I recently spoke with a bright college student fresh from her Gender Studies class who wanted to know why Christians were trying to “force their morality upon a secular society” by supporting traditional marriage. It’s a good question, and one that we should be ready to answer.
From a Christian perspective sex is relational, covenantal, intimate, fruitful, selfless, complex (involving the mind, soul, and body), complimentary and symbolic- that is, giving us a picture of the union of Christ and the church. But I’m certain she couldn’t care less about my well-churched rhetoric because from the secular perspective, sex is about fun.
From an evolutionary standpoint however, sex is for one thing and one thing only: baby-making. The problem is that this baby-making activity demands much more from women than men.
It is the woman whose body will be burdened and stretched (literally) for nine months of pregnancy. She will have to endure labor and delivery. She will be vulnerable and dependent as she recovers and meets the demands of a helpless and needy infant. Her availability to work and provide for herself and her child is hindered for several years as the child grows. Her anatomy demands that she be present for the birth of the baby. And after delivery, her brain and body are wired for infant attachment- making it highly unlikely that she’ll abandon her child.
The problem is that biology does not demand anything more of the man than, on average, a 2-3 minute contribution.
Every culture and religion throughout history has understood that when the father is absent, the child, the mother, and by extension all of society, suffers as a result. Whether in 200 B.C during the Han Dynasty or 2017 America, children who grow up fatherless (and their mothers) are more vulnerable to poverty and exploitation. They are more likely to be involved in criminal activity and less likely to become responsible citizens, not to mention a host of other risks. Therefore, every community throughout history has wrestled with the same problem: How do you require of men what biology makes optional?
Interestingly, nearly every religion has come up with the same answer: society-wide expectations that a man commit to a woman prior to sex and remain committed to her, and only her, throughout his life. And up until the last ten minutes of history, we have all called this “marriage.”
The five major religions of the world disagree about:
- The nature of God
- The nature of man
- The problem in this world
- The solution to this problem
- The nature of the afterlife
And yet each faith encourages monogamy, complementary, and permanence in sexual relationships. Each faith independently developed these marital norms because they recognized that it was good not just for men, women and children, but for society at large.
What does that tell us? That marriage has much more to do with being human than it does with being Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish or Christian. A Buddhist teen, a Hindu sixth-grader, a Sunni boy, a Jewish girl and a Lutheran adolescent may have little in common when it comes to their religious life. But I guarantee that if those kids are being raised by a single mother, they all have laid awake at night wondering “Where is my father?” and “Does he love me?” But don’t take my word for it. Why don’t you ask several fatherless children of various faiths that you know whether or not they wish they had a dad and let me know what they say.
Except you wouldn’t ask those questions because you know the answer will be one of pain and heartache, if they are able to choke words out at all. All the “sex-positive” cultural messaging is powerless in the face of a child who has had to pay for their parents belief that they had a “right” to sexual expression, freedom, and pleasure.
The issue of marriage, especially civil marriage, has less to do with religion and everything to do with biology. Primarily, the fact that children need both of their parents so that they can mature and thrive. But that means demanding that adults channel their sexual behavior into faithful life-long marriage. Without the society-wide expectation that men commit prior to sex, there is little protection for women from whom biology demands so much. And there is no provision, protection and involvement from the men for whom children so desperately long.
After we talked through the statistics on fatherless children, the complementary nature of mothering and fathering, and the power of biology in parenting, I asked my young college friend this question. “Given that no-fault divorce removed the expectation of marital permanence, and same-sex marriage has removed the expectation of a father or mother’s involvement, how can we encourage men to make this costly life-long sacrifice to women and children?
As I mentioned, she is a smart woman. Smart enough to know there was no good answer.
Very strong, clear, descriptive. Good read for open-minded people.
What about childless couples? They get no consideration?
