Why Same-Sex Marriage Is Like Opening Pandora's Box by Andre Jenkins

I oppose same-sex marriage.

Unlike the vast majority of cases against same sex marriage I acknowledge that same-sex couples actually do have children and use non-traditional ways of procreating. Moreover, unlike most cases against same-sex marriage, I don't compare who is better between same-sex parents and heterosexual parents and I don't use religious arguments, natural law arguments, or arguments based off of preference. 

Rather this case, which is a secular case, made by a secular writer, emphasizes overlooked aspects of the empirical costs of legalizing same-sex marriage. 

I make three overlooked arguments against same-sex marriage that demonstrate how allowing same-sex marriages would affect opposite-sex marriages and how those arguments are sufficient to justify denying marriage to same-sex couples.

1) The Four Radically Different New Unions Argument: If the government legalizes same-sex marriage it is also legalizing transsexual marriage, transgender marriage, and bisexual marriage as well. I elaborate on how the inclusion of same-sex, bisexual, and trans unions into the marriage institution will negatively impact and change the marriage institution from something that once best fit heterosexual unions, to something that is a poor fit for heterosexual unions and their children in order to accommodate trans, same-sex, and bisexual families. I conclude that a one-size fits all marriage institution does not fit all unions and families equally and ends up hurting heterosexual families the most.

2) The Bridge and Battering Ram Argument: If the government and society acknowledge same-sex couples (as well as bi, transsexual, and transgendered couples) as the same as hetero couples by granting same-sex couples marital status, then the government and society also acknowledge same-sex parenting (as well as bi, transsexual, and transgender) as the same to hetero-parenting. Thus the sex of the parents doesn't matter for the raising of a child. 

From the conclusions above I take the argument a step-further than most heterosexual marriage advocates by emphasizing and connecting those conclusions to the trickle down effect of how "biological sex" not being essential to marriage or parenting negatively impacts society. I both connect and demonstrate the many manifestations in society of "biological sex" losing it's importance in law such as males who psychologically identify as trans-women being allowed by law to use private female spaces (restrooms, rape shelters, athletic teams), how growing trends of children in the U.S. and Europe are undergoing and are allowed by law to undergo sex-change treatment, I emphasize that more children are being recognized by law as transgendered even at the age of 6,  and how biological sex is losing it's importance in child custody cases as well. I conclude that sexual distinctions are becoming annihilated and the acknowledgement of same-sex marriage is the battering ram for such an annihilation to occur.

3) The LGBT Procreation and Parenting Argument: The marriage institution will be impacted not because same-sex couples can’t procreate within their union, but rather quite the opposite: the fact that there are many same-sex couples that procreate via different ways and are raising children, will change family law within the marriage institution. The central problem is that LGBT households do both raise and produce children. I argue that it is how LGBT families procreate and parent that poses such a lethal threat to the marriage institution. 

*In addition to the three main arguments above, I also discuss the 1,138 rights, benefits, protections, and responsibilities that LGBT couples are missing out on because they are not allowed to get married. Finally, I conclude this paper by raising 2 new questions to the marriage debate 

I. The Four Radically Different New Unions Argument: How Transgender, Transsexual, and Bisexual Identities will Negatively Impact the Marriage Institution

The Four Radically Different New Unions Argument is as follows: The more radically different a new union is compared to the baseline of heterosexual unions (which the institution of marriage has been specifically tailored for in the U.S. for over 200 years), the more of a negative impact the inclusion of the new union will have on the institution of marriage,  even if the total number of members in the new group is small. Same-sex couples are a radically different union from heterosexual couples and legalizing SSM opens the door for couples with an even higher degree of radical difference than that of same-sex couples. Such other radically different unions include Bisexual, Transsexual, and Transgender couples. Thus, since the legalization of SSM opens the door for  additional radically different new couples, SSM is the central new radically different union that must be prohibited. 

It's the degree of difference between heterosexual unions and the new radically different unions that plays the biggest role on changing marital family law for all since laws will have to be tailored to better fit the inclusion of the new groups who each have unique special needs relative to their families due to how the couples are situated. (I elaborate on this point in my sequel paper in Part VI. Metasize Demise and The Wild Fire Effect)

Including these four radically different unions will negatively impact and change the marriage institution from something that once best fit heterosexual unions and families, to something that is a poor fit for heterosexual unions and their children in order to accommodate trans, same-sex, and bisexual families. A one-size fits all marriage institution does not fit all unions and families equally and ends up hurting heterosexual families the most.

For example, the introduction of same-sex, transsexual, transgender, and bisexual unions into marriage law directly impacts every aspect of family law within the marriage institution for all couples since marriage law and family law are inextricably intertwined, as demonstrated through laws governing maternal and paternal custody rights, consanguinity laws, inheritance laws, laws pertaining to splitting of property,  child support, etc. The chart below depicts heterosexual unions/families being the base-line, and transgender unions being the most extreme deviation from the heterosexual union base-line:

Heterosexual Unions--Bisexual Unions--Homosexual Unions--Transsexual --Transgender 

*Transgender Unions are the most extremely different, and are even radically different from homosexual unions and families, in large part because of situations with transgender men who become pregnant and then start taking their testosterone hormones again after they have their children to partially become a male. (They can’t fully become a male because they still have all of their reproductive organs. Many have had double mastectomies).  

