ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Same-Sex Marriage: What's the Harm?

Updated on September 28, 2014
Abitibibob profile image

Bob Hunter worked for Ontario Hydro for 22 years. He later became a researcher/writer for the Christian Research Institute in California.

"If you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, this is my friend, but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend. And that’s it seems to me what the — what supporters of Proposition 8 are saying here. You’re -­ all you’re interested in is the label and you insist on changing the definition of the label." Chief Justice John Roberts


Once Upon a Time

Once upon a time there was a society that considered marriage to be the union of one man and one woman. Out of that union under normal circumstances would come children, and thus society would continue to grow and prosper.

Along came some people who weren't satisfied with the definition that had held societies together for thousands of years. They felt that it should also include two people of the same sex who were in love and wanted to get married. They took to the streets to protest. Those who disagreed with them were labelled narrow-minded and bigoted. They compared their protests to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. They took the issue to the courts - and won! Over time homosexuality was considered normal.

A few years later another group of people expressed dissatisfaction with the definition of marriage. The ringleader was a man who was deeply in love with three women and saw no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to marry all three of them if he wished. In fact it was touted that there shouldn't be any limits on how many people there could be in a marriage. Even some "Christians" got on board this particular bandwagon, citing "biblical" support for the concept of polygamy. Those who objected were labelled narrow-minded and bigoted. They were the new civil rights movement in America and took to the streets and eventually to the courts - and won! Over time polygamy was considered normal.

Over the next several years in this great land more groups of people arose who were dissatisfied with the current definition of marriage. Love is love, after all, whether it's between two people, ten people, two dogs, ten dogs, a human and a dog, two humans and two cats, or a human and a child! Yes, a child. If the child is willing, what's wrong with marriage between an adult and a child? After all, the important factor is love, isn't it? They took to the streets. Those who objected were called bigots, narrow-minded. Even dangerous to society. Of course, eventually the courts had to agree, and marriage became whatever was acceptable at the time.

Ridiculous Story!

Does this seem like a ridiculous story to you? Especially those of you who see nothing wrong with homosexuality? After all, homosexuality is one thing, but those other practices are going too far! It's immoral! It's wrong!

Really? Fifty years ago the idea of the country recognizing same-sex marriages seemed ridiculous as well. They would have called it immoral, sick, wrong! But today more and more people are accepting it. What happened? Did society evolve? Did they get rid of those absurd religious taboos drilled into their psyche over thousands of years and finally began to think clearly? If so, maybe those of you who support gay marriage also haven't evolved far enough and you're still so narrow-minded that you can't accept another definition of marriage!

Chief Justice John Roberts
Chief Justice John Roberts | Source

What Is a Friend?

That was Chief Justice John Roberts' point. People want to redefine the term "marriage." Over time it could be redefined so many different ways that the term becomes meaningless.

Certain practices may seem offensive to you now, but with enough years of gradual conditioning - actually, it's called brain-washing - it would become acceptable.

So first we redefine marriage. What's next? Maybe we can redefine the term "medical doctor," to mean anyone who has read three medical journal articles and has a sincere desire to help others. Who are you to decide someone has to spend several years in medical school to become a physician?

So What's the Harm?

You might ask, "So what's the harm? You believe in heterosexual marriage, fine! Go ahead and marry someone of the opposite sex. I have no objection. I'm more open-minded than you are. But let me marry someone of the same sex and respect my right to do so. I'm not affecting you or anyone else!"

Is that true? You're not affecting me or anyone else?

Picture the day when homosexual marriage is now considered legitimate. The happy gay couple come to a motel and want a room for the night. However, the motel owner is a Christian and objects to renting them a room on moral grounds. He won't tolerate that kind of behavior in his establishment. The happy gay couple sue the motel owner and he is found guilty of discrimination. The happy couple, in order to preserve their new-found "freedom" has taken away the freedom of another person to practice his beliefs. In fact, it's the state interfering in the affairs of the church!

In fact, the rights of all practicing Christians are going to be infringed on if they stand up for what they believe in. If churches are ordered to accept practicing homosexuals in their church or lose tax-exempt status, or face imprisonment, they are losing their rights. If Christians or other groups who object to homosexuality are forced into silence, then who is suppressing who? You who claim you've had to hide in the closet are going to be trying to force others to go into their own closets.

Secondly, non-Christians are fond of saying that Christians are trying to shove their morals down the throats of the non-religious people. However, in this case, by redefining marriage, the minority is forcing the majority to accept their definition of marriage. The minority is now doing the shoving.

Third, there are the dangers involved in changing moral values. Over the decades it hasn't been an increase in conservative sexual morals but a decrease in conservative sexual morals that has resulted in a rapid increase in pornography - including child pornography, prostitution and sex trafficking. Naturally, the world's answer to this would be to legalize all of the above and the problem is gone!

