Answering Scotto and NiceGirl on Gay Marriage

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.

This entry was posted in Arts & Culture, Law, Politics, Science and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Answering Scotto and NiceGirl on Gay Marriage

  1. Scotto says:

    Alright so basically you are just afraid of change like i said. Your afraid that if we let gays get married, then the fathers gonna wanna marry his daughter and the farmers gonna wanna marry his horse and so on. You think there’s gonna be a couple of people who cant handle the fact that a biologically abnormal couple can get married, so you want to punish them all. I think that works when it comes to little kids at the lunch table in school, but you can’t do that to adults. I personally dont know one person who if gay marriage passes is gonna say “alright now mabey i can go marry my mom like i’ve always wanted to!!!” Do you? Probly not. I’m not saying that it can’t happen, but it would be with such infrequency that you cannot punish the rest of them just because of a few bad apples. I like to at least try and have faith in my fellow humans and think for the overwhelming majority, people would stay how they normally are and not suddenly want to start banging their cousins just cause gays can get married.

    • Scotto says:

      haha im replying to myself, cause when im thinking about it it’s weird to call one biological abnormality a bad apple and not others, but still i think a kid growing up in a family with 2 mothers or 2 fathers will grow up totally normal, years ago they wouldnt of, but the times have changed and now it is normal. But at this time, incestual relationships are not, and the fact that offspring of an incestual relationship has a good chance of coming out abnormal, it’s safe to say it’s not a good idea to allow this.

      • josephine says:

        Oh I have to disagree with this Scotto. I’m the mother of 3 grown sons. During the 1st 3 years of their life, and this is not just me saying this, although I am an authority, during these years, children develop their conscious assumptions of what “normal” is all about. You can argue that if you want, but they know, I’d venture to say the brightest ones know within 3 weeks of birth. Biological life has it’s definite order and children are definitely aware of this through their biological nature. Environment is also a big part in development as a human being. It can be confusing to the child if there is no male/female thing going on. It can cause all kinds of psychological problems and dysfunctions. When biological order is disturbed, there will be consequences. Mr. Hoyas explained it a lot better than I can.
        When my youngest son was three, he looked up at me as I tied his shoes,I will never forget it, and said: “When I grow up mama, I want to marry you.” I told him “when you grow up, we’ll find you a wife just like me, I’ll be old”. He threw his arms around me.And I cried. And he did find her. And she’s a lot like me. He knew at 3 that he loved me differently than he loved his daddy, that I gave him maternal love, while his daddy gave him paternal love. Homosexuality is abnormal in the natural biological way.
        I have 2 people very close to me that are homosexual. I love them both. I protect them when needed. I don’t think anyone is gay by personal choice.Some are born with a genetic difference. But there are those who have been through and lived in an environment that was abusive to them in some way,sometimes subtle,and it is a fact that in some there was a deviation in their psychological development. It can have various consequences. They sometimes find peace and security in an abnormal place because of dysfunction. Some are rebellious and have other motivations. Think about the natural order of the parent giving in one way, and the other one, in another way. There is a reason more that copulation that the biological order is the way it is. When it all comes around I wish you good things in life.

      • Gene Hoyas says:

        it’s weird to call one biological abnormality a bad apple and not others

        On the contrary, it makes perfect sense – depending upon the nature of the abnormality and, more importantly, the circumstances in which it exists.

        but still i think a kid growing up in a family with 2 mothers or 2 fathers will grow up totally normal, years ago they wouldnt of, but the times have changed and now it is normal.

        It is entirely possible that a child raised by a same-sex couple will grow up to be a normal and well-adjusted adult. But it’s more probable that, as an adult, the person raised by a same-sex couple will have emotional issues.

        The times have indeed changed. To be sure, what was considered rude, uncivil and deviant half a century ago is now the norm – but is that norm a good thing or a bad thing??

        the fact that offspring of an incestual relationship has a good chance of coming out abnormal, it’s safe to say it’s not a good idea to allow this.

