The Dispatch: More from CWR...

Same-sex “marriages” can never be “better” than real matrimony

The campaign to undermine and pervert the true meaning and nature of marriage continues.

(Distorted screenshot of www.nytimes.com)

Courtesy of an essay titled “How to Make Your Marriage Gayer” (Feb. 13, 2020) readers of the New York Times were informed that if straight couples want more satisfying marriages they need to “take a few lessons from their same-sex counterparts.” According to the essay, authored by Stephanie Coontz, who is history professor emeritus at Evergreen College, same-sex couples have a more equitable arrangement for domestic tasks, are able to handle conflict better than straight couples, and enjoy what some researchers have called a significant “parenting advantage.”

Coontz’s essay is just another attempt by progressives to demonstrate the superiority of same-sex “marriage.” Coontz—the author of The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap and a former leader of the Young Socialist Alliance, a sub-group of the Socialist Workers Party—has devoted much of her career to debunking what she sees as myths about the happy heterosexual families of the past. Claiming that there was never a “golden age” of family values in the 20th century, Coontz has been the favorite historian for those wishing to “expand” the definition of marriage and family.

Coontz has claimed that early Catholic traditions concerning marriage were “far more flexible about the place of divorced or single people and cohabiting couples” than current Catholic teaching. Yet, despite her faulty ideas about the Church, Coontz was invited to participate in Pope Francis’ World Meeting on Families in Philadelphia in 2015. Coontz suggests that she was invited to speak at the meetings in order to “remind people that we should not romanticize the family of the past…to remind people that the traditional two-parent nuclear family was not always idyllic.”

In arguing for the superiority of same-sex parenting, Coontz reports that straight fathers devoted the least time in parenting tasks; they spent, on average, about 55 minutes a day focused on child-care tasks including reading, playing, homework, and physical needs. In contrast, Coontz says, gay fathers spend one hour and 23 minutes focused on their children’s needs. And although lesbian mothers spend significantly less time involved in parenting tasks than straight mothers, Coontz suggests that since there are two mothers in the same-sex household, there is an advantage for children raised in same-sex families.

Coontz suggests that another “parenting advantage” for gay men and lesbian women is that “they seldom end up with an unintended or unwanted child, which is a risk factor for poor parenting”—and she warns that if opponents of abortion continue to gain ground, “same-sex parents may find themselves increasingly advantaged.” In doing so, she ignores data from nationally normed representative samples that show a distinct disadvantage for children raised in same-sex households, as analyzed by Dr. Paul Sullins, a researcher from Catholic University, and Mark Regnerus, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin. Instead, Coontz bases her conclusions on the same-sex parenting advantage on self-reports from same-sex couples.

Coontz also cites data from a non-representative sample, which she claims indicates that same-sex couples settle disagreements more amicably than straight couples. She cites a study by John Gottman and Robert Levenson, which looked at the conflict management styles of 21 lesbian couples and 21 male gay couples and found that the gay and lesbian couples handled disagreements with their partners in “less belligerent, domineering, and fearful ways than different-sex individuals.” Publishing their research in the Journal of Homosexuality, Gottman and Levenson concluded that “fairness and power-sharing between partners is more important and more common in gay and lesbian relationships than in straight ones. In a fight, gay and lesbian couples take it less personally.”

Ignoring the research on the significantly higher rates of intimate-partner violence within the LGBTQ community, Gottman and Levenson laud same-sex couples for their ability to fight fairly and without rancor. But a major 2015 study from the progressive Williams Institute of more than 40 previous studies of intimate-partner violence and sex abuse among LGBTQ people revealed that lesbian and bisexual women are significantly more likely to have experienced intimate-partner violence than heterosexual women. The studies, based on representative samples, found a “lifetime prevalence of 31.9% and a past year prevalence of 10.2% among lesbians asking whether an intimate partner, a ‘husband, wife, boyfriend, girlfriend, or someone [the participant] lived with or dated,’ had ‘hit, slapped, pushed, kicked, or physically hurt’ the survey participant.” It refers to a previous study that “found that 14.5% of lesbians, compared to 21.9% of bisexual women and 12.2% of heterosexual women, reported experiencing sexual abuse by a partner.”

Finally, couples involved in same-sex “marriages” are much more likely to report multiple partners outside the relationship. A 2016 study reported in The Guardian found that for gay couples, “non-monogamous relationships can lead to a happier, more fulfilling relationship…their communication is better than among monogamous couples because they’ve had to negotiate specific details.” But as one man admits, while having specific rules to follow is essential, sticking to the rules is not only difficult—it rarely happens, leading to conflict and creating ”a sense of doubt of whether someone is telling the truth…”

One problem with Coontz’s New York Times op-ed is that such opinions are taken seriously by decision makers and cultural elites. In his 2015 majority opinion legalizing same-sex marriage in Obergefell vs Hodges Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy twice cited Professor Coontz’s opinions on the “tremendous variety of marriage through the ages.” Coontz—along with 25 other historians—claimed in an amicus brief in support of same-sex marriage that it is a myth that marriage was ever based on procreation. It is likely that Justice Kennedy believed her.

In the end, Coontz can’t demonstrate same-sex marriages are “better” than heterosexual ones because the metrics Coontz uses are, from a Catholic perspective, fundamentally flawed. Coontz wants open communication, equal distribution of household tasks and childcare, and satisfying sex to be the measures of a successful marriage; from a Catholic perspective, those things may be features of a happy marriage, but they aren’t the essence of what marriage is about. The Church understands that by its very nature “the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring, and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1652). In addition, the “vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes” (CCC, 1603).