Let's also keep in mind that AIDS is dominant in the gay community. It would be futile for homosexuals to try and say it's just as common in the heterosexual world. However, through drug paraphernalia and through people practicing bisexuality, it has, in fact, spread to the heterosexual community. So we see that the abnormal behavior of the homosexual has had an impact on the majority who don't engage in this behavior.

Are Gay Rights a Civil Rights Issue?

Trial lawyer Roger J. Magnuson sums up this issue this way: “Homosexuals have all of the same rights heterosexuals do. They are protected by the Bill of Rights, by federal and state statutes, and by common-law decisions. They have the same status before the law as do other citizens….The issue is not whether rights have been infringed. The issue is whether new rights, not previously recognized, should be created.” [Roger J. Magnuson, Are Gay Rights Right? updated edition (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1990), 78.]

Pontius Pilate asked "What is truth?"
Pontius Pilate asked "What is truth?" | Source

Abandonment of Truth

Society has gone down the path of abandoning truth. As Nietzsche was fond of saying, there are no absolute truths anymore. Truth becomes what is true for you, but it might not be true for me. Likewise, moral values are being abandoned.

The futility of such thinking should be evident. You may think it's wrong for me to steal from you, but I, in all sincerity, may think it's morally right to steal from you - especially if you have more than I do. Both of us can't be right. So how do we determine who is right?

You may say that it's wrong when I hurt someone else? But who determines that? That's just your moral view. Mine may be that sometimes it's okay to hurt others. Who is to say that you're right and I'm wrong?

This is what happens when people try to change morals, try to change truth, try to redefine something that has been around since the beginning of time. This is why Christians follow the values given to us in Scripture. They are values we are born with. We KNOW it's wrong to steal and to kill. But over time and through exposure to the world and the world's values, those values can get distorted. Consciences become singed.

One of the factors that led to the fall of the Roman Empire was moral decay. Sadly, this is what we are seeing today, and this country will, unfortunately, reap the consequences.

Update: Those who don't think the legalization of gay marriage isn't a slippery slope leading to other forms of marriage need only read this story from the Los Angeles Times of Dec. 17, 2013 on polygamy or this story on the possible legalization of incest from NBC News on Sept. 25, 2014.

Link: The Meaning of Marriage

Addendum, July 2013

Since this article was written, much of what I predicted is, indeed, happening. Consider these links:

Justice Brings Up Polygamy in Prop 8 Gay Marriage Case

Advocates of Sex with Children Want Same Rights as Homosexuals


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image


      3 years ago

      I believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, any other union is immoral, but we have arrived at the breakdown of all the laws, both moral and just laws, that kept our society decent. We no longer live in a decent society, it is filled with perverts and law breakers thieves and murderers and that's now wonder we are all headed for perdition! make no mistake God is not mocked! and the powers that think they be look to destroy all the laws! that has been the agenda since the zionists took over Amerika! what you sow, so ye shall reap!

    • profile image


      5 years ago

      It is always very enlightening to see and listen to debates about almost anything for me. I must say, I agree with the prson who says that we should not use quotes to justify our views. I must also say, however, that I agree tha we should remember that there is a fine line when it comes to alienation and justification. Christians have a compass (the Bible) that should be followed, and therefore it must be honored and stood up for. We are called to love people, but loving people does notmean upholding and even accepting things that should not be. Anyone who does, no matter what he issue, is in a murky place. I love people and get along with everyone around me. Even when our views are not the same, we agree to disagree.

      I think the bigger fear for many is the more that we compromise the worse this world becomes, th everymoral fiber, and it isn't getting better. The point is that for someone who lives by biblical principle there is a call to speak the Truth (but without malice) and to walk in the way set up by Jesus within the scripture. With that being said, it is clear why so many are speaking out against acceptance of something that is clearly defined within the scripture as unacceptable. As a matter of fact, there are several other things that should not be so widely accepted that are by christians. Most importantly, the Bible is for the Christian, the guide to living and of course the worldly view is not guided by the Bible so it should not surprise people that things within the world are what they are. My problem is that sometimes we cannot find the eutopian place where we don't cross each others lines because trulyit is disheartening for some, even nonchristians to be forced todeal with others views and to be silenced on their own. We see many things in life but we do not hve to embrace and accept them, and I promise you with good comes bad in triumph. Almost eevrything in this world that is morally unnacceptable will be challenged and all it takes is one good argument, one group to compare your point to and boom, now it is cceptable. Wiring and biology challenges, arguments on ability to make choices and not.....jut watch what happens and th edebates will flare on these issues too. God bless America

      I just have to add this: everybody in a gay relationship is not "born gay" for some it is a choice per some peoples admitance. I can't speakfor all. As a matter of fact, I think a lot of our concerns and issues are there at birth, if not conception, but I also look at it froma more spiritual perspective, and I know that most people battle something, and it doesn't seem fair, but it is their reality.

    • jg555 profile image


      5 years ago from New York

      You say you will take a stand against any immorality but do you? Do you take a stand against every immoral thing you see? I do not know you so I will not try to answer that but it's hard to imagine that you do.

