Continuing the Same-Sex Marriage Debate
I’m pleased that my recent post evoked responses from my readers and I’m wondering if, perhaps, I should offer my opinions on more controversial subjects (perhaps cat juggling). First of all, I would like to welcome both Scotto and NiceGirl to Bulldog Pundit. Hopefully, you folks will peruse past articles (including my Sunday Bulldog Cuisine series or the hilarious Mad Max Chronicles) and offer your opinions and insights.
You have my word that I and my readers will treat you with utmost respect and I promise to punt any commenter who violates this edict.
I will first address Scotto’s response:
Gene, whats abnormal to you is normal to someone else and vice versa.
It’s not a question of what is normal to me, Scotto, but what conforms to the empirical standard – in this case, evolutionary biology. Homo sapiens propagates itself via sexual reproduction between individual males and females – for that matter, almost all higher forms of life on this planet (certainly all vertebrates) reproduce accordingly. To facilitate this function, the male and female genders of our species evolved a mechanism of mutual attraction involving, among other things, hormones and pheromones. Charles Darwin elaborated upon this in The Descent of Man, his sequel to Origin of Species.
It follows that, according to the order established by Nature, human males are sexually attracted to females and females are sexually attracted to males. This is and has ever been the norm for mammals in general and the human race in particular, insofar as it has always been the absolute prerequisite for continued existence.
The objection is often made that homosexual behavior occurs even in the animal kingdom and especially among primates and that, because this is part and parcel of the ordinary behavior of these animals that it likewise ought to translate into the ordinary behavior of humans. However, it is worth noting that while such activity may be “ordinary” in terms of its regular – if infrequent – occurrence, it nevertheless is not the biological norm: such liaisons are brief; the participants are usually young males that do not remain together as a “couple,” but instead, seek out a member of the opposite gender in order to mate and bring forth offspring.
It logically follows that in humans, any form of sexual attraction other than between males and females – be it male to male, female to female, male to animal, female to prepubescent males and so on and so forth – is outside of the norm established by Nature and therefore… abnormal.
50 years ago it was socially abnormal for a black man to marry a white woman, now we know better.
Scotto, you conflate what is “socially” abnormal with what is biologically abnormal. In the biological scheme of things, it is perfectly normal for a male of the Negroid race to copulate with a female of the Caucasoid race, insofar as both are Homo sapiens and of opposite genders.
As for the social abnormality you cite: laws against miscegenation were peculiar to the U.S. and interracial marriage was never really an issue for the rest of the world. On the other hand, were a male of the Negroid race to engage in sexual activity with a male of the Caucasoid race (or any other race), there would be no question regarding the abnormality of the arrangement.
Yes….gay people cannot propagate, but we still have the rest of the human population (the very very very majority of the population) still totally able to reproduce and carry on what you concider normal.
In other words, the gay folk can have their cake and eat it too. I don’t think so. In large part, civil society sanctions the union of one man and one woman precisely because that union is procreative as well as unitive.
Gay marriage would have absolutely no effect on straight marriage or human propagation any more than an infertile straight couple or a couple who chooses to not have children would.
Bad example. That a heterosexual couple is unable to produce offspring does not negate the fact that, according to the design of Nature, they otherwise would be ordinarily “equipped” to do so. What you are citing is a physiological abnormality that does not otherwise impair the normality of the heterosexual relationship.
In the case of a same-sex relationship, there is simply no way any such couple could EVER conceive offspring without the assistance of either a sperm donor or a surrogate uterus. In either case, the fact remains that some form of union between male and female – even if it occurs in the proverbial test-tube – must take place. This fact alone is a tacit admission of the ultimate ontological and biological futility of a same-sex relationship.
Everything would be exactly the same except for the fact that gay people could now marry the one they love and enjoy any and all of the perks that straight married people do. People who oppose this are opposing for totally selfish reasons, or religious reasons…..or they are totally frightened of any type of change.
Everything would not be the same insofar as the definition of marriage would be bastardized to include whatever we choose it to include. I’ll elaborate upon this point shortly.
NiceGirl wrote the following in her comment:
I am somewhat confused.
No problem. I shall endeavor to lift the cloud of confusion that so…um…confused you. Or something.
You quote me: “…same-sex unions are abnormal and serve no purpose either in the evolutionary scheme of human existence or in the course of human society,” and then offer the following response:
After spending so much time on the fundamental importance of the family unit, I don’t understand how you don’t see that same-sex unions serve the exact same purpose as opposite sex unions. The commitment that you touted as the “raw matter of civil society” is the union of two people who pledge to spend their lives together in a loving and supportive bond. That union can form from two people of any race, religion, political party, or even sex. Those neutrons and protons can represent anyone.
In prehistorical Nature, males did the hunting and defending while females did the gathering and nurturing – an arrangement that continued after humans gathered to form a society that eventually grew into civilization. All throughout those many millennia, the pattern never changed: man and woman joined together to create children, establishing the nucleus of civil society that perfectly mirrored the biological order of males, females and offspring.
In this respect, the biological archetype conforms to the atomic analogy: protons and neutrons are NOT interchangeable precisely because they are separate and unique entities. Ditto for the presence of both a male and a female parental figure in a family unit.
Do you mean to suggest that two women can not come together as wife and wife and share in the same dream of the happy family and the white picket fence and 2.5 children (adopted most likely, which would be a great service to our society)?
Wife and wife can never hope to replace husband and wife for the simple reason that no female can ever completely take the place of a male – just as no male can ever completely take the place of a female.
Are you saying that providing two people that are willing to make the commitment to marry one another with the ability to do so would not strengthen our society?
It might in some cases. There are always exceptions and exceptional circumstances. But these are precisely what we call them – exceptions – and they hardly justify overturning an order that has its foundation in Nature itself, bringing to mind an old adage that jurists hold dear: “Hard cases make bad laws.“
To better understand this expression, consider another exception to the normalcy rule: Joe Doakes (age 48) and his daughter Jane (age 25) have been involved in an incestuous relationship for the past three years. Joe had a vasectomy and Jane a tubal ligation in order to prevent the issue of any offspring. They wish to be married and adopt children but cannot do so because incestuous marriages are not legally recognized, despite the fact that (a) John and Jane are adults, (b) the union is a heterosexual one and (c) they are willing to make the commitment to marry one another.
Shall we extend the definition of marriage to include incestuous adult unions under these conditions?
Hopefully, you answered NO. Despite the fact that the union is heterosexual, it is abnormal insofar as human nature is programmed to abhor incestuous relationships within the nuclear family – and for a very good reason, as anyone who has ever seen the motion picture Deliverance will readily understand.
The groups who are in support of same sex marriage are not rowdy teenagers looking to start trouble. They are people who see that a loving family is a loving family, and anything that can be done to foster families, of all kinds, is something that should and must be done for the betterment of society.
I understand this and appreciate the sentiment very much, NiceGirl. But it doesn’t alter the fact that same-sex unions are both abnormal and disordered. As a conservative who believes firmly in maximizing personal liberty, I have no problem with the establishment of civil unions for these folks.
On the other hand, as a conservative who believes firmly in conserving that which maximizes the orderly, peaceful and prosperous progression of civil society, I cannot condone legitimizing that which strikes at its very core.
