Should Same-sex Committed Unions be called Marriages – or should another term be found?

1. Should Same-sex Committed Unions be called Marriages – or should another term be found?

2. We want to be Married • We have strong feelings of attachment • We have sexual relations • We want equal rights

3. What is Marriage? – Current definition • Union of a man and a woman • A desire to make a permanent commitment and to offer sexual exclusivity towards each other IN ORDER THAT • The children created by their love benefit – behaviorally, materially and psychologically • It is my attempt to pass on the good qualities that my ancestors developed + plus add my own positive creative input so that my children have more positive qualities than I have. This way the future of my descendents is assured. Marriage and family building, when done reasonably well, brings about ‘lineage improvement’

4. Marriage – The commitment and sexual exclusivity of a man and woman allows them to INVEST so their children benefit in 7 Key ways • Concern for the children’s health and material well-being • Concern for their emotional well-being • Concern for their educational attainment • Concern for their disciplining and moral development – so they act in ways that benefit the social good • The family is a school of love – where children learn important social skills – forgiveness, tolerance, altruism, etc • Protecting the children from abuse in any form • Modelling of a couple relationship so the children have some successful strategies when they build their families If parents do their job well, the next generation does slightly better in some or all of these areas – lineage improvement occurs.

5. Worldwide research over 60 years is clear: Best outcomes in ALL 7 areas occur when children are raised by their two, married, biological Parents – by the people who brought them into the world.on average, they have far better outcomes in every area – when compared to children raised in - • Single parent homes, never married • Single parent homes, divorced • Cohabiting couples with children • Step-parenting homes • Children raised by same-sex couples • All other family constellations

6. Marriage – as presently defined - is the most successful family constellation for creating ‘lineage improvement’ (the next generation is a bit better than the last) that we know of • It brings about social goodness by attempting to create a safe, loving environment for each new human being as they grow from a baby to a young adult • Because the term marriage, as presently defined, is so important for the social good, this presentation asks whether committed same-sex unions should also be called marriages – or whether it better for the social good that they find another term to describe their unions.

7. Part 1What happens when you redefine any Important Word So It Means 2 Different Things?

8. Let’s Redefine Pizza • Let’s say a country said – because the contents of pizza and spaghetti are pretty much the same – from now on spaghetti will also be called pizza. • You go to a restaurant and order pizza – you want the round one - but you get spaghetti. How do you feel? Frustration will occur. • Everyone will have to add new adjectives to make sure that they get what they want – ‘I want stringy pizza please’

9. Redefining Pizza • So everyone has to now remember to add adjectives so there are no misunderstandings. But sometimes people will forget – “I just ordered 300,000 pizza’s” – and he gets 300,000 spaghetti portions. This he doesn’t need – who is to blame – who should pay? Lawyers Please • Society doesn’t need this lack of clarity or endless lawsuits – for this reason we create, as reasonably as possible – one word for each different item or state of being. • Though trucks and cars have similar legal requirements imagine calling them both trucks.

10. Redefine Marriage – And Embarrassment, confusion and Lawyers will follow • You meet someone – they say: “I’m married” – you think hetero-sexual – and ask: “What’s her name?” – and you end up embarrassed when he says ‘gay’. • Someone, in any media, forgets to use the defining adjective “We’re holding a marriage enrichment seminar this weekend.” – and a gay or lesbian couple turn up but the seminar is focussed purely on heterosexual couples - lawsuits will follow. • Books from the past have to be re-written or new titles given to erase possible embarrassment – they might be seen as homophobic. Book: ‘Choosing the Right Marriage Partner’ – can’t have that title if no references to gay or lesbian marriage is there.

11. Different things are called differently to avoid confusion for everyone Tangerine Satsuma Mandarine Clementine

12. No-Where In the English language do we use the same word to describe 2 quite different states of being when this word is important to us

13. Conclusion: Allowing Gay and Lesbian Couples to Have The same term as Heterosexual couples will lead to: • Confusion • Endless moments of embarrassment • A field day for lawyers • All of the above will make it harder to use the word Marriage – so people will stop using it: ‘Are you in a committed relationship?’ – this will not help society since heterosexual marriage defines social health. • Since there are at least a million other words one could use to define the ‘committed same-sex couple relationship’ – all the above is totally unnecessary. E.g.; The term: ‘Regaled’ (re-gay-uled) is a nice word – ‘I’m going to the regalement of John and Peter next week’

14. Conclusion • It would be against the public good to allow ANY OTHER FORM of relationship to be called ‘marriage’ – because it would just cause confusion for society. • This is not being homophobic – this is just being sensible. The problem would occur if any other form of attachment relationship said ‘we want to be called married’ – resistance would occur. It is a different form of relationship - it needs a different term. • Gay and lesbians have every right to create a term of their own to define their committed same-sex unions – but ideally they should use a term that will not add to social confusion.