Most heterosexuals who marry do eventually have children. Even the ones who swear they won’t, even the ones who are using protection, and even the ones who believe that they are infertile. Heterosexual sex makes babies- often despite great odds. There’s no way to know who won’t have children- there never has been. Better to simply encourage fidelity between those who are having sex just in case biology does it’s typical thing.
Not every marriage produces children, but every child has a mother and father. Marriage is the best chance that the child will know and be loved by both. Thanks for the question.
But what about heterosexual married couples unable to have kids? Should we not have Sex because it can’t produce a baby?
G, I didn’t know you had to be married to have sex!
Wait a minute. How about telling people not to have sex unless they want children, and.not allowing anyone to marry until they decide to have children. Sex is for marriage and marriage is for children
Actually, Susan, at their most basic level sex is for reproduction and marriage is for the security of the children created through that sexual reproduction.
Ultimately people will do what they want to do, but governments can choose to only recognized as a marriage those couples who procreate.
Having known many couples who never had any children, some by choice others by the fact, they just couldn’t convieve. Because of their strong love for each other and a very happy sexual relationship, being faithful to each other, then working for the good of each other. Each couple in their own way built a very strong marriage. Some couples adopted and raised a very happy, strong family. the other couples who did not chose to adopt children also were vry happy with theor marriage together building a future together.
Not sure what you mean … they benefit (mostly) from having loving parents / siblings / friends … and adoption may be an option … beyond that there is the strength of selfless love and satisfying work to get them through … and (e.g.) if they are Christians they will find that His words “My Grace is sufficient for you” will be enough.
What about contraception? If they use it, they won’t have children. And what’s so wrong with a bit of fun?
“There’s no way to know who won’t have children- there never has been.”
What if I’m a man whose nuts were blown off in at war? They certainly exist. Or a man with a botched circumcision that destroyed the testicles? They exist. Or what if I’m a woman who had a uterus removed as a teen? They certainly exist. Or what if I’m an XXY with non-functioning genitalia? They certainly exist. What if I’m an 85 year-old woman marrying a 90 year-old man? Quite common.
You can say with certainty that these people can’t have children. If these people can get married, why can’t 2 gay men who have no interest in having children. They exist. Or 2 gay women who have no interest in having children. They exist.
I’m a metropolitan heterosexual man with kids, and we meet lots of gay parents. They’re fine. Their kids are fine. End of story.
How the heck do you know they’re “fine”? Do you think a child with 2 mothers might long for a father? (His or her actual father? Or a child with 2 fathers long for a mother? No? Are you kidding??!)
How do I know they’re fine? Well, I can’t know every private thought they have, but I can compare their outward behavior and how they interact with their parents with children from more conventional families, and I don’t find these kids with gay parents to be all that different from kids from conventional families. I live in a state that’s had legal gay marriage for 15 years or so, and quite frankly its an awesome place live.
“His or her actual father?”
Depends on how the actual father treated them. I’ve known people who hate their actual father and love their adoptive father, regardless of whether they’re gay or not.
“Do you think a child with 2 mothers might long for a father?”
It seems like the main source of unhappiness is people treating these kids differently, or constantly trying to suggest to them they’re missing something from their life. Just treat them normally and don’t try to tell them their home life is screwed up, and they’ll be fine.
Other than, in their own words, they are not fine. They long for their mother and father.
“In their own words”
Sure, SOME of them are unhappy. Just like SOME children in biological, heterosexual homes are unhappy.
This author is a sample size of 1 unhappy product of a lesbian household. While I can’t read the minds of children with homosexual parents on the playground, I can read body language. From what I can tell, I don’t see these children as any less happy on average, than kids from traditional homes.
Is there a national movement of kids grown up in homosexual households opposing this? No.