*Transsexual Unions are very close to being as extremely different as Transgendered Unions. Another situation that is occurring as a result of new reproduction technology is that Female to Male transsexuals freeze their eggs and embryos before transitioning, and after their transition they implant a gestational surrogate with their eggs. The same thing is occurring with Male to Female transsexuals who freeze their sperm before transitioning and after their transition they have their sperm transferred to a gestational surrogate or their female partner. 

Think about how an individual who is now by law seen as a female, but was born a male, yet is considered to be the father of “his” child will turn marriage family law upside down. Or think about a Female to Male Transsexual who froze her eggs before transitioning and had them implanted into a gestational surrogate after transitioning. Add to this scenario the FtM’s spouse who froze his sperm before transitioning, donating his sperm to the gestational surrogate after his transition and marriage to his FtM spouse. Put this and any other similar radically bizarre scenarios in the context of one marital family, law for all kinds of couples, where judges view all couples as "the same" and try to treat them all as "the same."

"Some" of the differences between Heterosexual Couples and Homosexual Couples that impact family law include that Hetero families consist of only 2 parents “in principle” and Homosexual couples include 3 or more parents “in principle.” For hetero families there is one parent of each biological sex and the child of the hetero couple will have a parent of the same sex to him/her and will have a parent of the opposite sex to him/her “in principle.” 

For homosexual couples, the child of their union may or may not be raised by a parent of the same sex to him/her and the child may or may not be raised by parent of the opposite sex to him/her. The child may not even be raised by one of his/her biological parents. For Hetero couples there is both maternal and paternal custody rights and presumption of paternity to protect the mother of the child.  In lesbian unions there are maternal custody rights for divorced lesbians, but a sperm donor’s paternal custody rights are uncertain in the context of same-sex marriages.  In gay unions there are paternal custody rights for divorced gay married couple, but a surrogate’s maternal custody rights are uncertain.

Bisexual couples are different from strictly Heterosexual couples due to the fact that Bisexual couples include people who divorce a spouse of the opposite sex and marry a spouse of the same-sex, and people who were once hetero and then decided later on that they are homosexual. Complications have arisen as a result of bisexual couples being added into the family law of the marriage franchise due to situations where an ex marries a person of the same-sex and that same-sex partner asks for and wins parental rights over the other biological parent of the child. Some cases have resulted in a situation where a divorced single mother loses child custody against her ex-husband and his husband. 

  

Darren Rosenblum, a gay man who identifies himself as a “mother” writes in his paper "Unsex Mothering: Toward a New Culture of Parenting": In the actual act of parenting, biology plays no necessary role. Unsexed mothering is relational, not biological, and it is an act, not a fixed identity. While biological elements may undoubtedly further that relationship, one need not engage in these functions in order to mother a child. A male parent could say to others, “I am the child’s mother.”

In his debate against Dennis Prager, Perez Hilton echoes a similar thought process. He argues that males and females are only different in relation to their body parts, but overall males and females can accomplish the same things." 

In other words males and females, in principle, are not pre-disposed to having certain essential and unique qualities different from one another that make them better suited as mother or father. Hilton stated: "I believe that men and women are the same… I believe that I am the same as my sister…We may have different body parts, but we're...[we] make equal contributions to society."

  

Dennis Prager responded to Perez by stating: "Perez, I actually respect your intellectual honesty here. See, a lot of people I debate on this acknowledge that men and women are profoundly different. Perez thinks that we are, except for body parts, identical. If you believe that, then it doesn't matter what gender you marry." A new study on the striking differences between male and female brains seems to support Prager's position better than Perez position.

 

 

In her paper "When Children are Better Off Fatherless" Michele Weldon argues that children don’t even need male fathers. In support of her case she quotes Joseph Pleck’s (of the University of Illinois) book “Fathers in Cultural Context,” in which Pleck writes: “The notion that fathering is essential to children’s social and personality development seems to be a uniquely American preoccupation. Current research actually provides little support for … this popular conception of paternal essentiality.” 

Even in same-sex parenting research, biology is downplayed. Professor Douglas Allen notes this in his assessment of same-sex parenting studies:

 "One element of feminist theory that crops up within this literature is the irrelevance of biology — a major theoretical competitor to feminist theories of the family. The importance of gender over sex has already been mentioned. Males can make good parents if they parent “like a female.” Another area is in the role of “social mother,” the mother not biologically related to the child. Goldberg et al. (2008) claim that by the time a child is 3.5 years old, children are indifferent between the biological and social mother. Based on a biased sample of 30 couples and some very soft questions they conclude: “These women demonstrate the power of “social motherhood” in creating maternal connections that transcend biological relatedness over time".

 

The Iowa Supreme Court also echoed that a parent’s sex doesn’t matter when they concluded: "The research appears to strongly support the conclusion that same-sex couples foster the same wholesome environment as opposite-sex couples and suggests that the traditional notion that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy, well-adjusted adults is based more on stereotype than anything else.”  
 

From the above quotes it is reasonable to conclude that if one is to accept same-sex marriage, one must also accept the premise that male and females and all of the manifestations that traditionally derive from male and female distinctions (man, woman, mother, father, husband, wife, boy, girl etc.) are not biologically binding or essential to the development of a child. 

I provide additional support for this contention with the following examples of transsexual and transgender individuals who transitioned “within” their marriages and still maintained their marriage.

