It seems that recently the issue of gay marriage has been in many of the headlines. As a result of Obama announcing his personal support of gay marriage and the passing of a North Carolina amendment protecting marriage between a man and a woman as the only legal union, controversy, argument, and insults fill the air. Some claim that this issue is one of equality and rights, while others argue that this infringes on religious institutions. Leaving these arguments behind, however, and examining the issue of gay marriage from the social context of the family, some interesting insights can be gleaned.
As James Robison and Jay W. Richards write in their new book Indivisible, "In the Bible, there is family from the beginning...One man and one woman--the common ancestors of every human being" (120). It is deeply human, in that each of us belongs to our own family that loves and cares for us, but it is also unavoidably spiritual. The Church is also called the family of God. Therefore, our own understanding of the love between the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, allows us to understand our the ideal love of own families and as well as our relationship with God. This spiritual understanding of the family is absolutely necessary in order to comprehend the importance of the family as a social institution. Without this spiritual understanding concerning the ideal familial love, the physical nature of the human family may become distorted.
Given this understanding, it is easy to see why statistics show that children raised in a family headed by a mother and father, a man and a woman, achieve higher than those who are not. Robison and Richards explain that this one factor, being reared by both a mother and father, affects a child's success more than any other defining feature including race, parental income, parental education, and neighborhood (121) (Stanton and Maier 2004). I have heard arguments criticizing those who oppose gay marriage based on studies that show that children need families, and that allowing gay marriage would enable more children to become part of a loving, supportive family. However, I am not convinced by this logic for one main reason. Children are brought into the world through the union of a man and a woman and as such, it is impossible for a homosexual couple to have their own children. Thus, the children that would be taken in by such families would still be victims of divorce, single parenting, or any of the other circumstances that lead to the statistics previously mentioned.
It is also important to realize that mothers and fathers are not interchangeable positions that are capable of being filled by either a man or a woman. Robison and Richards write, "What matters is not two parents but the presence of a married mother and father...Fathers are categorically different kinds of parents than mothers, and this is good for children" (122). Both parenting positions are unique and irreplaceable. One may say that everyone has different parenting styles, so this is simply just another alternative method of parenting. However, social science disagrees. Studies have shown a vast array of differences between male and female interactions with their children including physical touch, communication, and discipline. If one of these two roles is absent during development, the child will forever be without that unique interaction that would have been supplied by the absent role.
Both the mother and father of a child have unique gifts to offer their children during development. The development of a child without both a mother and a father would be lacking these gifts and given time this trend could severely alter the fabric of society, for society is built on the family. After all, the family is not just a physical group. It is a spiritual community that nurtures, cares for, and loves those who are part of it, just as the God the Father nurtures, cares for, and loves us, His Church.
No comments:
Post a Comment