This document discusses how redefining marriage to include same-sex unions makes it harder for heterosexuals to fulfill their marital dreams. It argues that: 1. Opposition to same-sex marriage is because redefining marriage will weaken heterosexual marriage, which could harm children and society. 2. Redefining marriage changes it from an institution focused on responsible procreation and child-rearing, to one based only on adult desires. This leaves children's rights and needs unprotected. 3. Analogizing to changing the rules of a chess club, it suggests redefining marriage could cause heterosexuals to leave the institution or be less committed to it, weakening the social benefits of lifelong heterosexual

1. Lecture 1: What is the present
definition of marriage – and how
does redefining marriage make it
harder for heterosexuals to fulfil
their marital dreams
1

2. 




Many people who believe that same-sex unions should be
called marriage feel the core issue is one of equity and
fairness.
They usually believe that opposition is solely based on
bigotry.
This not the case.
Opposition to same-sex unions being called marriages is
primarily because many people can see that through
redefining marriage then heterosexual marriage will
weaken. If this weakens then children will suffer and future
society will incur more distress.
If this is true, that through redefining marriage future
society suffers, then it’s good we look at other options
2

3. 


This first lecture seeks to help same-sex
marriage supporters understand how
redefining marriage creates a new definition
of marriage – a definition that makes it
harder for heterosexual couples to both form
and sustain lasting marriages
Each further lecture in the series then looks
at each problematic issue in more depth.
In the last lectures, we look at other possible
solutions that hopefully allow for respect to
be shown on all sides
3

4. Current definition of
marriage: ‘The right of two
opposite-sex adults to make a
commitment to each other
based on mutual, sexual
attraction’
New definition of marriage: ‘The
right of ANY two adults to make a
commitment to each other based
on mutual, sexual attraction’
If the current definition of marriage is primarily about the rights
of adults then same sex activists are right to challenge the
status quo. BUT IT’S NOT!
4

5. 
Mother nature creates sexual organs. She also
creates sexual desire between opposite sex
partners for one primary reason – for the purpose
of having children – for the continuation of the
human species
5

6. *Google search: Why Marriage Matters, Twenty-Six Conclusions from the Social Sciences
6

7. 1. Marriage is not primarily about the rights of adults but
about the intrinsic right of the child – and the natural
desire of the child – to receive the consistent love and
support of his or her biological parents
2. The term ‘Marriage’ has historically been applied to
opposite sex adults - and can only apply to opposite sex
adults - because only they can be biological parents ONLY they can fulfil the natural desire and right of the
child to be loved every day by the two people who gave
him or her life
See Youtube: A strong argument Against gay marriage
And also: Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 2 of 4)
7

8. Two opposite-sex adults
making a commitment to
work together to fulfil the
RIGHT of their future
biological children to the best
possible start in life
Any two adults making a
commitment to each other
based on mutual, sexual
attraction
Amongst many issues this raises are the following:
 The new definition states that marriage is purely about adults’
rights
 It completely omits the rights of the biological children. In this
marriage-redefined world do THEY have any rights to be loved
and raised by their two biological parents?
 It leaves no social space left where the focus is primarily on
giving children the best possible start in life. Does this mean
that children will have ever fewer opportunities to receive the
best possible start in life?
8

9. Does this new definition of marriage – a definition
that is made primarily to suit the needs of the 2% of
same-sex couples – still contain enough elements to
sustain the pair-bonding of the 98% of people who
see themselves as heterosexuals?
Or
 Does this new definition contain inherent weaknesses
that just make it ever harder for heterosexuals to
form and build lasting marriages.

We will look at an example from a different area of life
to help understand this issue
9

10. 





You work hard at creating the chess club
100 kids get off the street and do something useful
and valuable – developmental
The kids train hard and start winning competitions
Then 10 kids from Asian backgrounds arrive and
want to join your club too.
Sadly, the more you talk to them the more you find
out they are not really interested in chess
And if they joined your club they want to change
some rules of chess to make it easier for them.
10

11. 


Would you let them join? If not why not?
If you didn’t let them join would you be
denying them their human rights?
Would these new kids be free start their own
club – and play any game they want – even one
where they invented their own rules?
11

12. 




You don’t let the Asian kids join. You want to
protect those kids that want to play chess.
The kids go to the media. Next day an article
appears in the local newspaper – ‘Chess club
manager is bigoted against Asians’.
You get a visit from the police and local
authorities.
They refuse to see that you have a legitimate
argument against letting these kids join.
They pressurize you to accept these kids – or
they will close your chess club down.
12

13. Now these kids are part of your club. They
pressurize you to change the rules of chess or
they will report you again.
Questions:
1) Might your best players leave your club in
frustration because they can’t achieve their
goals with this new set of rules?
2) Once word gets out - might other kids who
are interested in chess not join your chess club
because they know that they can’t achieve
anything there?
13

14. Questions



Might other kids in the club find it hard to
concentrate on their game – give up on their game of
chess – maybe even just go over and play around
with these new kids?
Have these new kids the power to negatively affect
the ability of the present members to play chess?
With different rules, people leaving and little focus on
playing chess, might your chess club just self–
destruct after a few months – your hard work lost?
Kids back on the street again?
14

15. 


