Low Same-Sex Marriage Numbers Betray Truth of LGBT Movement

December 7, 2017

by Steven Jonathan Rummelsburg


There has been an incredible push in recent years to propagate “gay marriage” as a civil right. Arguments severed from nature and reason have multiplied as what is really a moral problem has been reduced to a political problem. Furthermore, the softened heads and hardened hearts in our American culture have acquiesced to the agenda, for the energy required to take a stand against this aspect of the sexual revolution is increasingly debilitating. However, as Dr. Susan Berry informs us at Breitbart, despite the tremendous momentum behind the same-sex marriage movement, “according to a report in the Economist, the number of gay marriages has been far smaller than ever predicted.”

In fact, the number of gays marrying is incommensurate to the numbers of countries legalizing it. “In the United States, only one in ten gays and lesbians have entered into a same-sex marriage, and in the U.K., less than 6,000 such weddings took place when at least 9,000 were expected.” Interestingly, lesbian “weddings” are more likely than a “wedding” between men, and in turn are more likely to divorce.

There does not seem to be a reliable way to gather all the marriage data because it is not tracked federally. However, “in 2016, the New York Times reported that, by linking the 2014 tax returns of same-sex couples with Social Security records, researchers were able to observe that, in that year, “there were 183,280 same-sex marriages in America, roughly a third of one percent of all marriages.” This data is not conclusive, but it at least demonstrates there is less interest to marry in the gay community than initially forecasted.

So why is this the case? A Pew Research survey may provide some clues. When asked about their reasons for choosing marriage, LGBT and traditional couples tended to prioritize different things. Traditional couples, according to the survey, value love, companionship, making a lifelong commitment, having children and having a relationship recognized in a religious ceremony more than LGBT couples. The gap was most pronounced for the latter two factors: having children and having a relationship recognized religiously. On the other hand, the results show clearly that gay couples are far more interested in legal benefits and financial stability.

However, legal benefits and financial stability are not really root elements of natural marriage, even if they are fruits of marriage in civil society. Meanwhile, love, companionship, life-long exclusivity, religious sanction and children are all constituent parts of natural marriage. Complementary couples are truly more interested in these natural elements not only because they lead to a natural fulfillment, but also because they are edifying to the common good.

Monogamy and exclusivity are natural elements of marriage as well. There is a tendency in the “gay marriage” movement to extend the redefinition of marriage beyond monogamy and exclusivity and towards what are called open relationships. This aspect alone disqualifies it as proper marriage. Infidelity in relationships is destructive for partners and children alike. There is no possibility of a proper definition of marriage that excludes monogamous fidelity.

The plain and simple truth is this: marriage is not man-made, but a natural institution. The definition and nature of marriage flow out of the self-evident truths of human nature and the two sexes, and its natural fulfillment is procreation, communion and community. The complementarity of a man and a woman who may come together and become one to procreate children is the renewing source of families in our nations.

“Gay marriages,” however, cannot be fruitful because they go against nature. The LGBT agenda asserts a false right to marriage not because they really want to be married — as the data now corroborates — but because this movement is part of a political struggle for new rights and legal benefits. The fact that the number of “gay marriages” lags far behind normal marriages demonstrates that this entire debate is not about marriage at all but about the structure of society.

There is no reason LGBT persons should be treated as second-class citizens and certainly they must have equal rights to all other citizens because all human persons are endowed with inalienable rights by the natural law. But to change the definition of marriage for political ends, such as legal rights and benefits, not only does not secure the political ends but also ruins the nature of marriage as well. The new definition of marriage is unnatural, and even the LGBT community now demonstrates it by their lack of interest in this newly defined “right.”

Photo credit: Jeff Belmonte, CC BY 2.0


Steven Jonathan Rummelsburg is a senior fellow at the American Principles Project, a writer in residence and teacher of philosophy and theology at Holy Spirit Preparatory School in Atlanta. He is also a senior contributor to The Imaginative Conservative and has written for numerous venues on matters of faith, culture and education.

Archive: Steven Jonathan Rummelsburg

12 comments on “Low Same-Sex Marriage Numbers Betray Truth of LGBT Movement”

  • david says:

    Steven deceitfully twists the Pew survey into his falsehood so he can demonize gay couples. He is not an honest man.

    He writes: “The plain and simple truth is this: marriage is not man-made, but a natural institution.”

    And who gets to define “natural institution?” Why of course, Steven gets to make up that definition, coming from his man-made prejudices.

    Anyone taking the effort to actually read the Pew Survey will notice that a majority of hetterosexuals don’t agree with Steven’s man-made definition of marriage. It shows Steven’s nose keeps growing.

    That’s the truth!

  • nino says:

    The Pew survey betrays the truth of Steven Jonathan Rummelsburg. That’s a better headline!

    Pew clearly states that a majority of heterosexuals by numbers way larger than those who voted Trump for President did not get married for procreation. Therefore, clearly, Steven’s right wing religionist definition of marriage in a minority opinion.

    Truth: Steven’s numbers are false.

  • jui says:

    Steven writes that LGBT people should not be legally treated like second-class citizens. Yet last week he wrote that the heinous baker had the legal right to treat gay customers with contempt in a public accommodation. The bigoted baker can’t do the same for an interracial couple. Therefore, LGBT people, in Steven’s world, are second-class citizens.

    Why is Steven so dishonest?