Until then, isolated individual testimonies aren’t indicative of homosexual parenting in general. Sorry.
not end of story. your limited everywhere is not defining for humanity. you try to shut down discussion because you have no argument.
the outliers and hard cases don’t change reality
“you try to shut down discussion because you have no argument. ”
My main argument was with the claim that there is no way one can tell whether a heterosexual marriage will end with no children, and I listed many pairings which we a priori no there is no way children will result, ie one where man’s testicles were destroyed in an accident, one where woman had a uterus removed, one where both parties are well past 70 etc. etc. There are in fact many marriages that are CLEARLY not about children, yet we’re perfectly fine with. Except gay marriage. Well, I misspoke. 60+% of the US population is now fine with gay marriages. And still climbing.
It is the END OF STORY, because ultimately, in the end, its none of your business how other people choose to live their lives.
The minute they demand public recognition for how they live their lives,it becomes public business as to whether their choice meets public standards.And there is no rational basis for marriage to exist unless it requires opposite-sex partners.
“The minute they demand public recognition for how they live their lives”
Well, they’re actually demanding GOVERNMENT recognition and benefits of how they live their lives. They could probably care less what Louis E. thinks of them. And go check gallup. A clear majority of the US populace now also supports them, so sorry, sucks to be you I guess.
“And there is no rational basis for marriage to exist unless it requires opposite-sex partners.”
Happiness of the people involved in the union seems like a perfectly rational basis to me.
It is our business to endorse the ideal for children: living with his/her married mother and father.
Of course we are perfectly fine with heterosexual marriages without children. If there are no children to begin with, no harm can ever be done to them, since no one ever missed never being born to begin with. The whole problem is gay marriages with children. If gay people were never, ever allowed to introduce children into their relationships under any circumstances for perpetuity, I for one would not really be particularly concerned if gay people were officially “married” or not. But of course the gay lobbyists would not have that – they demand their marriage “equally” and therefore require the kids to go along with it. And in any case, marriage and children are inextricably linked. That some heterosexual couples never have them is completely irrelevant because as I say, the real problems start when children exist. And that is the route of the problem – the actual existence of the children living under a gay relationship. And again, if there are no children to ever result under a relationship, no harm is ever done to children because children never enter the equation to begin with. And that applies whether the relationship is heterosexual or gay.
No, they are NOT fine and it is not the end of the story. Homosexuality is not progressive. It’s been around for centuries. There is nothing new under the sun including the damage that happens because of our choices. http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/21/the-kids-are-not-alright-a-lesbians-daughter-speaks-out/
“Homosexuality is not progressive”
You’re right. Its just another natural, human condition beyond one’s control, kinda like being left-handed.
“because of our choices”
Being gay isn’t a choice. I’m not gay, but I didn’t choose to be straight either. I was born straight, and there’s nothing in this world that can make me choose to find another man attractive. Same way for gay people. They were born that way. They didn’t wake up one day and say “I’m gonna suck diick instead of poossy just for the hell of it. Makes no difference to me, one’s just as good as the other”.
“chicken or beef” – that’s a choice for me, because I like both. “diick or poossy” isn’t a choice, because I naturally love poossy, but the same cannot be said for diick.
Whether or not “being gay” is an inborn immutable trait (no evidence that it is) has no bearing on the reality that people’s sexual choices ARE choices.
You can argue that feelings and attractions aren’t choices, sure. But consensual acts, redefining marriage, creating kids in test tubes to fit people’s preferences are choices and are not moral or good for kids. Objectively.
Unless marriage requires opposite-sex partners it serves no purpose that is useful for society as a whole (which is in no way benefited by the formation or maintenance of same-sex couples).
Any children who have not been taught that same-sex coupling is innately wrong are not “fine”,and it is hard to believe that perpetrators of that practice could credibly teach that lesson.(I am not a religious person and this is not a religious issue).
“Any children who have not been taught that same-sex coupling is innately wrong are not ‘fine’,”
I’m a heterosexual dad living in Boston. Its an awesome city to live in, lots of history, culture, science, tech. And we’ve had SSM for like 15 years now. Lots of kids living with same-sex parents, and they look like they’re thriving.
