Some websites only present one side of the story. That's where we help out...

Same-sex Marriage Impacts Heterosexuals


In debates about whether same-sex marriage is a good thing for society overall, there are often claims that it brings no negative impact to heterosexuals. Graphs such as the one displayed here circulate around the blogosphere, implying or even stating that same-sex marriage causes no harm and that therefore, there is no reason to object to it. But is that the case?

No. There is evidence, EG from Canada, the UK, and elsewhere, that it impacts others. Even some gay people have indicated that they know that one marriage impacts another.

An advertisement for a forum on sexual ethics in 2013, included a comment that “Growing sexual freedom of women, the influence of gay culture and the internet have changed our sexual mores.” For example, it has been suggested that the increasing visibility of homosexuality in our culture, has led to heterosexual same-sex friends modifying their behaviour, IE being less affectionate compared with previous generations, and to increased experimentation in alternatives such as polyamory (see also

Increasingly, same-sex relationships mean raising children. Some have chosen to equate legal same-sex marriage with a moral standing that it’s no different to heterosexual marriage, including the notion that homosexual parenting is equally legitimate to natural parenting. Whether children fare worse under same-sex parents, has been a matter of uncertainty and debate. The negatives of having same-sex parents may not be huge, but some paediatricians and scientists have expressed concern. It does tend to mean missing out on the parenting of one of the genders, which of course is not an optimal situation, as even some gay people have agreed (EG1, EG2, EG2b, EG3, EG4). Additionally, because homosexual relationships on average do not last as long as heterosexual relationships, the homosexual families are less stable, on average, for children. Experts advise that stability is of huge importance to optimal child development. And there can be even more problems for the children, especially for the poor, that are not at first apparent.

Experience has shown that anti-discrimination policy for homosexuality does marginalise and discriminate against conservative Christians, IE various cases of loss of employment (EG2, EG3, EG4, EG5), demotion, reduction in parenting rights, reduction in rights to become parents, loss of premises (eg 2 loss of rights in business autonomy (see also here) in autonomy of the use of church facilities, of fines, suspensions, arrests, tax penalties, denial of service, attempts to censor the Christian voice from the mainstream news media, and law suits (EG2) sometimes forcing (ref. 2) Christians to support it ( Christian families also loose out. The social changes can result in the bullying of Christian children. In Ontario, Bill 13 requires Catholic schools to host “Gay-Straight Alliance” clubs and ironically prohibits public schools from being rented to groups that ‘discriminate’. Christian parents come to feel that they need to remove their children from public schools in order to safeguard them from the resulting mandated same-sex indoctrination that contradicts their religion. The graph shown here was obviously satirical to an extent, but satire has become reality in terms of the light green part of the graph index, as there are now pushes for schools to teach “safe sex” for those how engage in gay sex. In this new educational environment where gay is deemed to be perfectly okay, there are claims of chaplains being muzzled, and of attempts to ban or obstruct Christians from entering the teaching profession. And there have been claims that Christian adolescents will be deterred from entering a range of other professions too. There are also real fears of erosion of first amendment rights for US Christians and of Orwellian restrictions to the press in Italy. Other religions have been affected also, as have third parties and innocent bystanders (EG). And at the forefront of societal change, even a position of neutrality on the morality of homosexuality, is not accepted – rather, affirmation is a requirement (EG).

Some gay activists have worked very hard and raised a lot of money to get their way, and to block Christian viewpoints.

It’s also been suggested that same-sex ‘marriage’ will be a financial impact on heterosexuals. On the one hand it’s said that the purchasing of gifts and travel etc that comes with gay marriages will boost the economy for everyone (although others have cast doubt on this suggestion). But on the other hand, married couples receive tax benefits, so that additional money has to come from somewhere, and logically means increased taxes for everyone.


