Desperately Seeking Approbation

The REAL reason behind the push for same-sex marriage

The lovely and ever-gracious Nicole e-mailed me yesterday evening in search of a serviceable response to the argument that, by opposing same-sex marriage, one posits an argument that is both invalid and unconstitutional.

The essence of the argument presented to her was this:

The person who created this image is engaging in not one but two rhetorical fallacies: he is employing a straw man while begging the question. In effect, he claims that marriage is defined as only as a sacred and therefore “religious” institution involving the union of one man and one woman and by that definition it is therefore an invalid arrangement under the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. By assuming that marriage is a purely religious compact, he conveniently ignores that it is also a social compact completely apart from religion.

“Marriage” as understood and defined in the secular sense (before the so-called gay rights movement) is the state-sanctioned and recognized union of one man and one woman that has its foundation not in the musty halls of churches and temples but much further back in time – all the way back to the point where Homo sapiens (not to be confused with Homo Sexual) evolved to the point where civilization as we know it marks its beginning in the Neolithic Era.

No surprise there: the human species evolved to propagate – and therefore continue its existence – through the sexual union of a male and a female. In the normal scheme of human biology, males and females are sexually attracted to each other at the onset of puberty and that attraction continues until death. This is the norm for the continuation of the species and any deviation from that norm may be properly described as abnormal, in that it does not contribute in any material or even meaningful fashion to the either the propagation of the human race or the orderly function of social intercourse.

As civilization evolved and human society expanded into villages and cities, the household remained the atomic constant: father as proton, mother as neutron and children as electrons, every individual nuclear family functioned as an atom in the raw matter of civil society.

In the course of several millennia, civil society came to recognize the monogamous union of a man and a woman as the foundation of civil society and sanctioned its existence accordingly. In so doing, it merely gave approbation to the biological norm – even if such approbation turned a cold shoulder to the abnormal. After all…in those days, human existence was guided largely by common sense. And so it came to pass that marriage – as defined and recognized by the governmental incarnation of civil society – became the institution we understand it to be today.

But what of polygamy?

What of it? In the final analysis we are still left with one man…and two or more women. The form of the equation (one man, multiple woman) doesn’t really affect the substance (the union of male and female). Nevertheless, it didn’t take long for civil society throughout the world to figure out PDQ that while polygamy undoubtedly serves the vainglorious impulses of megalomaniacal males, it isn’t the norm: you will find very few societies throughout human civilization that condone polygamy; those that do so are often the most primitive.

All of which brings us back to the issue of same-sex marriage. In light of the forgoing, I’m not sure how such a thing can be made possible without denying the fundamental truth of human existence: by legally recognizing the union of a man and a woman, the State imparts upon them certain rights and privileges apart from those enjoyed by the unmarried. In so doing, the State reaffirms the norm of human existence: our race moves forward through time by propagating itself according to the plan established by its own evolution; any deviation from that plan is a fruitless exercise in attempting to naturalize and normalize that which is anything but natural or normal.

It therefore comes as no surprise that gay rights advocates continue to agitate for full recognition of marital status by the State, despite the fact that civil unions – in which all of the benefits of a State-sanctioned marriage are enjoyed – have been established for same-sex couples in many states.

As I see it, this effort has less to do with accruing any remaining benefits of legal matrimony and more to do with approbation. Deep down inside and in spite of their fevered protestations otherwise, same-sex couples know that their union is NOT a normal one as ordained by human evolution  and understood by human society for millennia. They desperately want the assurance of normal society that they are “just like everyone else.”

Trouble is…same-sex couples aren’t “just like everyone else” because they aren’t normal – neither is any form of sexual union between them – and no amount of legislative legerdemain can make it so any more than an act of Congress can make the New England Patriots winners of the 2012 Superbowl. Any governmental authority that legalizes same-sex marriage does not elevate it to the level of traditional heterosexual matrimony; rather, deviancy is defined downward as the latter is essentially vitiated and ultimately abrogated, reducing it to the level of just one of several, equally valid, lifestyle choices.

That bears repeating: same-sex unions are abnormal and serve no purpose either in the evolutionary scheme of human existence or in the course of human society. I oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage not for religious reasons, but because it is an attempt to declare as normal that which is ontologically, biologically and socially…abnormal.

As for the religious dimension of marriage…

This entry was posted in Arts & Culture, History, Politics, Social Issues and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Desperately Seeking Approbation

  1. Dana Pearson says:

    I do not think that the State should enforce homosexual marriage contracts. The main reason being that it seems clear to me that the Bible condemns “Corinthianizing”.

    BTW, polygamy is terrible but far more biblical than homosexual marriage.