      Also, on the contrary, I do understand the reasons for those rules at the time. My point wasn't that everything is now up for debate; It was that it is easy for me to find examples in the Bible that are okay to change and you seem to agree with the fruit example, that it was okay to change. But this was a law as it was published in the Bible. Why am I not able to point things out that are able to be changed if you are going to decide which ones are "moral laws" that should not change? I see both as things we are picking and choosing to allow or disallow. Either we are both right and it is up to individual interpretation or we are both wrong to do so.

    • Abitibibob profile imageAUTHOR

      Bob Hunter 

      5 years ago from Fort Wayne

      "How is letting two gay people sleep in your motel any worse than allowing two straight people to be in your motel when the man is cheating on his wife or woman cheating on her husband?"

      It isn't, but one wouldn't know the individuals were cheating.

      "All sorts of sin could be occuring within your motel but because of blatant homophobia you feel as though you're allowed to take a stand against homosexuality."

      I'll take a stand against any immorality. If a hotel owner knows a couple is cheating on their spouses I think he has a right not to rent a room to them as well. It is you who is jumping to conclusions by stating I'm discriminating against homosexuality or using "religion" as an excuse to do so.

      As for things outdated in the Bible, it's apparent that you aren't familiar with the reasons for those rules at that time. Additionally, moral laws have not changed throughout biblical history. What you're trying to claim is because you can now eat fruit within four years of planting it, everything else is up for grabs and subject to change. Wrong.

    • jg555 profile image


      5 years ago from New York

      So basically what you're saying is, if you were a motel owner, and two people who are gay needed a place to sleep you wouldn't let them sleep in you're motel? My issue with this is, one: this doesn't have anything to do with marriage. This is just you being completely unaccepting of homosexuality. But understanding that simply comes from a religious background, i'll move onto two: How, in any way whatsoever does this get in the way of you practicing your beliefs? What you believe is in your own mind just like what everyone else believes is in their own mind. How is letting two gay people sleep in your motel any worse than allowing two straight people to be in your motel when the man is cheating on his wife or woman cheating on her husband? I do believe that breaks one of the ten commandments. But you would not know what these straight people are up to. You wouldn't know they were cheating. You do not ever know what happens behind closed doors. All sorts of sin could be occuring within your motel but because of blatant homophobia you feel as though you're allowed to take a stand against homosexuality. I think if someone is going to be God's moral police officer, he or she should take a stand against all things the Bible bans.

      I think an alternative to this is to realize that even if you ban gay marriage and don't allow a gay couple into your motel, there is still sin all over the place and that gay couple is just going to find another motel. You didn't just make them straight by turning them away. You could realize that you cannot change everyones actions or lifestyles so why not just accept it as the way it is and allow them to live their life even if you don't agree with it. I know I am not going to get you to accept the lifestyle they live but you are also not going to get them to change theirs so why do you feel the need to try?

      You are free to believe the bible and God's teachings no matter what is occuring around you. There are clearly things outdated in the bible i.e. not being able to eat fruit from a tree within four years of planting it or not being able to cut your hair at the sides or not being able to trim your beard (all banned in Leviticus.) We are not in biblical times anymore and even if you believe gays should not marry, its time to realize there are things banned in the bible we just have to do now a days. So pointing out one thing and using the bible as a moral high ground when there are plenty of things we all do that in Gods eyes is sin, is wrong.

      I understand your part of about morals but the reason they are "abandoned" in your eyes is because they are only your morals. You may share them with many other people because you receive them from God but not everyone has the same religion and background as you. You then immediately think of athiests but what about Hindu or Buddhist or Daoist people? Many morals may be shared but my point is we all have different morals. I think most people share your belief that we need to improve as a society but people do not need to believe in your god in order to do that. Athiests, Christians, and people of all religions should be better people. You may get your morals from the bible but other people get them from other places. That does not make them any less good.

      I'm going to finish this up by critiquing the quote you used by Justice Roberts. I understand that you do not want marriage to change and i see the comparison to forcing a child to be someone's friend. That may change the defintion of what a friend is, but you know why we do it? Because it makes them a better person. You're child may not want to be friends with the kid who sits in the corner alone but you tell him to be friends with him because that child obviously needs a friend. And what may result in you child being "friends" with him or her is him being friends with him or her for real.

    • Angela Blair profile image

      Angela Blair 

      5 years ago from Central Texas

      Well thought out piece -- congratulations. Personally, I don't care who sleeps with whom or when. I do care about the definition of "marriage" and I want it to stay as it's always been. It suits me fine if gay people decide what they want to call their relationship, have a ceremony, all the same rights as heterosexual couples -- and the same obligations. I just don't want the definition of marriage changed -- it's worked for years and everyone understands it. I'm not going to judge anyone else nor do I want anyone else judging me. I'm arguing definitions only here. Good Hub! Best/Sis


    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

    Show Details
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)