And there’s the question of whether redefining marriage to avoid discrimination means that naturally reproductive marriages will be deprioritized and eventually marriage will be defined to avoid discrimination against other types of sexual relationships, eg polygamy, pederasty gay incest between siblings and various other types of sexual partners that are currently considered taboo. Indeed, public approval of same-sex marriage, has increased alongside increased approval and practise ( for some of these. Because according to contemporary secular morality, discrimination is a bad thing, right? 3-way relationships are uncommon but far from unheard of in the gay community (EG1, EG2, EG3, EG4, EG5), as is the case in the straight community (EG1, EG2). The left wing have often dismissed this prediction of a creeping scope of ‘equality’, as being unrealistic fear mongering. But some of the left have more recently admitted that the “slippery slope” prediction is not entirely unlikely, with even some of the more ridiculous (EG2, EG3, EG4, EG5, EG6, EG7, EG8, EG9, EG10, EG11, EG12, models of alternate marriage models actually coming to pass including multiple partner gay (EG2) marriages, and even a mother acting as a surrogate for her gay son. Some have even said it’s an avalanche rather than a slippery slope. Despite even liberals pointing out negative impacts of legal polygamy, it’s apparently increasingly accepted and there has been at least one legal step taken towards acceptance of it in the US in recent years. There are indications here and there around the world of pressures to legally accept polygamy, as accepted in dozens of countries already. Sometimes polyamory-advocates are piggybacking on the back of the movement for gay marriage (EG) even in quazi-Christian circles (EG). The degree to which same-sex marriage will lead to broader acceptance of polygamous marriage is unclear and may not be clear for generations to come. But if the happiness and freedom of the individual is society’s top goal, it makes sense that polygamy is permitted, along with other icky things (EG2, EG3, EG4, EG5) that are sometimes undertaken by largely nice people, but which are usually hidden away and frowned upon.

Yes, same-sex marriage has been legal in some countries for some years, but Im told that citizens of those countries still distinguish between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage, often referring to the latter as “gay marriage”. However it has been suggested that for future generations, perhaps that distinction will fade away, and both types of marriage will be thought of the same way, just as “marriage”? Washington State has looked into de-emphasising the distinction, by removing the terms ‘bride’ and ‘groom’ from marriage certificates to make them gender-neutral. In Canada, at least one school system has similarly changed the forms they use to replace the fields previously named ‘mother’ and ‘father’ with ‘parent’. What will this new world of marriage be like? I have a few thoughts on that…

Lets say that Gary & Gareth are a married gay couple. Next door live Simon and Simmone, a married straight couple. Gary and Simon are good friends – they grew up together, went to the same schools, and still catch up regularly at the local pub.

Simon is entirely straight, and Gary is entirely gay, but they share similar thoughts on politics and have similar interests, and their friendship is strong. Simmone is proud of her husband for his open-minded perspective towards gay people. Being a fairly typical male gay couple, Gary & Gareth have an “open” relationship, ie they have a policy of restricted non-monogamy. The policy in their case, is that either partner can have sex with others, so long as they use protection against STIs, so long as the sex does not take place in their own home, and so long as they dont stay the night with the third party. Simon generally isnt interested in his neighbour Gary’s sex life, but sometimes, when there is a lull in the conversation, Gary mentions to Simon of a recent sexual exploit, especially if it is with someone who Simon knows and may have assumed was entirely straight.

Simon listens to the stories of gay sexual escapades with a level of disinterest, and with one eye on a barmaid named Desire. Simon finds the barmaid very attractive, but he also truly loves his wife Simmone, and wouldnt want to jeopardise his marriage. He knows that Simmone has a jealous tendency and that cheating on her would be problematic. However, one night after a few beers, the barmaid corners Simon on his way to the bathroom. She tells him that she knows he steals glances at her, and that she also finds him attractive. Simon pauses like a stunned rabbit, and the barmaid pulls him into the small bathroom with her. Simon knows what is coming, and has to make a quick decision; fidelity or infidelity. He feels very tempted, and thinks to himself that if an open relationship works for Gary’s marriage, there is no reason it cant work for his too. Simon later proposes an open relationship to Simmone, saying that if it works for the neighbours, and married gay celebrities, it could work for them also. She secretly hates the idea, but she’s going through a stressful period at work and has also recently been arguing with her best friend. She feels like various relationships in her life are already stretched, and she would rather compromise than loose Simon, so she reluctantly agrees. Simmone grows increasingly resentful though and an emotional distance opens up between them as Simon in turn begins to feel rejected by Simmone. Ultimately they separate and divorce.