One example is the case of Jonni and Angela Pettit in Pacifica, CA. Angela used to be David but underwent sex-reassignment surgery. He decided he wanted to live as a woman, and Jonni still wanted to stay married to David even after his SRS operation. Here we see the transition not just from a male to female, but from a husband to a wife, and from a heterosexual marriage to a same-sex marriage. 

In an article entitled “A Mom Becomes A Man, And A Family Sticks Together,” Les, who was born a female and married to her husband, felt like a man inside and wanted to transition into a man. After she told her husband Scot about how she was feeling, Scot was surprised at first but was supportive of the transition and wanted to stay married. Scot and Les had 2 daughters before Les’s transition. In this case we not only see the transition from a female to a male, but also the transition of a wife to a co-husband, a mom to a dad, a heterosexual marriage to a same-sex marriage.

Laura Lang tells the story of Alyson Meiselman who was born Alan and transitioned “within” his marriage: 

Alyson Meiselman, born Alan Meiselman, started taking hormone treatments last year and now dresses in women's clothing. Her driver's license, her birth certificate, and all her other important documents say she's a woman. In the next few months, she'll take a trip to Canada, where a doctor will perform gender-reassignment surgery--completing her transition. It's a big change, but Meiselman and her family like to say that nothing else, really, about their lives in North Potomac, Md., is different. She remains spouse and "Dad" to her wife and three kids. She's also continuing a family law practice in Montgomery County, despite snubs from colleagues and a judicial bench that's hardly greeted her with open arms. In this case we see the transition from male to female, but there is a curveball in this case in that there is no transition from dad to mom. The children still see their now female parent as “dad.

The example of Thomas Beatie is actually a transgender case due to the fact that Thomas never fully transitioned into a male and he still became pregnant even though his “gender identity” was legally changed. Before his marriage Thomas (who was and still is a female) had undergone a double mastectomy, and had taken testosterone since 1997: 

"He changed all his legal paperwork to reflect his transition from female to male, but he retained his female reproductive organs and bore three children during his marriage to Nancy; he had stopped taking testosterone around 2006 in order become pregnant, as Nancy had had a hysterectomy. In late March a judge in Arizona ruled that Beatie and his wife, Nancy Roberts Beatie, could not be granted a divorce because they could not be considered legally married. Maricopa County Family Court judge Douglas Gerlach said there was insufficient evidence that Beatie was male when the couple married in Hawaii in 2003, although Hawaii considered them a legally married, opposite-sex couple; they moved to Arizona in 2010. Beatie is appealing the ruling, saying it fails to recognize his gender identity, that he wants his children to know their parents were legally married, and that he fears complications if he wants to marry again."

The added dimension of transgender identity to the marriage institution was specifically emphasized when New Zealand legalized same-sex marriage. Elizabeth Mcdonald writes: 

"The legislation, does not just provide that same-sex couples may marry. Section 5 of the act amended the interpretation section of the Marriage Act 1955 to read: "marriage means the union of two people, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity" (emphasis added). This definition is significant as it allows the marriage of any two people, without the need for either person to define themselves as either the same or different sex as their partner, or to be legally recognized as either male or female. The definition therefore will allow a transgender man (someone born with a female body who has a male gender identify) to legally marry a cisgender woman (someone born with a female body and a female gender identify) without having to first establish his legal sex. It allows a person who identifies as intersex (a general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive anatomy that does not seem to fit with the typical biological definitions of female or male) and whose birth certificate records their sex as indeterminate to marry any other person."

In Italy, a Bolognese couple, Alessandro and Alessandra Bernaroli, had their marriage dissolved by the State against their will when the “former” husband and now co-wife, Alessandro, changed sex and became Alessandra. The local marriage registry took note of her name change and automatically dissolved their marriage because it was a same-sex marriage. 

Darren Rosenblum writes: “We now know, based on social science, theory, and practice that the identities of 'male' and 'female' are not irrevocably attached to biosex. Men can become women and women can become men. Furthermore, gender itself shifts; 'women' can be 'masculine' and 'men' can be feminine.” 

If what Rosenblum writes is true, then many questions need to be posed. For it seems that supporting the seemingly modest demands of the LGBT movement -- such as same-sex marriage--necessitates accepting a whole host of existential changes that were neither presented to the public in good faith, nor scrutinized closely for their potential collateral damage.

In conclusion, to this argument, if these four new radically different unions are added to the family law of the marriage institution, then  a male can become a female, and a female can become a male in the eyes of the law. In addition, a female can be considered a man and a male can be considered as a woman. Individuals who were once husbands within a marriage can now become wives, and wives can now become husbands either with or without a sex-change operation “within” a marriage and in the eyes of the law. Moreover, a mother can become a father with or without a sex-change operation “within” a marriage  and in the eyes of the law. In a greater context, a grandfather can become a grandmother or a grandmother a grandfather, an uncle can become an aunt, and an aunt can become an uncle, etc. 

II. The Bridge and Battering Ram Argument

The Bridge and Battering Ram Argument reflects the most demonstrable impact that SSM has, is, and will have on society in the U.S. and other countries that have legalized SSM. This argument builds off of the insights presented in "The Four Radically Different New Unions Argument" in that it further emphasizes the impact that acknowledging "gender-nonconforming" unions is having on society right now. Since the institution of marriage has a high status and recognition in society, the legalization of same-sex marriage acts as both a bridge and battering ram to open the door for the annihilation of existing sex distinctions and gender distinctions, as well as the manifestations of an entirely new sexual system. 