        But in my example, the partners have voluntarily sterilized themselves, eliminating the possibility of offspring. Under those circumstances, would you not agree that we ought to permit Joe and Jane to legally wed?

        If so, then I present to you a similar situation: Tommy and Trevor are twin brothers who live together and share an incestuous homosexual relationship. If same-sex marriage is legalized, they will still be left out in the cold because the law forbids incestuous matrimony.

        Do you believe that, if same-sex marriage is legalized, we ought to lift the ban on incestuous marriage to accommodate Tommy and Trevor?

        Sauce for the goose, after all, is sauce for the gander. And the twins will feel so much better about themselves: as they embrace and suck face in public after the wedding, they can turn to a heterosexual couple taking the baby for a stroll and announce out loud “Yoohoo! Look at us…we’re just as normal as you are!”

    • Gene Hoyas says:

      Alright so basically you are just afraid of change like i said.

      Your conclusion is hasty and overly broad, Scotto. As a conservative, I don’t blindly embrace “change” when it happens. Some changes can be for the worse…just ask the folks in Egypt who thought that the sweeping change of the so-called “Arab Spring” would bring them a wonderful new democracy filled with liberty and prosperity when, in fact, all it brought them was serfdom under the thumb of the Muslim Brotherhood.

      In the present case, a tiny minority of the general population (between 5% and 10%) demands that the overwhelming majority ignore an established tenet of biological and sociological existence for the sake of the emotional gratification that would ensue. In effect, same-sex couples would rightly be able to say: “We’re just as normal as you are,” which, of course, is arrant nonsense.

      Your afraid that if we let gays get married, then the fathers gonna wanna marry his daughter and the farmers gonna wanna marry his horse and so on.

      There is no logical progression from the one to the others, making this point utterly ludicrous. The reason for bringing up the incest example was to point out that, even among heterosexuals, there are examples of abnormality that necessarily preclude marriage.

      You think there’s gonna be a couple of people who cant handle the fact that a biologically abnormal couple can get married, so you want to punish them all.

      It’s not a question of punishment, Scotto. It’s a question of empirical and sociological truth. Those who demand the legalization of same-sex marriage are, in effect, demanding that society declare as normal and ordered that which is fundamentally abnormal and intrinsically disordered. It would be like drawing a picture of a dodecahedral polygon on a chalkboard and then declaring that it is a circle.

  2. Scotto says:

    ………point brought up by my friend gary which i talked a little bit with nicole but would like to here your input. Marriage is not an illegal activity, why do you need permission from the state and a license in order to marry, why does the state get to say who you can or can’t couple up with?

    • Gene Hoyas says:

      Marriage is not an illegal activity, why do you need permission from the state and a license in order to marry, why does the state get to say who you can or can’t couple up with?

      It is true that marriage per se is not an illegal activity. However, it is an activity with serious and profound repercussions for civil society, insofar as the long-term, binding union of a man and a woman ensures the most stable environment possible for raising children who, hopefully, will become productive and law-abiding members of society.

      If you don’t believe this, then take a good look at what has happened to African-American families in the course of the past 40 years: thanks to the good intentions of liberalism and the cynical manipulations of Democrat politicians, the traditional family structure of father/provider and mother/nurturer has been mutated into Uncle Sam/provider and single mother/brood sow. Hell, some years ago, it was a fad among young black males to father as many children out of wedlock as possible (Google the phrase “jewels in the crown.”)

      Moreover, there are myriad legal, commercial and tax issues that come into play when a couple get married. This is because marriage creates a very special relationship that transcends any attained by mere cohabitation. It follows that marriage is a legal activity that is not, in and of itself, warrant for every couple who desires it: shall we give the nod if a brother and sister desire to tie the knot? How about one man and several women together – or one woman and several men separately?

      It follows that society – in the collective person of the prevailing political authority – has a powerful interest in regulating marriage. And no, provided that both parties are adults, neither the state nor the federal government can dictate “who you can or can’t couple up with.” But the government does have the authority to recognize the union as either valid and legally binding or invalid and legally meaningless.