Facebook screenshot

The story above seeks to illustrate that bringing homosexual relationships into the definition of ‘marriage’ is not just about bringing different sexualities under the same title of official relationship. It’s also about bringing different models of relationship under that title. Whereas marriage tends to mean monogamy for heterosexual couples, it tends to not mean that for male homosexual couples. By both forms of relationship having the same title, the distinction between monogamy and non-monogamy is reduced. Others have commented similarly (EG2) with one academic writing that when gay couples marry they “adopt a range of nontraditional norms and practices that, in effect, destabilize the traditional marital form“. The Pope too has said that including same-sex couples in the definition of marriage, has a destabilising effect for heterosexual marriage. Even non-religious people have said that same-sex marriage impinges on the sanctity of marriage. In response to such comments, an advert for gay man and sex advice columnist Dan Savage (the advert was presumably written by him) has stated on the topic of monogamy “If we really want to protect the sanctity of marriage, we need to make it our playground, not our prison.” Where is the sanctity in that? If these non-monogamous couples raise heterosexual children, will the modelling of non-monogamy be adopted by those children, and lead to increases in family breakdown in future generations, with the economic and social problems that arise from single-parent families?

Additionally, churches can be impacted. For example, although the European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2011 that gay marriage is not a human right, it’s reported that in Denmark, all churches must conduct same-sex marriages, and there are indications of intrusions into freedoms for US church groups too.


It’s now over ten years since same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts. And contrary to what some say, it has had an impact (EG). A poll found that 60% of people said the Massachusetts change had no impact on their lives, 25% said it had a positive impact, and 15% said it had produced a negative impact on their lives. A 2015 report found that 31% of South Carolinians said that the legalization of gay marriage had a negative effect on their lives. Which raises the question – do the positive impacts outweigh the negatives, or vice versa? And if same-sex marriage has an effect of increasing the incidence of infidelity, would the cause be apparent to the average person? And what of the claims of negative impact when gay marriage has been legalised in other countries?

The ultimate form of impact is perhaps death, and now we do seem to have a example of this too. For at least one straight guy, the legalisation of gay marriage was thought to be a driving force to his own suicide in 2013.

It would be nice if the actions of one group of people had no impact on another. But the idea that gay marriage does not impact heterosexuals is a myth.

10 Comments on “Same-sex Marriage Impacts Heterosexuals”

  1. Michael says:

    You attributing a lot of power to a minority of less than 10% population. And if you so feel that that gays are generally lustful, then why not temper that those feelings with Apostle Paul’s own solution for lust – marriage? By denying marriage you strip away the normalcy of community support that straights expect and enjoy: dating, falling in love, and settling down with a life-long partner. With the emotionally sustenance stripped away, all that’s left is sex.

    • stasisonline says:

      Michael, thanks for your feedback. In reply;
      The apostle Paul’s solution for unmanageable lust was heterosexual marriage. If those who are homosexually oriented wish to marry an opposite sex partner, then so long as both partners are fully aware of what they are getting into (pre-marriage counselling would be wise, as usual), I guess they could proceed. I suggest it would be best if neither spouse is 100% straight though, so that each have an understanding of the sexuality issues of the other spouse.
      I disagree that without marriage, “all that’s left is sex”. Many homosexuals go on dates and settle down with a partner, including in places where same-sex marriage is not legal. In a secular society, although I wouldnt vote in favour of same-sex marriage, I do believe that same-sex partners deserve state recognition of their relationships, especially for the purposes of legal and welfare benefits, and accordingly I think civil unions are a good solution for non-christians in homosexual relationships.