    The Congress should not “establish” a religion. Government should not subsidize religious organizations. Nor require membership in any. Nor give advantages to those who are in a particular religious organization. That is, not make Islam the state religion (as in Afghanistan, Iran or Iraq), not make Anglicanism the state religion (United Kingdom), nor Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism together (Germany), nor Eastern Orthodoxy (Greece and Russia), nor Lutheranism (Sweden), nor Roman Catholicism (at least a dozen countries).

    I believe strongly in seperation of church and state. No state should make a law “establishing” a religion. However, that does not mean that laws can’t be made with Biblical principles underlying them. We have laws that enforce parental rights (honor your father and mother), prohibit murder (thou shalt not kill), prohibit theft (thou shalt not steal), prohibit perjury (thou shalt not bear false witness), consider adultery as an element of divorce proceedings (thou shalt not commit adultery). All biblical principles. All good laws. None establishing a religion.

    In my view, without some sort of divine revelation, it is impossible to know for sure right from wrong. The Bible is that revelation and there is no reason not to be proud (Word Pride) of basing laws on biblical principles.

  2. Scotto says:

    ……..Dana Pearson, I am an athiest. I absolutely do NOT need some sort of divine revelation in order to know right from wrong. You must think very lowly of your fellow humans in order to think something like that. I have my own values and think things through with my own brain in order to tell right from wrong, and everything you listed (parental rights, prohibit murder, etc.) i agree with 100% without any type of god or religion.

    Gene, whats abnormal to you is normal to someone else and vice versa. 50 years ago it was socially abnormal for a black man to marry a white woman, now we know better. 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. 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. 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.

    • I am Sparticus says:

      Scotto: Without listing any examples, religious tenets, or anything else….The Bulldog hit the nail on the head. The reason for the push to “legalize” same sex marriage is, always has been, and always will be – to make it “normal.”
      Two words: It’s not.
      It can’t be normal. You must see that. No one is throwing anyone under the bus here, just pointing out the obvious. If you just read the above article, & can still somehow conjure an argument or rationale convincing you that same sex marriage is “normal” there’s no amount of persuasion to change your mind.

      I do wish you well with your life, as I hope all of us can co-exist on this great round rock of ours.

      …and BTW: “.”

      I personally give very little confidence in man’s ability to live an altruistic life without several forms of support. That is empirical fact, not subject to rationale or interpretation. Read any history book. To give equal footing to man with your stated benevolence is somewhat naive in my opinion.
      I thank my God every day for his support of me, my family, my friends & community. I will pray for you as an athiest, & ask that you some day find that particular support. Peace brother….

      • Scotto says:

        I am sparticus……I guess being an athiest i have to get used to comments like this, but must say its quite insulting. I am on every level as caring for people animals the earth and everything on in and around it as any man of religion is, and anyone who knows me personally would tell you this. Why you would judge me like that just because i choose not to blindly follow what i’m told by other humans is beyond me, but whatever what can i do. You can pray for me if ya want……but i wouldnt waste my time.

        • I am Sparticus says:

          Scotto, it was certainly not my intent to insult you in any way. I’ve re-read my post, & don’t see one insulting thing. If I’ve mispoken to the point where you’ve misunderstood my meaning, for that I’ll apologise & try better next time.

          Reading your last post, was your response caused by thinking I was singling you out in my “giving very little confidence” thought? It was an overreaching use of the phrase perhaps, but I certainly wasn’t talking about you specifically. That’s why it’s called “Language Arts” and not “Language Science.” It was meant to make a point in a more Biblical sense.

          We’re gonna just have to agree to disagree on the religious talk, as I’m as deeply committed to a higher power as you’re convinced of the absence of same. I’m gonna still pray for you…

          • Scotto says:

            i was insulted by this “I personally give very little confidence in man’s ability to live an altruistic life without several forms of support. That is empirical fact, not subject to rationale or interpretation.”

            I obviously know you wern’t singling me out, but how can you not understand how that is insulting to all athiests? You think because your a religious man, you possess some kind of knowledge that i don’t, that i can’t possibly be as ultruistic as you because i don’t have support from a god telling me right from wrong. I don’t care what history books you’ve read….your wrong, flat out. I don’t need any history book im living it. You have to open your mind instead of judging an entire group of people most of whom you’ve never met before saying something like that.

    • Dana Pearson says:


      “What’s abnormal to you is normal to someone else.”


      And whose standard should we go by? Yours? Mine? How about God’s? If not God’s let’s at least go by majority vote — of course I suggest each voter allow God to be his or her guide.

      Also, without God you can’t as much as take a single breath — let alone know right from wrong.

      • I am Sparticus says:

        Scotto: therein lies the misunderstanding: I wasn’t talking about all athiests, I was talking about all people. Myself included.