For faithful Catholics, marriage is a natural institution and matrimony is a sacrament, established by Jesus Christ, ordered to the procreation of children, and for the mutual—and exclusive—love of the spouses. In addition, “family is the original cell of social life. It is the natural society in which husband and wife are called to give themselves in love and in the gift of life.” This natural society provides the authority and stability that “constitute the foundations for freedom, security, and fraternity within society. the family is the community in which, from childhood, one can learn moral values, begin to honor God, and make good use of freedom” (CCC, 2207). The past several decades have demonstrated clearly the connections between marital fidelity and social stability, as well as how sex severed from marriage leads to both personal confusion and social chaos. Thus, the sacrament of marriage has always held this ideal—and can never change no matter how much the culture appears to change or wishes to change.


If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.


About Anne Hendershott 95 Articles
Anne Hendershott is professor of sociology and director of the Veritas Center for Ethics in Public Life at Franciscan University of Steubenville. She is the co-author of Renewal: How a New Generation of Priests and Bishops are Revitalizing the Church (Encounter Books).

12 Comments

  1. I am less bothered by Coontz’s positions than I am by the fact that the Vatican invited her to be a contributor to the World Meeting of Families. More sad evidence of the Church’s drift in the past seven years.

  2. Shocking that scotus relied on such shoddy argument to legitimize such destruction of the family. There is a straight line from obergefell to transgender and drag queen story hour. After all, gay “parents” can’t bring “their” procured children to listen to the classic prince/princess fairy tale can they? Just as slavemasters forbade their slaves learning to read, the new slaves are forbidden to learn about the truth and meaning of human sexuality. Mom and Dad matters.

    • So well said, Susan, thank you!! Homosexuality, transgenderism, etc. in general are TOTAL frauds and homosexual “marriage” is an even bigger sham backed up by deranged historical reconstructionism, using TRANSFERENCE and PROJECTION as usual to make the legitimate look like a fraud and the total fraud look so “legitimate”. Homosexuals and their supporters use this because they KNOW they are a fraud.

      Homosexuals, etc. have long proven to have the highest rate of mental, emotional, social and spiritual problems which is why it is impossible to “accommodate” them in society, as their demands and their thirst for power and control is endless and bottomless. That is precisely what makes them such a great political corruption wrecking ball as the corrupt and delusional are much easier to control. True Catholics are hated by the ideological elites for being “uncontrollable” because they are UNDER God’s control only.

      True marriage, however imperfect and faulty it may be, is based on sacrifice, self-denial and self-transcendence, the True Doors to True Freedom and Peace. Homosexuality is total self-absorption, where your partner is basically a same-gender, close copy of you, and which needs to be changed very often to keep the empty, delusional, dehumanizing “excitement” going. In the 70’s it was “sex sells”, today it is “insanity sells”.

      That brings to my mind that the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was not just a monumental, epic Grace for her, but also for her parents and all legitimate marriages, as God blessed to the UTMOST their LEGITIMATE sexual union with the highest of the highest dignity and empowerment possible for human beings created in God’s image and likeness. Legitimate, faithful marriages between one man and one woman, imperfect and stumbling as they can be, bring God’s immaculate blessing to Earth. Homosexual “marriage” only brings darkness and the mainstreaming of total, criminal insanity.

  3. “Coontz suggests that another “parenting advantage” for gay men and lesbian women is that “they seldom end up with an unintended or unwanted child, which is a risk factor for poor parenting”—”
    *****
    Well, if we’re talking solely about two people of the same sex & no one else involved in procreation, then it’s not seldom. In nature, it’s never.

    Two members of the same sex not being able to conceive a child together doesn’t sound like a parenting advantage. It sounds like a rule of biology.

    If the argument’s about adoptive parents’ advantages, then that applies to everyone.

  4. Prof. Coonz is WRONG. The early Church was more strict regarding fornication and divorce and other sexual behaviors.

  5. Trinitarian theology: 1+1+1 = 1
    Genesis sexuality: 1 + 1 = 3

    LGBTQ mathematics: 2 + 2 = 5
    Same-sex “marriage”: 1 + 1 = 0

  6. I applaud this essay. But I also note that we have been so cowed by political correctness that we argue, Same-sex “marriages” can never be “better” than real matrimony. I may have missed it, but have we mentioned homosexual sex is in itself sin — and thus anything affirming it affirms disorder and sin and must be disavowed? That’s awkward, but also correct.

  7. A great essay indeed – especially in the last two paragraphs where the true nature of Christian marriage as outlined is the most powerful and convincing refutation of the shallows of the secular and materialist world. Promote the truth!
    But it also remains important to argue using scientific research evidence – as does the essay – against the false evidence and views published by our opponents or they may prevail by default, especially in a badly informed society. An uphill battle against many but reassurance for believers as well.

  8. Just to offer the “full meal deal,” the (com)union of the spouses is also an essential good of matrimony. As Prof. Janet Smith summarizes: “Sex is for babies, and sex is for bonding.” In dealing with overt and covert attacks on marriage as God intended – and intends – it, we do best to tell “the whole story,” as space and time allow.

4 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. Same-sex “marriages” can never be “better” than real matrimony | Catholic Canada
  2. Same-sex “marriages” can never be “better” real matrimony - Catholic Mass Search
  3. Catholic World ReportSame-sex “marriages” can never be “better” than real matrimony – chaos
  4. SATVRDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*