The Bridge and Battering Argument is as follows: Marriage is acknowledged as the most important and central institution in society. With the addition of Same-Sex “marriage” to the marital institution, society and the law acknowledges that biological sex does not matter in marriage or parenting. Thus the distinctions between males and females are deemed insignificant as well. Since the distinctions between males and females are deemed insignificant as a result of SSM, many manifestations throughout society have risen to the surface that reflect the lack of acknowledged distinctions between males and females in all of the countries and states that have legalized SSM. The growing net effect of such annihilation of sex distinctions has negatively impacted society on all levels. Hence SSM acts as a bridge to get society to the point of further depreciating sexual distinctions, and SSM also acts as a battering ram to open the door for many more and new manifestations that reflect the depreciation of those distinctions.

Dennis Prager echoes this argument by stating: “So, the question is whether redefining in the most radical way ever conceived — indeed completely changing its intended meaning — is good for society. It isn’t. The major reason is this: Gender increasingly no longer matters. There is a fierce battle taking place to render meaningless the man-woman distinction, the most important distinction regarding human beings’ personal identity. Nothing would accomplish this as much as same-sex marriage. The whole premise of same-sex marriage is that gender is insignificant: It doesn't matter whether you marry a man or a woman. Love, not gender, matters… It will hasten the end of the male-female distinction and of any significance to mothers or fathers as distinctive entities."

There are many more manifestations that have extended  throughout society that have risen to the surface as a result of blurring the lines of sex distinctions and the entrance of transgender identity. (Keep in mind that a transgender person has not physically or will not physically change their body, but still identifies as the opposite sex, whereas transsexuals have changed their bodies to the opposite sex.)

The Bridge and Battering Ram Argument can be demonstrated from many different nations and states that have legalized SSM such as Massachusetts (the first state to legalize SSM), Canada (the second country to legalize SSM), California (the most populous state to legalize gay marriage), the UK, Argentina, etc. For example:

 

 

Lindsey Tanner reports that there is an increase of children in Massachusetts who are undergoing sex transitions: 

"His report (Dr. Norman Spack) details a fourfold increase in patients at the Boston hospital. His Gender Management Service clinic, which opened at the hospital in 2007, averages about 19 patients each year, compared with about four per year treated for gender issues at the hospital in the late 1990s. The report details 97 girls and boys treated between 1998 and 2010; the youngest was 4 years old. Kids that young and their families get psychological counseling and are monitored until the first signs of puberty emerge, usually around age 11 or 12."

The Huffington Post has a page full of examples of the increase in people “coming out of the closet” as transgendered. In the UK, same-sex marriage has also been legalized and the country is also seeing a growing trend in transgendered children:

"The number of children wanting a sex change in 2012 saw an increase of 50 per cent compared to the previous year. According to The Royal College of Psychiatrists people are coming forward at a younger age as the internet fuels increasing knowledge and acceptance of transgender people. Campaigners have called for more routine use of puberty-delaying drugs for children who feel from a young age that they are in the wrong body."

Massachusetts has also made it legal for transgender children who “psychologically” identify as the opposite “gender” to use the restrooms, locker-rooms, changing rooms, and participate on sports teams of individuals’ of the opposite “sex.” Here we see the confusion between “sex” and “gender.” Massachusetts public schools (junior high and high schools) also have transgender workshops promoting the transgender lifestyle. Many more examples of the annihilation of sexual distinction in Massachusetts are thoroughly documented by Mass Resistance pages such as this one and this one.

In Canada, Bill C-279 will soon be legalized which lets transgendered individuals use private female spaces such as restrooms, locker-rooms, communal showers, etc.  In California, where same-sex marriage has also been legalized, The California State Assembly passed a bill mandating that schools permit transgender identified individuals to participate on athletic teams and use locker-rooms of the “gender” they identify with regardless if they are of the opposite “sex.” The bill’s author was a gay activist by the name of Tom Ammiano.

In her article entitled “Shape-Shifters are Changing America” Fay Voshell describes the above trans accommodations by making the following points: 

"Mostly unbeknownst to most of us mortals, a modern day shape-shifter can become the opposite of the sex he or she was born as, transforming into a man or woman in an instant. It doesn't matter if the biological assignment given at birth remains. Proclamation of one's sexual identity is enough. One's gender can be established by fiat. Even children may change sex just by proclamation, as the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary School guidelines affirm, stating that even if a child physiologically resembles a boy in every respect, but decides to be a girl, his new identity is to be acknowledged as the "real" one. The modern-day equivalent of the gods visiting unsuspecting women unawares in areas where they thought they were safe from male predators just might be the ladies' public bathroom, now open in an ever increasing number of states to any man who self-identifies as a woman. The 6'4" hairy guy who just came into the women's bathroom to relieve himself is not at all what he appears to be. No; no! He is a sort of god in disguise. He has by mere will transformed himself into a woman. Move along, lady. There's nothing to see -- or fear. Don't believe your lying eyes."

In Argentina (the 1st S. American country to legalize SSM) a transgender couple in which the husband (who was born and is still a female yet is identified as man by the law) both married and became pregnant with the wife (who was born and is still a male yet is identified as a woman by the law). Also in Argentina a 6 yr. old who was born a male has been given an id card which identifies him as a girl.

In Spain (legalized SSM in 2005) a transgender man (born a female) who was in the process of becoming a transsexual and marrying "his" husband, was pregnant with twins but ended up having an abortion.  

