In arguments about changing the definition of marriage, proponents of change generally claim that letting marriage become anything other than one man and one woman is no threat to existing, traditional marriages. They claim that the religiously observant and other traditional people must be insecure in their own marriages if same-sex marriage appears to them as a threat. This argument ignores the fact that traditional marriage has never been about just two people being in love. Marriage exists to provide security for the entity known as the family, which raises children to carry on the human race. Has anyone cared or dared to ask how children might fare in an experimental family structure instead of a family with a father and a mother?
The book Jephthah’s Daughters (edited by R. Lopez and R. Edelman, published 2015, International Children’s Rights Institute) should be seriously read by anyone claiming that any and every type of “family” is equal. This book includes story after story of adults who grew up in the gay culture. Many consider themselves used as ornaments or tools for their parents’ political activism. They also consider themselves robbed of their biological heritage if they were created through commerce: sperm/egg donations or surrogacy. Nearly all say they were raised in an unnaturally hyper-sexualized environment. As adults, they span the political spectrum and are gay, straight, and confused. One thing they agree upon is that they were used more than loved and their needs for their biological heritage and involvement of both male and female parents were not met.
Lest we thing same-sex marriage is the only threat to marriage and children, consider that the data have been in on no-fault divorce for over a generation. No-fault divorce was an overnight redefinition of the marriage contract to mean essentially nothing–making it less enforceable than any common business contract. Lest we think our society has evolved beyond slavery, consider the designer children created on purpose and sold to people biologically unrelated to them. In a surrogacy contract, is the woman so used any match for power of wealthy gay couples who can buy a child as an ornament of respectability? The children of sperm and egg donors are deprived of their biological heritage just as surely as those children of chattel slavery were.
Before everyone accepts alternative, experimental families as inevitable, consider whether it is worth fighting for the generation of children who will bear the side-effects of this experiment. As with slavery and no-fault divorce, the most powerless will suffer so some adults may do as they please and ignore time-tested rules and structures for families.