      • Michael says:

        The concept of a sexual orientation (str8 or gay) didn’t exist then, so I think it’s putting words in Paul’s mouth to say that his solution of pairing up excludes gays. To further suggest that gays marry an unsuitable partner flies in the face of Genesis 2:18. Sure, Eve was suitable for Adam, but Adam was str8, and for the majority, an opposite-sex partner is the best suited. But that doesn’t work for gay people.

      • stasisonline says:

        Michael, thanks for your continuing dialogue. Your claims are intriguing, so hopefully this discussion will be enriching to the insights of both of us. On what grounds do you believe that the concept of sexual orientation didnt exist during the era that the New Testament was written? I realise that good progress was made in the past century by scientists seeking to understand human sexuality, but what leads you to conclude that those in first century didnt even have a concept of sexual orientation?
        By suggesting that gays follow Paul’s solution for lust, it was really you that was advocating heterosexual marriage for them, rather than me. But Im open to the idea that heterosexual marriage between homosexual people may not work well. When I was a teenager, in my church at the time, there was a heterosexual family that was comprised of a wife, a noticeably effeminate husband, and several of their teenage children. Whether that marriage continued to last, and whether it was truly happy I dont know as I relocated and lost contact with most people in that church. I guess the question of whether homosexuals should enter heterosexual marriages is best left up to councillors and those who specialise in that area. I cant see any clear evidence in the Bible of encouragement for homosexuals to enter heterosexual marriages. Based on chapter 19 of the book of Matthew, it would seem to me that the alternative to heterosexual marriage, as suggested by Jesus, was the life of a eunuch.
        Thanks again for your time.

  2. tom says:

    Saying same-sex marriage discriminates against people opposed to homosexuality is like saying the Civil Rights Act discriminates against white supremacists.

  3. Jon says:

    Even if everything in this article is true and I doubt it, it sounds alot like the debunked theory of cultural evolution, with savagery at the bottom where “promiscuous sexual communism” is supposedly practiced, you still don’t have a right to enforce your ideals on others. Separation of church and state has been mocked in this country for far too long, and I look forward to the day we will be a truly free nation again. Those opposed to gay marriage, who feel that legislatures should tell people how to live, will go down in history along with the writers of the Jim Crow laws. These are the bigots of the 21st Century. Live and let live, “Thou shalt not judge, lest ye be judged”

    • stasisonline says:

      Thanks for your feedback, Jon, although you have largely repeated what you wrote in your previous post. So Ill likewise repeat my request that you please note though that this blog post does not oppose the separation of church and state. Such separation does not mean that Christians cant discuss their views on blogs, or point out problems in other ideologies. I support the concept of freedom. Jesus is recorded as having taught that the truth will set you free (Jn 8:32). But the nature of freedom is not always clearcut. For example, consider same-sex parenting. Such parents are ‘free’ to parent. But are the children ‘free’ to demand that they have parents of each gender, as per natural parenting? That’s what this post is about; impact and implications.

      You finish your response with a quote from the Bible; “Thou shalt not judge, lest ye be judged”. Yes, Im familiar with that verse (Mat. 7:1), and I honestly dont think my post contravenes the doctrine. Overall, the Bible does not instruct Christians to never never evaluate and never criticise or never point out problems. If that was the case, how could a Christian ever teach or manage a business or bring up children? And it would mean that you contravened the instruction by ‘judging’ my blog. No, life requires everyone to evaluate and criticise at times, and the Bible even tells Christians to do this in certain circumstances (Gal. 6:1-5, Jam. 5:19-20). When the Bible states “Do not judge”, I believe it means not to criticise in a mean-spirited way; not to belittle people for unedifying purposes. I dont believe that evaluating things in abstract, non-personal ways, as this blog does, is to contravene the Biblical policy of not judging.

      Best regards.

  4. […] people. It’s annoying because it’s said so frequently, and because it’s so incorrect. Even gay people have admitted this. Wouldn’t it be nice if gay people could have gay […]

Share your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s