All of the above example are manifestations of what happens when a country’s central institution is desexed and the individuals within such an institution can morph back and forth between sex, gender, mother and father, husband and wife, boy and girl, son and daughter, male and female, heterosexual marriage, trans marriage, and same sex marriage.

B. Deeper Implications of The Bridge and Battering Ram Argument: Transgender Identities Annihilate the Identities of Non-Trans People

The following questions have been summoned by feminist writer Elizabeth Hungerford:

"The maxim “trans women are women” is a false equivalency that means at least three things. First, it means that being raised as girl from birth is not an important or relevant aspect of being a “woman” because one can be a woman without these formative experiences. Second, it means that having a female body is not an important or relevant aspect of being a “woman” because one can be a woman without being female bodied. And third, it means that to be a “woman” simply reflects an individual’s desired relation to the social category “woman;” rather than serving as shorthand for the physical and cumulative experiential realities specific to female-born (and certain intersex) people around the globe."

 

Hungerford continues: 

"To be a “woman” is to have been assigned the girl/woman social position at birth; subjective identification with that social position is irrelevant and varies wildly. Reducing the experience of womanhood to a subjectively defined “inner knowledge” that is “inclusive” of anyone who claims to have such inner womanly knowledge erases the lived realities and material constraints placed on women and girls from birth– regardless of whether women enjoy being “women” or not, and regardless of whether they “identify” with other women or not."

 

Hungerford’s argument that to be a woman is in part, to have the social experiences that women face every day due to their biology that males don’t have, is strengthened by a transsexual individual that was once a male but is now a female when asked, “How differently are you treated now that you are a woman from when you were considered male?" Here was the answer:

"Wow, there’s a whole book in answer to this question, I think the first thing that was noticeable was that overnight people stopped automatically assuming that I was right about stuff, my factual advice was treated as suspect, whereas emotional advice was taken more seriously. People also seemed to not be able to tell when I was joking as quickly, there was an expectation that I would be serious, that any sarcasm, or pretending not to get something for comic effect was me actually not getting things." 

And more:

"The pressures to behave were changed, before I transitioned I was very skinny and I remember my mum telling me that I needed to bulk up because “what if you were on a bus and a woman got on with a baby, you’d need to be able to help her with her pram, what sort of a man wouldn’t be strong enough to do that?” as soon as I transitioned it was suddenly not an issue.”

 

Another feminist writer by the name of GallusMag takes her readers down the dark road that denying “sex” distinctions leads to when she writes: 

"But they (transgender women) do more than deny female reality and make kooky claims: They are using the political capital of Lesbians and Gays to pass laws enforcing their male-centric female-phobic sexist views. “Gender Identity Protections” are laws that eliminate sex-based protections for females. Examples of such protected areas are: bathrooms, hospital bed assignments, prisons, locker rooms, sports competitions, statistical data collection, Title IX endowments, women’s health resources, statistics and research endowment, sex-based crime statistics, support groups, rape crisis centers, communal showers, children’s sleepover camps, women’s shelters, and women’s colleges."

 

GallusMag continues: 

"One of the tropes Transjacktivists use to promote and legalize their desire to eliminate female spaces is to assert that males with GID are speshul snowflakes or claim that males wouldn’t adopt transgenderism in order to prey on women. Or that males who are arrested repeatedly for getting off on watching women perform intimate activities (in places they assume they are free from males) wouldn’t go through the trouble of putting on a wig that makes those same activities legal. Whut??? Are you out of your mind? Why wouldn’t a guy who risks arrest repeatedly to invade women’s space comply with measures which make his activities legal?? It’s considerably less inconvenient to put on a skirt and some lippy than to be arrested and processed, make bail, go before a judge, etc. etc." 

Transjacktivists claim that arrest statistics for peeping and perving don’t show a sharp increase in states where men are allowed in women’s spaces. Of course they don’t. Making a formerly illegal behavior legal seldom results in more arrests for (now legal) behavior. Duh! The truth is that guys do this all the time. And they’ll do whatever it takes to perv on females. 

Here are some of the things they’ll do to get into female spaces: Hide cameras and microphones in female spaces. Crawl through ventilation ducts to view female spaces. Install double mirrors to view female spaces. Drill holes in walls to peep at women’s spaces. Place cameras in shopping bags next to females wearing skirts. Risking arrest –and repeat arrest- sneaking into women’s restrooms. Dress up as and try to pass as female. Claim they are female. Try to pass laws permitting men who claim they are female to legally enter spaces where females do not want men. Try to pass laws that state that females don’t actually exist. Force law enforcement and media outlets to report male crimes against women as woman-on-woman crime, if the male is diagnosed with GID." 

 

So what does all of this have to do with same-sex marriage? Thus far I have demonstrated that in order to accept the premise that same-sex marriage should be legalized, one will also have to accept that there are no inherent differences (besides mere body-parts) between males and females. One must also presume that males and females don’t have different natures, thought processes, and behavioral patterns that lead both sexes to be better predisposed to specific essential parenting traits due to their biological sex. 

If one thinks that there are no inherent differences between males/females then, one also must admit that it doesn't matter for a child to have a biological male and biological female as parents, just any two loving, responsible people with parenting skills will do.