15. Part 2: If the term marriage is used to define committed, same-sex unions – will the core attributes of marriage be changed also? If yes, will these changes lead to positive or negative social outcomes for everyone else?

16. Current Core Attributes Associated With Marriage – Attributes that Together Enhance the Social Good • - Heterosexual marriage has been around for thousands of years • The commitment of the partners and their sexual exclusivity has: • Created social stability • Aided the development of children • Created a beginning point of community and the foundation for healthy civil society

17. Present Definition of Heterosexual Marriage Contrasted Marriage if it is Redefined to include Same-sex unions Redefinition will completely change the core attributes of marriage. Will this lead to problems for everyone?

18. Problem 1: Fundamental Marital Attribute 1: One Man – One Woman Marriage re-defined would be: • ‘Any two consenting adults who felt a desire to make a life-long commitment to each other.’ There are key problems with this redefinition: • If there are rights and benefits to be gained – ANY two people – whether they have sex or not - will be able to access those benefits by going through a ‘marriage ceremony’ – and ultimately the term marriage will become meaningless • Once – in law – you establish that marriage is about personal connection – not about lineage improvement – then there is nothing to stop the establishment of ‘polyamorous marriages’ – polygamy and more.

19. If you redefine marriage from meaning ‘lineage improvement’ to ‘personal feelings of attachment’ then anyone can get married to gain the legal benefits • Traditional heterosexual marriage exists primarily for the benefit and enhancement of the children – it is a lineage improvement form of bonding that ultimately enhances the social good. • However, once redefined – marriage will mean something very different – ‘We have personal feelings of attachment and we want the legal benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy’. • The trouble with this is that ANY two people could ‘get married’ because of ‘any feelings of attachment’ or in order to gain benefits • Two elderly women who enjoy each other’s company immensely living together for companionship could claim marital status – and gain whatever marital rights are on offer • Whole immigrant families could marry members of another family in their home culture for the sake of helping that family emigrate • Etc

20. And why stop at Married means two individuals who have feelings of attachment • Bisexuals exist – they have feelings of attachment • And what about people who want to establish polygamous families ? • Once you - in law – state that marriage is about personal feelings of attachment and not about lineage improvement – then there is no barrier to stop other forms of family from emerging. • Sadly, because these are forms of family are lineage weakening – they give rise to higher rates of trauma in children - social decay and rising social costs will AUTOMATICALLY follow

21. Marriage – once redefined - can be claimed by ANY other form of attachment relationship • Complete the following sentence: “Polyamorous unions (threesomes, foursomes, etc) and non-sexual friendship unions by nature cannot be marriages, and should not be recognized legally, because…”. • Revisionists, once they have broken marriage away from its traditional meaning, cannot find any good reason why these other relationships shouldn’t be called marriage too.

22. In Fact – This is a major Goal of Many Same-Sex Marriage Advocates • Prof. Judith Stacey of New York University expressed hope that the triumph of the revisionist view would give marriage “varied, creative, and adaptive contours . . . [leading some to] seek . . . small group marriages.” • More than 300 “LGBT and allied” scholars and advocates — including prominent Ivy League professors — co-authored “Beyond Same‐Sex Marriage,” a call to the US Congress to accept legal recognition of sexual relationships involving more than two partners.

23. In fact, some of most forceful Same-Sex Marriage Advocates want to destroy the present meaning of marriage completely – no matter how much pain and suffering this will ultimately lead to in society – increases in drug abuse, prostitution, violence, crime, and every social ill we know of • Same-sex couples should “fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely because the most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake . . . is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.” Michelangelo Signorile, Bridal Wave, OUT, Dec.–Jan. 1994.

24. Summary – Once you re-define marriage from meaning ‘one man – one woman – building a committed relationship for the benefit of the children they bring into the world’ – to now become ‘any two people who have strong feeling of attachment’: The term Marriage would eventually apply to so many different forms of relationship that it would become: MEANINGLESS. Fewer and fewer young adults would aspire to marry because the institution would lose its meaning – and the end result would be less committed families – leading to increased trauma rates, a breakdown of communities, and poorer results for society as a whole.