I’ve never explicitly talked about homosexuality with my kids, but they’ve seen that some kids have a mom and a dad, some with just a mom, or just a dad, some with 2 moms, some with 2 dads, some with parents of mixed race, etc. etc. They’re growing up seeing these kids with different types of families, and they interact with the parents too. They don’t need me telling them whether same-sex coupling is innately right or wrong. If the same-sex parents treat my kids well, they’re going to decide for themselves there’s nothing wrong with same-sex parents. And sorry Louis E., but from what I can see, the younger generation is most likely going to come to the conclustion themselves that same-sex coupling is just fine.
How could a botched circumcision, which consists of removing the foreskin of the penis EVER result in any harm being done to a man’s testicles??? Ken, you have a mother and father. Do they mean absolutely nothing to you? Try to imagine if your mom used a turkey baster to get pregnant by way of your dad and wipe all the memories of your dad completely out of your mind? Are you ok with that? Your aunt or grandma could have done just a good as job being in your life as your dad? Finally, you say you are a father. So I guess you are totally ok with your wife waking up one day, removing you from your children and replacing you with another woman… Because what you are saying is that as a man you have NOTHING unique to offer to your children, so just replace you with another woman and your kids will be “just fine”, right? Honestly, I think you are lying. I cannot believe a father would think so little of himself and the impact he has on his own children.
My dad tried to kill my mother in front me and my younger sister because he was drunk and she found out he was having an affair.
I would be ok to lose those memories.
Please stop assuming all heterosexuals are perfect.
PS I love my dad and forgive him his faults, but the best thing he ever did for me was leave me to be raised by a single mother.
Infertile opposite sex couples can still marry when it’s the same type of relationship as when they would be fertile. But we won’t let siblings marry each other whether they are fertile or not and some countries also don’t let cousins marry each other, fertile or not.
Once you legalize SSM, you have no good argument anymore against sibling/cousin marriage and you won’t be able to argue against marrying multiple partners either. When it’s only about love and consent, there’s no good reason to tell people that they can only have one partner.
When two men or two women raise children, telling them that there’s no need for them to desire having a mother and father, then they are forcing them to suppress such desire or even feel guilty about it when they would feel that. And if they start to think that having a mother and father is not important at all, then this has actually deeply damaged their understanding of basic human values.
The only way in which I could support same sex parenting, is when it’s within a non sexual relationship outside of the mainstream LGBT community, and only as a temporary home for abandoned children who are looking for a permanent home with a normal family. For children who already experienced bad things in their lives from their natural parents and are in need for adoption, it’s especially important that they receive the most ideal family environment, to not put additional burden on them.
SSM has turned our societies fundamentally corrupt. We now have to think that there’s no important meaning to the complementarity between man and woman, because it’s supposed to be equally important as romance between two men or two women. Why then do we exist as a heterosexual species? The logical next step is the complete denial of any meaningful difference between men and women, which is what happens now with the rise of transgender rights. We are losing all common sense and understanding of our identity as human beings.
AMEN! Wonderful article! I’m a single mother whose youngest child just graduated from high school and I agree 100% with this entire post. I’m not divorced by choice, though. I tried desperately with every fiber of my being to keep my marriage intact for the sake of our four children. But in the end, it was my husband who literally forced me out of the house. He played games with the legal system and had me banned from our home and my kids until everything played out in the courts.
One day he wouldn’t let me take the only car to work – a job HE wanted me to get – and then he fought with me, threatening to take the kids and making other threats, until we ended up in a physical altercation and then he charged me with assault. He had the upper hand until God made the truth come out in court! Praise you, Jesus! <3 Then when the game was no fun anymore, he high-tailed it out of state with his female coworker who left her husband after 35 years of marriage.
We live in a self-absorbed culture that has greatly disrespected marriage on every level. If you try to hang on for dear life, like I did, you are viewed as some kind of weirdo. I endured many years of his alcoholism and abuse and yet he made it look like he was the victim. God is a God of Justice, though, and He allowed his true character to show through before a jury. Yes, I actually had to have a jury trial because I refused to take the plea bargain and accept the charges as stated. The district attorney and the judge were furious that I wouldn't just sign and make this case go away. That was my right, but I still ended up having to pay court costs even though the jury found me not guilty in less than ten minutes! That's because the judge was extremely biased and a clear misogynist! It was rotten that I had to pay court costs after being found not guilty, but all I cared about was getting my kids back. It took a while, but it happened, and then he never sent the kids anything for birthdays or Christmas after he left. They were just pawns in his sick, twisted game. And now that they are all grown, I hope they realize WHO really cared and who just used them! I don't bad-mouth him, but I also try not to even discuss him at all. He is a real piece of work!
I have been happily married to my wife for over forty years and commend marriage as an honourable estate into which all who choose it should be encouraged. It is my recollection that my wife and were the only consenting parties to the marriage and so it seems less than true to say that marriage is not about us. it is about us and has always been about us. The quality of what it has been about us is what has made it a good place to raise our children, not the fact that I am a man and my wife is a woman.
I know male couples and female couples who have the same quality of what has been about us in our marriage but because the the resistance of a very small sector of the Christian community, our politicians have been hesitant to amend our Marriage Act again removing the stipulation that marriage be only between a man and a woman. As a result, these couples are unable to enjoy a number of legal benefits that we as married people have.
No proposal for marriage equality has involved curtailing any of the rights of heterosexual couples. No religious body will be compelled to conduct a marriage that the doctrines and rites of their religion prohibit – but some religious bodies will welcome such a change.
The quality of the relationship between two parties in a marriage will impact on the welfare of children, but there is no evidence that same-sex couples are inherently less capable of providing a loving, nurturing and vital environment for their children to be raised in. In fact, in many cases, such couples over-compensate by ensuring their family life is rich and vital.
To say that the nest for raising children is intrinsic to the idea of marriage is to denigrate the marriages of the many couples who are unable to have children, choose not to have children for any of a range of reasons, and the couples who come together later in life when procreation is no longer an option.
I would like to encourage you and your friends to welcome same-sex couples with open arms. You will grow and they will value your friendship. Their relationship is not a threat to yours. It will not damage their children or yours. The world is so full of new opportunities these days and I wish you could welcome this new frontier.
The author of this article, Katy Faust, was raised in a same-sex family, by her mother and lesbian partner. She grew up in the gay community. She (and other contributors on this website who were also kids raised in same-sex households) has insight into this issue that people like you need to listen to. These children can attest to the harm they experienced and you can either choose to listen and feel compassion or belittle their experiences in order to support adults who want to form families to support their own desires instead of the best interests of their children.
Any gay couple who wants to have children and to purposefully separate their children from one of their child’s biological parents of the opposite sex in order to fulfil that dream is acting out of their own desires and not their childrens. The right thing to do would be for the gay couple to maintain a close relationship with the opposite-sex parent so their children would always have access to them and to know them as their other parent.
I definitely agree that we need to respect what the children of same sex relationships have to say on the issue, but we also need to remember that a very large proportion of children raised by heterosexual parents also experience harm.
What we need to do is focus on teaching people how to love and care for each other, not how to judge others.
Marriage isn’t about children, but parenting is. Anyone who becomes a parent needs to remember that. I don’t believe we should dismiss same-sex couples from raising children, especially adopted or fostered children, on the basis of their sexuality. They (and single parents) are just as likely to raise healthy, happy children as heterosexuals are if the community around them is also loving and accepting.
I am not a Christian or a religionist of any kind.
It greatly disturbs me that ANYONE would not find the practice of same-sex coupling repugnant.Legal benefits devised to reward opposite-sex relationships for their priceless virtue of being opposite-sex must never be permitted to those so wedded to their bad instincts as to willfully persist in a same-sex couple.That the conspirators are enthusiastic does not lessen their error!