 

Thus since there are no distinctions between males and females, then a man can become a woman, a woman can become a man, a mother can become a father, a husband can become a wife, an uncle can become an aunt, a grandmother can become a grandfather. More importantly, a child doesn't need a male parent or a female parent in particular because both sexes don’t offer anything unique and essential to the child “in principle”. Both sexes are interchangeable.  Therefore, if nothing is different then what is the difference if a non-op or a pre-op male uses a female restroom, locker room, or rape shelter; or is included on a woman’s athletics team as I demonstrated above?
 

III. The LGBT Procreation and Parenting Argument 

The LGBT Procreation and Parenting Argument articulates that the central problem is not that the sexual union of 2 males or 2 females can’t produce children. LGBT households still raise children and produce children in other ways (raising children from a previous heterosexual relationship, adoption, surrogacy, IVF, gay step-parenting, 2 lesbian biological parent procedures). The central problem is that LGBT households do both raise and produce children. It's how they produce and how they are situated as parents that poses such a lethal threat to the institution of marriage. Since Lesbian and Gay couples cannot procreate within their own sexual union, they always have to have a 3rd party or sometimes 4 parties involved in having a child "in principle." In the case of Gay and Lesbian families where children are from a previous heterosexual relationships, a strong trend is growing where the non-biological parent wants equal parenting status as the biological parents. 
 

The central problem has nothing to do with whether or not same-sex couples are good parents or not, but rather the fact that the architecture of the family institution of marriage and divorce has been designed, tailored, and developed over 200 years in the U.S. specifically for children in the context of heterosexual, monogamous relationships. Moreover, the vast majority of children are both created and raised by Non LGBT parents. 

 

 

Regardless if one thinks marriage is no longer about children, the fact still remains that the family institution of marriage is designed and still primarily functions as a safety-net to protect children. The architecture of the institution of marriage and family law isn't designed or tailored for issues that arise in same-sex couple’s households and divorces, or for the new dimensions of bisexual, transsexual, and transgender households that raise children and their divorces.

The present architecture for the institution of marriage is designed in the framework of heterosexual, monogamous, static gender identities, static sex identities, static sexual orientations, not homosexual orientations, or bisexual orientations, transgender identities, transsexual identities, or for situations in which three or more parents are used to create a child “in principle.” Such a law (three or more equal, legal parents) defeats the purpose of monogamy and there isn't really any reason why there cannot be group marriage or polyamorous marriage, especially since bisexuality is being nationally recognized.

A. Biology on Trial in Same-Sex Custody Cases

If nothing is different, then what is the difference if there is no legal primacy given to a responsible, biological parent in three way, gay and lesbian custody battles? For example in Australia when “a sperm-donor/hands-on dad has his parental rights terminated in favor of those of a lesbian mother with no biological relationship to the child"?  

If nothing is different, then what is the difference if a gay sperm donor (to a lesbian couple) who played an active role in his child’s life, doesn't get acknowledged by law as a parent and therefore cannot see his child because the lesbian couple moved far away? 
 

If nothing is different, then what is the difference if a sperm donor decides not to pay child support to a lesbian parent in the event that the lesbian and her partner broke up, and when no doctor was involved in the insemination process (which would have discounted the sperm donor as a parent)?  What if since the sperm donor had to pay child support he decided that he wanted  get visitation or custody rights over the child, but the courts denied his request?

If nothing is different, then what is the difference if a bisexual woman who had a child through IVF in her lesbian relationship, broke up with her lesbian partner, started a romantic relationship with the original sperm donor, attempted with the sperm donor to get full parental rights of the child, and the sperm donor didn’t get parental rights, but the non-biological ex-lesbian partner of the bisexual got parental rights instead? 


If nothing is different, then what is the difference if a man tells his wife that he wants a divorce, and then immediately marries another man and wins full custody over the child? In this incident a judge ruled in the man and his same-sex spouses' favor for full custody over the man's child because the same-sex married couple had more money and had the weight of a two parent household against the less financially capable single mother who was previously a stay at home mom. Since men make more than women in general, and gay men have high median incomes, the discarded mother was easily financially overcome in the family court.


If nothing is different, then what is the difference in a case regarding 4 homosexual parents in which a gay man and his lover took the lesbian mother of his children and her partner to court for access rights, and the gay biological father only gets the status of a secondary parent?

"The couples met after the women placed an advert in The Pink Paper in July 1999 looking for ‘a gay man or couple who would like to start a family with a lesbian couple’. The men replied, saying ‘we would love to be father and stepfather’. After the birth of the first child, the couples maintained friendly relations for several years, but ‘it all went wrong’ in 2008 when they fell into dispute over the children. The judgment quotes a social worker who said the older daughter was caught in ‘a horrendous tangle of emotion and conflict that exists between these adults. The girl is being made to carry the responsibility for the failure of the adults in this system to overcome the conflicts between them.’ Mr Justice Hedley said there was ‘widespread concern at the welfare of the children’. He ruled that the two women should be regarded as ‘primary parents’ with the main responsibility for bringing up the girls, but the men should be regarded as ‘secondary parents’."

 

If nothing is different, then what is the difference when a man who was once married to his wife for 20 years, comes to the conclusion that he is gay, gets divorced from his wife with whom he had a 12-year-old son, and his ex-wife tries to deny him overnight visitation because his cohabitating partner is gay and she thinks that her 12-year-old boy will have a difficult time understanding his father’s sudden switch of sexual orientation and cohabitation with a same-sex partner?  Is it in the child’s best interest for his father with a recent drug-addicted past to keep him overnight when he cohabits with a same-sex partner, especially when the child is accustomed to seeing his father with his mother? 