  • kern says:

    Of course, Steven Rummelsburg’s bigotry is monotonously predictable. The Pew survey reports that 84% same-sex couples married for love vs 88% for opposite-sex couples. That’s very close to being equal. He implies gay couples are only in marriage for the benefits. The same Pew survey reports that 46% of same-sex couples married for the legal benefits. Steven deceitfully doesn’t point out that there are benefits that heterosexuals take for granted.

    Also interesting is that Pew reports that less than half of heterosexuals get married to have children! Why doesn’t Steven disclose this? After all, this editorial is really all about him having an excuse (gays don’t procreate) to disparage same-sex marriage. For Steven, his silly “natural” marriage is about becoming baby-making machines Most heterosexuals reject his definition.

    Dishonesty is natural for Steven.

    • Steven Jonathan says:

      I simply said “more than” for most categories and only said there was a wider gap for two categories and I provided a link to the resaerch so anyone can see for themselves what the data reveals- And notice how I said “more than” 88% is more than 84% but there is a much more profound difference in the answers which makes it dramatically different, but I didn’t claim this- What is meant by “love” in the Christian sense and what is meant by “love” in the secular sense are so vastly different that it practically means they are not being asked the same question- it is similar to asking the LGBT trolls here, “do you believe in sexual morality?” if you compare Christian answers to LGBT answers, the percentages might be close, but they don’t mean the same thing- another good example is “Truth” whatever you guys mean by “truth” when you willfully distort what is written is something totally different than what I mean when I say “truth.” I mean truth in representation. So less than half of heterosexuals marry for children, and far less LGBT make the same claim, there is a great difference- it is disclosed in the link and says nothing about the comparison but it does speak to our modern attitude towards children- the modern world cares very little for children and this is born out in the normal community but far more pronounced in the LGBT community. Kayasha goes so far as to say I am “obsessed” with procreation and that my interest in this most natural and beautiful thing is “creepy” – maybe I ought to remind all of you that we are all here because of pro-creation- call the culture of life “creepy” what do you call the culture of death?

      • jk105 says:

        Dry your tears quivering snowflake. It is clear you do’t like it when people call you on your dishonesty. In this case you slaughtered a study for the express purpose of denigrating God’s Gay children. You deserve our criticism. Once again, your intellectual dishonesty has been exposed.

        You have no monopoly on Christianity and are in no position to lecture us on Christian love vs LGBT love. The Christian God who created me gay has blessed the LGBT love of my same-sex marriage. That’s Christian love. Your hateful articles lack such love. Your alleged religious love means treating God’s gay children with contempt.

        I agree with Kaysha. You are indeed abnormally obsessed with procreation. You smugly and habitually refer to gay couples as being not natural because we are not busy making babies. Procreation is one of the requirements in your previously mention substandard for marriage. It is not enough that you want to reproduce byproducts of yourself, you demand the same of others. In fact you weaponize it against gay people. That’s what makes it creepy.

        The culture of life is honoring God’s children. You advocate a culture that demeans and threatens gay people–the real culture of death.

      • Kaysha says:

        I call the “culture of death” your repressive dogma that reduces marriage to the dehumanizing function of being baby-making factories.

        Grow up. This is your private opinion and it doesn’t reflect the values of many Christians or secular Americans.

      • kern says:

        In other words, Steven Rummelsburg admits he played footsie with the truth when discussing the statistics in this article. He twisted facts around so he could spew hate about gay people. Thanks Steven, for one of your few moments of honesty. I do appreciate those rare occasions.

        To be clear, less than half of heterosexuals get married to have children. Less than 50% of heterosexual agree with his irregular definition of marriage. I might add it is also rather weird that Rummelsburg’s fantasy married partners are so insecure they are always complimenting each other! He uses that complimentary word a lot. Such self-esteem issues!

        I would further comment that if Rummelsburg is so upset that we are commenting on his obsessive promotion of procreation, perhaps he should tone down his never-ending lectures on how begetting a breed is a provision for marriage. After all, even he agrees a majority of heterosexuals disagree.

      • nino says:

        Steven claims to possess the one and only “truth” about his “christian” love. Cute! I guess someone died and made him god.

        Many Christians are morally repelled by Steven’s version of love. He has a perfect right to go to his right wing religionist church, practice his sorcery, then comment about his love. It is basically “complimentary” sex roles in which men and women manufacture children. But many other Christians are equally free to refute his dehumanizing version of love.

        He doesn’t own God.

  • kaysha says:

    Alley cats are fruitful. It doesn’t mean they are married. My dog just gave birth to a litter. According to Steven this makes her marriage material. For that matter, heterosexuals are promiscuously fruitful without getting married–happens all the time! Steven’s obsession with procreation is creepy.

    • jui says:

      And talking about animals…. Remember the heinous baker Steven loves so much, the one that refuses to serve gay couples in his public accommodations–something about his alleged religious convictions demand he cater only marriages in accordance to his beliefs. It turns out this baker caters to dog weddings. True. It is widely reported. Steven’s hero believes in a religion that marries animals.

  • jk105 says:

    Steven is consumed with the topic of same-sex marriage. Indeed he apparently thinks about my marriage more than I do!

    He admits that same-sex marriage numbers are hard to quantify. A Pew survey is enough for him to speak for gay people. Cherrypicking stats is his forte and he does it here to satisfy his bigoted objective of smearing gay people and same-sex marriage. God made me gay and there is nothing more natural than the fact that God blessed my same-sex marriage. Steven is entitled to his definition of marriage being compulsory procreation. But there is something sad about the way he has to press our faces into his insecurities. After all, if his marriage is so “natural”, why does he feel so compelled to broadcast its “naturalness” 24/7. There is something unnatural about that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *