Jesus taught us that the God-ordained union of “male and female” is our best clue that God intended sexual unions to be between two (and only two) persons. The requirement of two different sexes is the only foundation for rejecting more consistently the excessive structural sameness of incest. Eliminating this male-female foundation opens the door to other distorted sexual unions, at least for now of an adult-consensual nature.

(1) There is a disproportionate rate of measurable harm for males and females in homosexual relationships, differing in rates according to gender types: higher numbers of sex partners and sexually transmitted diseases (especially among homosexual males), radically lowered relational longevity and elevated mental health issues (especially among homosexual females). Moreover, the vast majority of children in such unions will experience a high incidence of parental turnover and/or “openness” to additional sexual partners. No form of consensual sexual behavior always produces measurable harm in all circumstances (including polyamory and incest, even [non-consenting] adult-child-sex). Therefore it is a ridiculous standard to insist that measurable harm must be demonstrated in all cases.

(2) Insofar as homosexual practice is an immoral sexual behavior that celebrates the treatment of the sexual self as only half intact in relation to its own sex, children reared in such a union inherit a distorted and disordered view of human sexuality, what in prior times was rightly described as a “corruption of minors.” Not only are they bereft of either a mother or a father (roles that are not interchangeable), but also their role models are persons who are erotically aroused by distinctive features of their own sex, as though they were not fully their own sex. For some it also warps their own sexual self-identity. A 2001 analysis of prior research by two University of California sociologists acknowledged: “The evidence …hints that parental sexual orientation is positively associated with the possibility that children will be more likely to attain a similar orientation—and theory and common sense also support such a view…. [C]hildren of lesbigay parents appear to express a significant increase in homoeroticism” (p. 178 of Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?,” American Sociological Review 66:2 [Apr. 2001]: 159-83). Rather than develop a holistic understanding of their masculinity (if male) or femininity (if female), they learn only what it is like to be a half-male or half-female.

(3) Given the instability, disease, and high numbers of sex partners characterizing homosexual unions, state endorsement of such unions can only further deteriorate the institution of marriage. True, heterosexuals have done a good job at cheapening the institution. But what goes on in most homosexual relationships is of an entirely new level of marital destruction. For example, many “gay” activists are not shy in pointing out the need for society’s broad acceptance of “open marriages,” which is simply a way of accommodating to the standard practices of male homosexual expression. Even apart from such misbehavior the very embrace by society of homosexual unions is an open invitation to reconsider both monogamy and complementary otherness as staples of marriage. Jesus taught us that the God-ordained union of “male and female” is our best clue that God intended sexual unions to be between two (and only two) persons. The requirement of two different sexes is the only foundation for rejecting more consistently the excessive structural sameness of incest. Eliminating this male-female foundation opens the door to other distorted sexual unions, at least for now of an adult-consensual nature. These unions, to be sure, are not as immoral as homosexual unions insofar as they violate prohibitions secondarily extrapolated from a male-female foundation (homosexual practice is a violation of the foundation itself). But they are nonetheless bad enough. As everyone recognizes, approval of homosexual unions also opens the door to the fallacy of “transgenderism,” since once society accepts the notion that it is acceptable to behave sexually as if one’s biological sex is only half intact, it is only a hop, skip, and jump away to coerce approval for a complete denial of one’s biological sex.

(4) State endorsement of such unions becomes compulsory, penalizing all those in society who recognize the importance of having a male and a female in a sexual union to moderate the extremes and fill in the gaps of each sex. This means coercive indoctrination of our children in schools that any reluctance to become a cheerleader for the whole “LGBTQ” agenda makes one a bigot on the order of a member of the Klu Klux Klan. It means loss of freedom of speech and a crushing blow to the free exercise of religion. It means the state having the “right” to take your children away from you if you are not gung-ho in supporting any “LGBTQ” self-identification that your child may errantly appropriate. It means having males invade female restrooms, lockers, sports, and shelters. It means being forced to put one’s professional artistic and creative talents at the disposal of promoting “gay marriage” and “transgenderism,” irrespective of conscience, or be fined tens (or even hundreds) of thousands of dollars. It means being forced to submit to “LGBTQ” promotions and regular indoctrinations in the workplace or face being fired. It means being fired for expressing an alternative viewpoint, no matter how loving, even outside the workplace in social media. It means pumping kids with puberty blockers and granting even minors “sex reassignment” surgery, funded with your tax dollars. It means compulsory speech, forced to call a man a woman and a woman a man, even though such a thing is as ridiculous as the concept of “transracialism.” It means retracting in law and common usage expressions such as “husband and wife,” “male and female,” “boys and girls.” And this is only a partial list.

Source