 

Moreover, if Arkansas was a state that legalized same-sex marriage and the father was married to his same-sex partner, would this be an issue? What are the negative impacts on the institution of marriage from cases like this? Most importantly, even if Arkansas legalized same-sex marriage, and this particular situation wouldn’t be an issue, the question remains: “is it in the best interest of the child who has known his father as being in a heterosexual relationship with his mother, to stay overnight in the context of his married father’s house?" 

I ask this question assuming that the father’s companion is a harmless person, but yet at the same time emphasizing the child and the child’s understanding of the situation.

Bizarre situations like this which are unique to (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, and transgender unions) will continue to arise in the court systems, and family law will change for ALL in order to compensate LGBT families.

B. Three Legal and Equal Parents Laws

Some courts have tried to tap dance around these issues by making three or more legal and equal parents, such as in Pennsylvania, Florida, and California. 

Three or more equal, legal parents is something that is "in principle" a homosexual circumstance due to the fact that gays and lesbians "always" need a 3rd party and sometimes even 4 parties to have a child. The bill signed by Governor Jerry Brown of California was a reflection of a circumstance that arises when things go bad between homosexual couples that have children. 

Guro Hansen Helskog made an insightful statement when he claimed that “Parents used to have lots of children - now children have lots of parents.” Indeed, as families in Western countries have less children more laws are being put into action that give a child more than two parents.  Family scholar Elizabeth Marquardt addressed the 3 or more parent laws by stating: 

"Supporters of the rulings argue that if two parents are good for children, aren’t three better? True, some three-parent petitions are brought by adults who appear deeply committed to the child in question. In the Ontario case, the two women and the father all seem devoted to the boy. But in Pennsylvania, the sperm donor, whom the children called 'Papa,' was ordered to pay child support over his objections, and the lesbian co-mothers have already ended their relationship." 

What is the harm if other American courts follow Pennsylvania’s example? For one thing, three-parent situations typically involve a couple and a third person living separately, meaning the child will get shuffled between homes, and this raises problems […] Conflicts will undoubtedly arise when three parents confront the sticky, conflict-ridden reality of child-raising, often leading to a nasty, three-way custody battle. Even if they part amicably, they may still want to live in three different homes. In that case, how many homes should children travel between to satisfy the parenting needs of many adults? Finally, why should courts stop at assigning children only three parents? Some situations involve a couple who wants the child, the sperm donor, the egg donor and the gestational surrogate who carries the pregnancy. If we allow three legal parents, why not five?"

Family scholar Jane Adolphe addresses the 3 or more parents laws by noting: 

"If two parents are better than one, then shouldn’t three be better than two? 'Legal parent' becomes an umbrella notion for various subsets of parents, all stakeholders with no preference for one individual or set: natural/biological parents; adoptive parents, step parents, grandparents; social parents; psychological parents; intentional parents, gestational parent, sperm donor parent, egg donor parent and so forth. With the redefinition of marriage and the separation between biology and bond, the trend toward multiple parents is legitimized."

Adolphe continues: 

"Adoption laws, previously an exception to the natural family and natural parenthood, now become a discrete set of rules unmoored from their foundation. This translates into the rejection of the general principles that biology and relationship ought to be in the same two persons and that a child ought to have one set of parents. The end result is that natural or biological parents become just one of many stakeholders in a child’s life based on the idea that it takes a village to raise a child. This is a marked departure from the principle that primary care rests with the natural family (including the extended family) which assistance and support from others based on the principle of subsidiarity (eg religious, Communities, neighbors, friends, and State).

These dramatic changes are driven by a rhetoric of adult rights, spearheaded by the needs of same-sex couples, without any serious discussion about whether this is good for children."Why is this so? How is this so? As previously noted, the adoption system has been developed as an exception to the natural family. The underlying assumption is that biological parents are more likely to better care for their own children. Therefore, before adoption is possible, parental consent is required and the prospective new parents must meet requisite standards of fitness. Since, it is better for children to be raised in stable, two parent, married families, preference has been given to placing children in this environment."

Lawyer Nancy Polikoff explains her view of the new multiple parent law: 

"This statutory authorization, however, is most likely to impact heterosexuals, given how much divorce and remarriage there is. The provision will mean that if both the custodial and the noncustodial parent agree, then the custodial parent's new husband will be able to adopt the child without terminating the rights of the noncustodial parent. I have been advocating such a possibility for years, but this is the first law explicitly sanctioning such arrangements. The divorce rate of second marriages is at least as high as that of first marriages, which means that down the road we will be looking at multiple-parent custody and visitation arrangements on a regular basis."

What Polikoff does not mention is that although this law will impact heterosexuals the most (which is not a good thing), this option was previously not open to heterosexuals and is now available as a result of a common situation regarding how same-sex couples are situated in relation to their children "in principle". Hetero step parenting is not a situation that is "in principle" for hetero unions. Thus, the children of hetero unions including step parents will suffer the most (think custody disputes) as a result of this law which was initiated for a lesbian couple, by a gay lawyer. I elaborate on how including same-sex couples into the family law of the institution of marriage has already and will continue to negatively impact hetero families and children in the third paper of this series in section III. How LGBT Couples are Already Impacting the Institution of Marriage)

C. Other Harms That the  Inclusion of Same-Sex Couples Into the Family Institution of Marriage Will Hurt Heterosexual Families, Marriages, and Divorces

Professor Douglas Allen answers that question by making the following points:

"Once legal decisions on these issues are made, the question is, what impact will they have on the elephant in the room: the vast majority of heterosexual marriages? After all, all three relationships (heterosexual, gay, lesbian) will be regulated by the same law. If we return to the theory that marriage is an efficient institution designed around the needs of heterosexual couples, then only one conclusion follows: To the extent marriage is changed to accommodate the demands of same-sex couples, these changes will hurt heterosexual marriages.