Children brought up to condone same-sex coupling have been psychologically abused.
“It greatly disturbs me that ANYONE would not find the practice of same-sex coupling repugnant.”
1. No one cares that it greatly disturbs you.
2. Now, I find the act of same-sex sex gross. IF IT IS HAPPENING TO ME. I’m a heterosexual dad, and I wouldn’t ever want to be naked with a man. But I also find chewing tobacco gross, and tattoos gross. But if someone else wants to do it, it doesn’t affect me in any way shape or form. I have friends who are gay, and as long as they’re not trying to have sex with me, I don’t give a crap who they want to have sex with, as long as its consensual.
“priceless virtue of being opposite-sex”
What exactly is “priceless” about heterosexuality?
“Children brought up to condone same-sex coupling have been psychologically abused.”
Most kids are smart enough to come to their own conclusions about other people. Sorry that gay people existing bugs you out so much, I have no clue why. If the gay people kids come into contact with are good, honest, hardworking people, kids will probably come to the conclusion there’s nothing wrong with gay people. That’s how I came to my conclusion – my parents told me nothing about homosexuality.
Seems like common sense that a child deserves his/her mother and father. Ken, do you really deny that a child’s ideal would be living with his/her mother and father? Married and loving and caring for each other?
Countless stories here say exactly that. Not that kids are against “gay people” for some moral reason, or because of religion or discrimination or any thing like it. Simply because two dads means a kid is being denied his/her mother. Men and women aren’t interchangable, this is one of the most obvious biological and psychological facts in humankind.
Your lack of consideration of this topic because on the outside everything just seems fine (Based on what, by the way), takes nothing into account other than your own perception.
“Your lack of consideration of this topic”
“Based on what, by the way”
Uh, didn’t I just tell you I live in Boston where we have a lot of these kinds of these non-traditional families? Sure, I can’t read their minds, but I’ve spent time on the playground with these kids while they played with mine, talked to the parents, seen the kids interact with the parents… I can’t read their minds, but there is a thing called body language where humans can pick up on subtle non-verbal cues that “something isn’t right”. I can pick up on cues that something isn’t quite right in a household – parents may be going through a divorce, child is feeling neglected because a new sibling was born, middle-child syndrome etc. etc.
From watching how these kids are socializing, how they interact with their parents, how the parents interact with them – having seen maybe 10 or 20 of these kinds of families in various settings – I don’t see that much difference. The kids look well-adjusted, happy. Aren’t automatically gay.
I occassionally see a few people like this author, but they are a minority. And when I read their stories, I sense that what they really are upset about are issues that aren7t particularly specific to gay parents – but rather are issues that potentially anyone who was adopted or separated from their biological parents – would feel.
“Countless stories here say exactly that.”
Funny, I see only 1 – the author’s story. Seems like your definition of “countless” includes “1”.
“Ken, do you really deny that a child’s ideal would be living with his/her mother and father?”
Probably on average, sure. That’s the ideal, and no one’s denying that. But as they say – your mileage will vary. Would it be ideal for me if my biological dad was an alcoholic who beat my mom, molested my sister and stole my lunch money? Probably not. In that case, I’m sure I’d be better off with biological strangers who loved me and each other.
“Men and women aren’t interchangable”
So as a dad myself, I certainly don’t play the traditional male role in our household. I don’t work in the garage, don’t watch sports, don’t sit around drinking beer. I read, listen to and play classical music, and rather watch figure skating than football. I’m pobably a lot more of a sissy than a lot of women out there. I bottle fed our children, sang them songs, changed their diapers, make them food. I’d say my role is quite interchangable with my wife – except that I couldn’t give birth.