25. The Dutch Experience • The Dutch legalised same-sex marriage in 2001. • In Holland, over the last 10 years, the number of children now being born outside of marriage has increased dramatically– by about 2% a year, the fastest rise in Europe. This, of course, will lead to poorer outcomes for society as a whole + high social spending • It is, of course, impossible to link this rise directly to the legalisation of same-sex marriage – but one has to seriously question whether the Dutch have created problems for future generations by redefining the term marriage – with every more children being raised in more fragile relationship forms.

26. Summary – Redefining Marriage Once – leads it open to endless redefinitions – leading it to have no real meaning at all • Redefining the term marriage once opens it up to be redefined again and again • ‘Marriage’, the term that defines long-term social health and well-being, would be lost as a goal for future generations. • Family and social outcomes will be deeply affected – everyone will suffer traumas in one way or another. • Just because some 1-2% of the population unnecessarily wanted to claim the word marriage. • Same-sex advocates could have another term to define their committed unions – and some legal rights – and marriage wouldn’t be re-defined – and the potential for social trauma would be avoided.

27. Problem 2: Re-definition of Core Marital Attribute 3: Fidelity and Sexual Exclusivity • Traditional opposite-sex marriages, on the whole, tend towards life-long sexual exclusivity. • Most cultures, countries or subcultures display very low rates of infidelity whilst a few others tend towards some 30% of husbands and 15-20% of wives having extra-marital relationships. • Most countries - it is seen as grounds for divorce. • Infidelity is clearly seen as harming the social good - hurting children, the other partner, and has a very negative ripple affect onto relatives and society

28. Research on Committed Gay Couples:–Do they Uphold the Core Marital Virtue of Fidelity? • Professors David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison, themselves in a romantic relationship, studied 156 gay couples, most of whom entered their relationships expecting sexual exclusivity. • Not one couple stayed sexually exclusive longer than five years. • Their conclusion: “The expectation for outside sexual activity was the rule for male couples and the exception for heterosexuals.”

29. Is Fidelity or Infidelity the Norm In Gay relationships in Europe • A study of gay men in Amsterdam showed that "men in homosexual relationships, on average, have eight partners a year outside those relationships.“ Maria Xiridou et al., "The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection Among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17, 7 (2003): 1029-103

30. Is Fidelity or Infidelity the Norm In Gay relationships For homosexual men, the term "monogamy” doesn't necessarily mean sexual exclusivity. It is …a relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often, hide their resentment and jealousy, and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners. Michelangelo Signorile, Life Outside (New York: HarperCollins, 1997), 21

31. Summary: If the term marriage was used to define committed gay relationships: • The core attribute of sexual exclusivity – one of the core elements that makes heterosexual marriage so valuable to society - would no longer be part of the definition of marriage. • After redefinition - soap operas and movies would appear showing married gay men discussing their extra-marital affairs and switching extra-marital partners - making it seem that this is all part of a healthy marital relationship. • Young people – the 98% of heterosexuals - would become completely confused about the core elements of marriage – and many, many future families would suffer immense trauma as a result. This would be cruelty in an extreme form.

32. Problem 3: Re-definition of Core Marital Attribute 5: children do best when raised by their own married, biological parents There are two key issues here: • The heterosexual population – 98% of us – have a term that states very clearly – ‘If you want children – and you want them to grow up healthily - then your best option is to marry, stay sexually exclusive, and be there for you kids during their childhood.’ All people and societies, present and future, in order to stay healthy, need this best practice definition – biological parents raising their children in a sexually exclusive, committed relationship. • Good people who don’t want the term marriage to be redefined – because then children will get hurt - are being seen as bigots and law breakers

33. 3A: Research from all over the world CLEARLY shows that children, on average, do best when raised by their own married, biological parents • All other forms of family constellation (gay and lesbian parenting too) – even though they might try very hard, have increased risk factors that bring about, on average, poorer outcomes for children in almost every area of social and well-being development. • Society needs the best practice term – marriage as presently defined - for the next generation of heterosexual children to look up to. If the next generation doesn’t have this term clearly defined and understood as best practice, then they WILL make decisions that lead to poorer outcomes for themselves, for their children and for society as a whole.

34. But if marriage is redefined – the current best practice definition is LOST and society will slowly but surely suffer social decay • If marriage is redefined it will say to the next generation: • You can raise children in ANY form of marital relationship – gay, lesbian, bisexual, polygamous – and the outcomes will be the same. Research clearly shows this is not true. • That children don’t need both a father and mother as role models – they do just as well when being raised by anyone. Research again clearly shows this is not true. Boys raised without a father figure often struggle in their role as a husband and father. Girls also find it harder to build their own marriages.

35. Why don’t children raised by same-sex parents, on average, do as well as children who are raised by their own Married, biological parents • Firstly – they are a large number of gay and lesbian parents who would do a fine job at raising children. • But like ALL step-family or adoption situations – there are increased risk factors that are just associated with these forms of family – often factors that are beyond the control of the two adult parents. • E.g.; Disciplining is harder: ‘You’re not my father/mother – you can’t tell me what to do!’ • E.g.; Children raised in stepfamilies are more subject to sexual and physical abuse by their non-biological father – this is the way life is. • E.g.; Children, especially if their gay/lesbian parents are struggling (which sometimes they will be), are going to feel emotionally unloved and abandoned by their biological parent(s) – ‘why did you leave me in this mess.’ This might affect their education or cause depression.

36. At the moment – we can clearly tell the next generation of heterosexual children that Marriage IS their best hope of fulfilling their dream of finding lasting love and building a healthy family • Once marriage is redefined, however, this will no longer be true. • If marriage now means: • It’s ok to have extra marital affairs • Marriage is any type of strong attachment relations Marriage will no longer be the best option for the 98% of heterosexual young people – and all their remaining options are more likely to lead to poorer outcomes for themselves and their children. THIS IS CRUEL TO ALL FUTURE GENERATIONS

37. Problem 3b: Re-definition of Core Marital Attribute 5: Same-sex activists want to claim and redefine the term marriage – but many good people don’t want marriage redefined. • Many religious people and people of conscience understand that heterosexual marriage as presently defined – monogamous, committed, two opposite sex parents raising the children they have brought into the world - is VERY important for the health and well-being of ALL children and for society as a whole – there’s no better way to raise kids. • They thus would want to protect the word ‘Marriage’ from ANY group that wanted to redefine it • Because a small number gay rights activists, however, have militantly set about trying to redefine the word marriage to mean something quite different - this automatically creates conflict.

38. Same-sex activists have joined two issues together – creating a smokescreen that has the potential to bring about immense social trauma We want legal rights for same sex couples We want the term marriage and we want to redefine it • It would be so much simpler if same-sex activists found their own term to define their committed unions – let’s say ‘We’re regaled’. No one could stop them. • They then could go on to ask society for certain legal rights for ‘regaled couples’ • The issues then would be clearer. • Instead, they have purposely joined the two issues together – redefining the term marriage and gaining access to legal rights. This is creating immense tension.

39. Good people who are trying protect the term marriage for the well-being of all society are now being called homophobic and accused of being bigoted • Anyone is deeply concerned about the negative consequences of redefining marriage – the one term that, as presently defined, defines social health and well-being and protects billions of children • Is seen as bigoted, as denying people equal rights, as homophobic. By linking the two issues together We want the term marriage and we want to redefine it We want legal rights for same sex couples

40. By joining the two issues together, same-sex activists are being incredibly destructive • If governments offer the word marriage to recognise same-sex unions – this negative tension between those who want to protect the word marriage for the sake of ALL future children – and those who want equal rights for same-sex couples – would continue to be there for many, many years. • Because ‘equality under the law’ is seen as a higher right than ‘someone’s viewpoint’ – then anyone who still believes that redefining marriage was wrong would be seen as breaking the law – discriminating against gays and lesbians – and they might be refused jobs in any government department, be forced to resign from any prominent position, not allowed to adopt or even jailed.

41. We already see this happening – Good people who value the present definition of married for the benefit of all children – being called bigots and attacked • In GB recently, a loving couple who had fostered many children – were refused another child because they didn’t feel offering the word marriage to define same-sex unions was a good idea • Peter Vidmar, a former Olympic gold medalist and chief of mission for 2012 U.S. Olympic Team – is forced to resign because he activity sought to protect marriage from being redefined • Many other stories • Soon, anyone who writes anything negative about any aspect of gay marriage – even if it is totally true - will have their career ruined – you’re bigoted. Witch hunts – find the homophobe and ‘out’ him or her – would become part of society. Groups who wanted the original meaning of marriage back might even need to meet in secret.

