesting the erasure of gender differences that this is exactly what this is saying. "Traditional gender relationships" are being "transformed". Genders operate "by a whole new set of rules." "'Mother' and 'father' are often archaic concepts." The author of the article, Dr. Peggy Drexler, admits that "mother" and "father" generally indicate "egg donor" and "sperm donor" (like that is the primary understanding of gender-related parental roles), but she goes on to say, "The rise of donor insemination and surrogate pregnancies open debate even on that." Single parents, single parents by choice, and now the coup de grace of homosexual parents are bringing an end to the concepts of "father" and "mother". "Mothers' Day" and "Fathers' Day" are going by the wayside and we'll be left with "Parents' Day" because that will be the only acceptable term.

According to Dr. Drexler, we're looking at a complete melding of "gender roles". Her understanding of such roles are apparently limited to laundry, cooking, and earning a living. But even she admits that "Certainly, there are still things that fathers undertake more than mothers, such as teaching a child to ride a bike. Some things often seem to fall more to mothers, such as arranging childcare." You see, hidden under the veneer of cold clinical examination the truth still seeps out. Can a single mother raise a well-functioning child? Of course. That's not the question. Is it possible for a homosexual couple to parent a kid? Silly question. That's not the point. The question is "What is best?" and the reality remains that a loving mother and loving father in a loving marriage provide the best platform for child-rearing. Anything else, while perhaps tolerable, is less. But as society moves away from the longstanding traditional definition of marriage to this new form and embraces a "gender equality" that is defined as "gender equivalence" and generally dismisses any sort of biblical concepts of marriage, parenting, or child-rearing^*, I guarantee that it will have a large and negative impact on our world, including "heterosexuals", "Christians", and, yes, even "homosexuals". It will make a difference, and the difference will not be positive.

_________
^* As an example, while Scripture talks plainly and openly about corporal punishment as a suitable (in fact, recommended) means of training a child, we've moved so far from the concept that a news report the other day was offering "ways you can scam your children to do what you want." Instead of "training up a child in the way he should go", we've degenerated into begging, pleading, and tricking kids. This cannot end well.