        • Scotto says:

          My god man! It doesnt matter who you were talking about, it is still insulting to all humans that you believe we cannot live an altruistic life without support! Thats terribly insulting, how do you not get that???

          • Scotto says:

            …..dana and i am sparticus, are the 2 of you actually saying that without a god you two would be out in the streets murdering raping bullying steeling not giving a damn about your fellow humans, because there was never a god to tell you whats right and whats wrong? this is very disturbing to me and like i said absolutlely insulting to all if you believe without a god this is how people would be.

          • Gene Hoyas says:

            Lighten up and grow a thicker skin, Scotto. You’re starting to whine and whining inevitably gets on my nerves.

          • Scotto says:

            haha sorry gene…..nothing gets on my nerves more than those kind of insults, but i shall bite my tongue from now on!

          • Dana Pearson says:


            Without God it would be impossible to have the measuring stick to tell right from wrong. Somethings you and I might agree on, e.g. cannibalism is wrong, torturing babies for fun is wrong.

            However, there are other things that you and I might disagree on. For example, is infanticide wrong? The ancients did not think so. The Greeks and Romans had no problem with exposing unwanted infants to the elements. Is slavery wrong? Aristotle did not think so. How about beastiality or polygamy?

            I believe that while you and I may have different opinions about art or favorite colors or favorite birds and so on — there are some areas of ethics that are not mere matters of opinion. And that while you and I may disagree about such areas — in the end there is a correct answer in the mind of God — and therefore when we disagree with each other on a matter of ethics, at least one of us must be wrong. It is a matter of simple logic.

            God provides the ultimate yardstick. There is no justice, mercy, life or love without God. In fact God IS love, justice, mercy, the way, the truth and the life.

            However, I would give you this.

            If there is no God. Then there is no argument against homosexual marriage. In fact there is no argument against murder. With no God, and no spirit, I am just a lump of material — no different than a hunk of dirt in my back yard. I do not see how (in the absence of God) one could argue against how murder is any different from kicking a mound of dirt in one’s back yard.

          • I am Sparticus says:

            Wow. You must have been exposed at some point to the story of Adam & Eve, et al., origonal sin, failing in the face of God…. That’s my point of perspective…. and that’s my point. Nothing more or less.

            I’m tempted to continue this, and my apologies to Gene for attempting to deflect the initial conflict, but alas I’ve failed again. Thank you Dana for trying to clarify what I might have been trying to express.

            Scotto; you sound like you have this life thingy all figured out. Good luck with that. Continue to post, as I always welcome further elucidation.


          • I am Sparticus says:

            I don’t get it, because it’s not possible.

            It’s not insulting, it’s fact.

            You really think you can pull that off, for a life time, with out some type of support? I’m not talking about religion now, I’m talking about you. Seriously… Wow… see below…

      • Kenny Lee says:

        Dana and Scotto – Wrong. What’s normal is normal. What’s right is right. What’s wrong is wrong. What’s abnormal is abnormal. Do NOT mistake preference for normality. That would not be correct.

        A male and a female is NORMAL. Forget about political correctness. Let’s be honest and open. Any other combination is Abnormal.

        The Standard that we should go by, is the standard of the masses – the majority – NOT the minority. The tail does NOT wag the dog.

  3. NiceGirl says:


    I am somewhat confused.

    “..same-sex unions are abnormal and serve no purpose either in the evolutionary scheme of human existence or in the course of human society.”

    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. 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)? 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? 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 am Sparticus says:

      The entire article was spend clearly outlining what is “normal” & “abnormal.” Nowhere does it say that you can’t do the things you say you can do above. What he says is that it’s “abnormal.”
      How can that be confusing? The point is as clear and sharp as a razor’s edge, and you’re ignoring it in pursuit of justifying your claim to the word “marriage.”

      Now I’m confused…

    • Kenny Lee says:

      Let’s be clear – the Gay Community and their supporters want to be “EQUAL”. In such a way that when they say that they are married, it can be confusing as to – with whom? They want to teach Gayness in the schools. There is a whole agenda out there to indoctrinate our children that gayness is normal and good.

      Gayness is not normal. Homosexuality should not be taught in schools as being the same thing as heterosexuality – because it’s not. And what we don’t see – is the political agenda that’s being pursued by the Gay Activists. It’s an attack on all of our freedoms and liberty when they can force people like me, to teach my children against my will – that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality when I do not believe in that.

      When they can tell a parent, that a turkey and cheese sandwich is not nutritional enough for a 4 year old child and force them to eat a chicken nugget meal instead – and force the parent to pay for that meal – then we have some serious liberty issues. And that’s what’s happening here.

      Who knows the story of Robes Pierre?