42. Because same-sex couples want the term Marriage – and don’t want to find a new term to describe their committed unions - Social ethics are turned on their head These are bad people They are bigoted, breaking the law people who can’t hold public office of any kind – just because they believe redefining the term marriage will harm children and society These are good people. They are allowed to redefine marriage to mean almost anything - even if children and society get harmed

43. Social stigma would be turned around – and some 50% or more of the population would now feel stigmatised • By joining these two issues together • Gays and lesbians – some 1-2% of the population – who feel they have been mistreated by society – who have felt cut off from and treated unfairly – would now be doing the same to some 50% or more the population • 50% or more of the population would be now be shunned and seen as bigoted. • This is ridiculous and ALL totally unnecessary! We want legal rights for same sex couples We want the term marriage and we want to redefine it

44. This tension is Primarily because same-sex couples want the word marriage – they refuse to find their own term to define their unions and stop this divisiveness • They could find another term – E.g.; ‘Regaled’. • Same-sex couples IS a different type of union – it should have a different term so everyone is clear when people are speaking • Then they could ask for legal rights • Marriage shouldn’t have to be redefined so it: • Accepts infidelity as being acceptable • Means any form of strong emotional attachment. • Most people are tolerant and not bigoted – but when you attempt to redefine a word that is so important to future children – then there will be resistance.

45. The Harm to Religions – who have been a force for social good for generations • All major religions are supportive of marriage for the benefits it brings society and most do not want the present understanding of marriage to be changed. • Because same-sex activists want to claim the term marriage - some religions are now being seen as bigoted – especially by the younger generation • This will lead to a decline of people wanting to associate with their religious heritage. • Since religions play a key role in helping many young people develop their moral compass and offer them a safe community setting – making religions look like they are bigoted will harm society. • E.g.; large numbers of young Finns resigned from the Lutheran church during their national debate of gay marriage

46. SUMMARY - Lawmakers have to be really clear if they are not to cause many years of social division • Most of the social tension on this issue would go away tomorrow if same-sex advocates found another term to define their committed unions • Heterosexual people – some 98% of the population – have rights TOO – rights to word that describes their type of union. Most don’t want it redefined so it leads to greater harm for their children too • Then, with an acceptable different term, same-sex committed unions can ask if they can gain certain rights under the law. • WE don’t have to suffer YEARS of social torment on this issue. • There are other serious issues that have to be dealt with – and all this is TOTALLY UNNECESSARY.

47. Problem 4:By redefining the term ‘marriage’ to also define committed same-sex unions - You then have no word left to help you fix many of society’s ills Marriage presently defined: • Opposite sex partners • Life-long commitment to each other • Sexual exclusivity • Work together to raise the children born of their love to hopefully become happy contributing members of society Most of society’s growing list of social problems are mainly due to the fact that more and more children are being raised by only one parent – a single parent who sometimes finds it harder to offer the emotional support, modelling and discipline that the child needs – so their children have a higher chance of reaching adulthood with traumas that affect their ability to be contributing members of society

48. When governments finally figure at that they are going bankrupt mainly because of Family breakdown – and they decide to encourage and support the marital dreams of the overwhelming majority of the population: If marriage has already been redefined: • Governments can no longer say: ‘More people should get married and stay married or the state will go bankrupt’ – because marriage redefined will include: • Sexual infidelity is acceptable • Any form of attachment relationship Neither of these new definitions of marriage will start to restore social health

49. Once marriage has become a term to define same-sex committed unions • Governments will not be able to say: • We need more heterosexual married couples to stay together to raise their children or our country will continue to decline BECAUSE • Same-sex marriage activists will say: ‘You’re being homophobic’ – and no one would want their career ruined so governments would keep quiet. So you would be stuck with a decaying society caused by less and less people marrying and staying together to raise the children who they brought into the world – a senario that will lead to ever more people on drugs, more crimes, poorer sexual health, and much more. You would growing social problems but NO solution – just increased financial costs. Just because some 2% of the population wanted to UNNECESSARILY claim and redefine the term marriage.

50. Conclusion: • The term ‘Marriage’ is very important to the health of society. • As presently defined it protects and enhances the lives of BILLIONS of children the world. • That’s just the way life is – it is best practice for human beings – and without it all nations would go into decay. • At the start of the 20th century, every major culture and most minor cultures were marriage affirming cultures – because when two people stay together to raise the children they brought into the world, the children have a good chance of becoming healthy contributing members society – and marriage affirming societies were stronger and more powerful as a result • That’s just the way life works. We can’t change that fact.