To the extent changes are not made, same-sex couples will find marriage laws unsatisfactory and inefficient for their needs. As a practical matter, it seems unlikely that same-sex couples would be ignored by the courts, and courts will recognize the different types of families along the spectrum of cases. Once the constraint of a definition of marriage based on biology is removed, these changes will occur with little notice, and minimal immediate effect.

Issues will come up, courts will struggle with how to manage them, the common law will evolve, but the sun will still rise the next day. But the bottom line is that these new common laws will apply to heterosexual couples covered under the same family law, and over time the loopholes and areas of poor fit will be exploited by husbands or wives seeking to better themselves at the expense of other members of the family. The value of marriage as an institution will fall, fewer people will marry, more will seek private methods to protect themselves from ex post marriage exploitation, and the final result will be lower fertility rates and more children raised in single-parent homes. It is this feedback that presents the fundamental danger to heterosexual marriage."

*Professor Allen continues: 

“It is often argued that a small number of same-sex marriages cannot possibly have any impact on the general population. However, it is the feedback loop from same-sex marriages to heterosexual ones that causes the problem. Because legal regulations on marriage revolve around children, and because same-sex families are fundamentally different from heterosexual ones in this respect, this area poses the greatest risk of legal misfit. Ironically, evidence for these changes appeared immediately after the introduction of same-sex marriage. For example, in Canada, the second half of Bill C-38, the Canadian federal Civil Marriage Act changing the definition of marriage, contains changes to other pieces of federal legislation removing the definition of natural parent and replacing it with “legal” parent.

A legal parent, like one of the partners within a same-sex marriage, is not biologically linked to the child. Of course, there is no natural limit to the number of legal parents a child may have, and in a same-sex marriage with one child there are at least three adults involved in some role as parent, whether legal or not. The impact of creating “legal” parents will be felt in our culture for many years, and to the extent it is important for the biological connection between a child and parent to be recognized under the law, such a change can only harm heterosexual marriages.” 

I provide additional support for Dr. Allen's argument in the second paper of this series in "Part VI Metasize Demise and The Wild Fire Effect" and in the third paper of this series in Part  III. How LGBT Couples are Already Impacting the Institution of Marriage

 

IV. What About the 1,138 Federal and State Benefits, Protections, Rights, and Responsibilities That LGBT Couples and Families Don't Receive Because They Cannot be Married?

I will start off by saying that although LGBT families are radically different than traditional families, they are still families. Even though LGBT families are radically different, they still count and they will continue to have children and raise children whether anyone thinks that LGBT parents are not as good as hetero parents or not. That being said, the over 1,138 Federal and State Benefits, Protections, Rights, and Responsibilities should be given to LGBT couples, however, LGBT couples should NOT be grafted into the Heterosexual marriage institution and family law to receive those benefits, protections, rights, and responsibilities. As I have argued earlier in this paper, grafting LGBT couples and families into the family law of the marriage institution will hurt heterosexual couples and families since the marriage institution will be reshaped to better fit LGBT couples and unions. The result of grafting the LGBT couples into the marriage institution that has been tailor fitted for over 200 years to best fit heterosexual unions will no longer fit heterosexual unions anymore as a result of LGBT marriage. Moreover if any of the rights, responsibilities, and protections collide in the event that a child is taken in custody from one of his/her biological parents for the child's other biological parent and the same-sex spouse of that partner, then the rights of the child should prevail. That right is to at least be in a shared custody between his/her two biological parents. In addition, such a collision of protections would strip away legal protections from the excluded biological parent and fail to protect the child from a state of being deprived of that excluded biological parent.
 

Furthermore, those Rights, Responsibilities, Benefits, and Protections don't define, reflect, or reveal what marriage is, they are just given on the platform of marriage to help and protect those couples and their families.


X. Conclusion

I will conclude this paper by quoting from a piece written by former Trial Court Judge John M. Smoot:

“In the United States, we were fortunate to inherit a marriage tradition of monogamy with a strong stigma against divorce. Did it work for “everyone?” No. Did it work for our society as a whole? Yes. Was it beneficial for “most” children? Yes. Over the course of twenty-one years as a judge in Boston, I granted thousands of divorces and heard thousands of cases involving children of unmarried parents. Yes, there were adults and children who benefited from divorce just as there were children of single parent families who did fine or excelled. Overall, however, the revolution that encouraged “pleasure, freedom, [and] self-expression” brought an immense amount of pain and misery. Was it bad for everyone? No. Was it bad for millions? Yes.

Social policy and cultural change have an impact on all of us. And clearly, the impact is not always for the good. Now, we are transforming marriage by eliminating its inherent gender distinctions. Now that television shows, movies, books, songs, the educational system, and most of our other cultural influences are promoting gay life, marriage is the last institution in which gender matters. Marriage, although damaged by the sexual revolution, still carries residual power to bring men and women together and bind them to their children. Eliminating gender removes a key ingredient in helping children recognize this."