Compared to a lot of other middle-American families, I’d say our gender roles are far less distinct. I don’t project an overtly manly image, and my wife who also works, isn’t at home baking cookies. I’d say our roles are fairly interchangable.
Has this screwed up our kids or made them gay? Not an iota.
What is so repugnant about it, though?
If it’s sexual acts that bother you, don’t forget that heterosexual couples can (and often do) engage in the same acts as homosexual couples, and some people are homoromantic rather than sexual in that they are attracted to the same sex but don’t actually engage in sexual acts besides cuddling and kissing.
From the perspective of a child, or an asexual for that matter, all heterosexual acts are equally repulsive.
If it is only love that bothers you, I don’t understand. Why should a person not fall in love with the personality of someone, regardless of their anatomy? What is repugnant about that?
I’m sorry, I don’t want to disrespect your feelings, but I simply don’t understand what makes homosexuality wrong, but not heterosexuality…
Well said, John 🙂
Great article!! Love your presentation of the biology!!
I’d like to propose looking at what the rampant use of contraceptives has done to society. Did you know no christian church allowed for the use of contraception until the 1930’s? Again, just about 2 minutes ago in the history of mankind. What are the expectations when contraceptions fails? What are the health ramifications of all this serial monogamy, especially on the woman’s biology?
If someone can take this article and put it into two paragraphs it would reach so many more people who need to hear it. It
was a great explanation. Each religion needs to teach their
children these facts of life.
Not every major religion encourages monagamy. A child needs a parent preferably more than one who is involved in her care in a constant basis. Parents of opposite or same sex are fully capable of fulfilling this role. Some the most nuturing parents can be male, and some can be female. Only people who need verification that the way that they have chosen is the BEST seem to insist that it must be so for everyone. Santimonious christian asses seem to be the largest population requiring verification.
Polygamy in which both sexes are represented may be acceptable if no one is being abused…but anything same-sex must never be treated as if it were of as much worth to society as a bona fide,both-sexes-required marriage.
Raised two sons without a father..They are fine..In fact they took me out to dinner for ‘Father’s Day’..One is getting married soon, the other has been in a long term relationship with a lovely young woman for a decade.. Both are gainfully employed, pay their bills, have great friends and they are happy and healthy..
Can someone tell me what Rights SS couples will get that they don’t have already……. And if there are any then surely they can be changed……I believe this is all about destroying families and Christian values….
The ability for a Same Sex couples relationship to be legally recognized does not exist without same sex marriage being legal. Meaning if one partner got sick the other partner would legally have no rights to care for their partner.
GOD are actually 2 seperate beings GOD the mother and GOD the father GOD the mother gave birth to GOD the father she was a virgin when she gave birth for the first time Jesus Christ is not GOD the father nor GOD the mother. GOD the mother and GOD the father fell in love with each other it eventually led to them having sex for the first time they were both virgins back then and some time later they had many healthy children together. GOD the mother and GOD the father were originally mother and son but despite that they became lovers became parents together and became like an married couple. I think a mother who wants to have sex with her son who she gave birth to shouldnt be married she should file for divorce if she is married att the time or if she is dating someone she should break up with him.
I have a better idea. Take the state completely out of the marriage business. No granting of marrying licenses. People can contract whatever agreement between themselves they want. The state will confer no soecisl status or benefits onto married couples regardless of the makeup of the partnership. Those who wish their marriage sanctified in a church, temple or mosque may choose to do so. Whatever my marriage is hasno bearing on yours. I leave you to marry whom you love and you will leave me to marry whom I love and everybody should be happy.
I’m surprised she didn’t answer with something like ‘They don’t have to because women have abortion options.’
There is no substitute for a family with a loving mom and dad. I had that and previously being a single parent, I now know that.
God is very evil and rotten altogether for not giving a good single man like me a good wife and family that i really wanted to have, instead of still being a single and lonely man today. What in the world did i ever do wrong anyway? Especially when i see so many others that are all settled down with their families.