In the ‘Marriage club’ the game is ‘Making a
public commitment to stay together in order to
fulfil the inherent right and intrinsic desires of the
biological child’
The main rule of the game – Fidelity (I marry you
if you promise not to make babies with others)
Some heterosexuals join the club but don’t want
to invest heavily in the game (i.e. have children) –
but they still play by the rule of fidelity. They
don’t distract the other players
15

16. 

But they can’t play the game that the club exists to
promote – Honouring the right and intrinsic desire of
the child to the best start in life through being raised
by its two, biological parents.
So the owners of the marriage club say “Sorry, you
can’t join. But you are free to go and establish your
own club with its own name and run it by the rules
you want to have”.
16

17. 




They just keep pushing to join the ‘Marriage Club’.
They claim bigotry is the reason why they are
being refused.
The government refuses to listen to the owners of
the marriage club – “that letting same-sex unions
be called marriage WILL affect the present
members of the marriage club in a negative way.”
The government forces the issue.
The marriage club – stripped of its core purpose –
two opposite sex-parents taking responsibility for
their biological children – slowly dies
17

18. 18

19. Does this lead to fewer heterosexuals deciding to marry
in order to protect their future children?
Does this lead to fewer heterosexual couples staying
together during the natural difficult moments in their
marriages in order to protect their children?
(If your chess club was no longer about playing chess.. Would people wanting to
play chess join it … and would those who are members want to stay?)
19

20. Mutual sexual attraction
Heterosexual
marriage
Fidelity is essential because
extra-marital affairs can
lead to children
The possibility (present or
past) of biological children
who have rights and desires
Same-sex
‘marriage’
How does the dispute over whether fidelity is a core component
of marriage or not start to weaken heterosexual marriage?
20

21. 


“I’m married” – lesbian, gay or heterosexual – means that, on
average, ALL three forms of union can bring up children just as
well as each other.
Marriage redefined means that the state believes – in law – that
biological parents are expendable… UNNECESSARY. It’s a LIE but
the law now states this.
What happens in future history if the state REALLY believes this
lie, that biological parents are irrelevant to a child’s outcomes?
The legalization of children being bought and sold? (Already
happening because of this law change)? Or children exchanged?
(already happening because of this law change)? The potential for
a slippery-slope, dark future is profound.
21

22. Why is it that ONLY 2% of the population have rights
here?
Why are the rights of 2% of the population much more
important the than the rights of many future children?
22

23. 

Another lie enters society. They are bigots - not deeply
concerned citizens who worry about the fact that society
has create a law that will weaken heterosexual marriage
and harm children.
With this lie – that rightfully concerned citizens are smallminded, law breaking bigots – society now keeps these
concerned, thoughtful citizens out of ALL law making
around the issue of family. With them excluded from the
decision making process ever more laws get passed that
weaken the heterosexual marital-family – the only form of
family that can uphold the rights and desires of a child.
Put simply, does the best place to raise children get
continually weakened in a marriage redefined culture?
23

24. 



Can one also say that the same-sex activists or politicians who
support same-sex marriage are being bigoted against
heterosexuals?
Same-sex unions ARE allowed to find a NEW term that describes
their committed relationships with their own unique set of core
values and needs… so why aren’t heterosexuals allowed their
own unique term - marriage? Is that FAIR?
What happens if, after redefining marriage, heterosexuals seek to
find their own NEW term to define their own specific form of
marriage where the rights of biological children need to be
upheld? Will they be allowed to do that? No! Because the state
would say that through exclusion heterosexuals are being
‘bigoted’.
Same-sex activists can have a new term… but heterosexuals can’t.
Why is that only 2% of the population have rights here?
24

25. Lecture 2: How it ultimately weakens the essential norm of fidelity
3. How it weakens the understanding amongst heterosexuals that
marriage is primarily about fulfilling the rights of the biological children
4. How it causes same-sex sex to become ever more part of the sexual
repertoire of heterosexuals leading to poorer outcomes for everyone
5. How it brings about the creation of more and more laws that
ultimately weaken heterosexual marriage
6. How it weakens religions. This leads to the state becoming the new
author of what is considered right or wrong based solely on the moral
beliefs of the political class – the first steps to totalitarianism
Redefinition leads to social decline and state financial bankruptcy
Is this all worth it to make some 2% of the population feel a bit
better about themselves?
25

26. 26