Follow by Email

Friday, May 16, 2008

California and Gay Marriage

I must have fled the great state of California just in the nick of time. How many times do the voters of California have to make it clear that they don't consider two same-gendered people doing unnatural things to each other a marriage?

This was already decided as early as 1975 and as recently as 2000. A marriage is a governmental recognition of the fundamental, natural basis for the propagation of the species-- a family. Gay relationships exist in direct contradiction of the natural order. Californians en masse recognize this fact, and have always expressed such in the voting booth. Now, four "sophisticated" individuals have turned the law, both man's and nature's, on its head. It's important, by the way, to know the etymology of the word sophisticated. It's root is the word sophistry, which means to alter the true meaning of something by means of over-complicating the issue. So, yes, the voters of California have an unsophisticated mentality when it comes to gay marriage, and that's a good thing. They have the common sense to see that just because you can shove a square peg into a round hole doesn't mean that's where it's supposed to go.

I joke around with people in Indiana that I come from the land of fruits and nuts, and also there's some agriculture. California has always fought the first salvo in every cultural battle, and this is no exception. As California goes, sooner of later the whole country will follow.

Having ranted enough to calm myself down, now let me address the issue logically on two levels: legally and biologically. The judges in question argued that the "equal protection under the law" clause mandates gay marriage. The reality is that no disparity ever existed. Gays and lesbians have always had the right to get married, so long as they chose to do so with someone of the opposite biological gender. That is the same exact right granted to straight people. Whether or not they choose to exercise this right, or to follow their own path, is their choice. Two straight men may not marry, even though it may make fiscal sense for them to do so (as in the recent film I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry). There is equality under the law already. In fact, the phrase "equal protection under the law," taken literally, means that the laws on the books are interpreted the same way no matter to whom they are applied. The recent California Supreme Court decision actually contradicts this notion.

Biologically speaking, all sexually-reproducing creatures are geared for sex between males and females. This isn't just an argument about human behaviors and preferences. It is a matter of whether our culture honors the designs of nature enough to live by them. By officially recognizing the sexual union of two same-gendered individuals, we have parted with the natural order. We recognize marriage because it is an eternal, human truth; men and women must unite to keep the species alive. For our government and culture to continue to exist over time, such must occur. Thus, we honor and protect the union which nature has designed, in her wisdom, for that purpose. It behooves us to do so. The benefit of official recognizance is, in fact, a lure to couples to add the stability of legal responsibility to the family unit. It benefits society at large to have children raised in stable, long-term families. It is simply a good societal investment to encourage them. Moreover, the marriage between individuals of opposite genders has been a given throughout recorded history. Government did not create marriage, nor can it alter it. Marriage between a man and a woman has been the basis of our society since it began.

There is no decent, rational argument in favor of gay marriage that will stand up to the light of reason. The best its proponents can come up with is: "Well... Why not?"

That's scant cause to overturn the basis of our entire civilization.


  1. It is also scant reason to overturn the wish of the majority. My fear is this - if our wishes keep getting "overturned" then soon many may get the attitude of "why vote - it really doesn't matter, they are just going to do whatever they want" Gavin Newsom loves attention, he will do whatever it takes to put San Francisco in the headlines. What he doesn't realize is that he is putting the entire population in danger. Soon no one will want to live there - it will only be a tourist stop so people can say they lived dangerously and visited there. It is a beautiful city and there are wonderful people there. Everyone has the freedom to choose their lifestyle but they do not or should not have the freedom to overcome the votes of the majority.

  2. I don't totally agree with you, but I like your straightforward approach to addressing issues.

    I didn't come here to argue, I just stumbled upon your blog and started browsing your posts and am impressed.

    "The reality is that no disparity ever existed. Gays and lesbians have always had the right to get married, so long as they chose to do so with someone of the opposite biological gender."

    This was from your post and was the first time I had ever heard that argument. Kudos, I might use that in discussions from now on.

  3. Actually, your arguments are invalid.

    In contradiction of the natural order? If all of the non human species who are found to engage in homosexual sex and pairings are somehow unrelated to the natural order, then what, pray tell, IS the natural order?

    Your argument about there being no disparity is a non argument. The fact is that straight couples have always had the chance to form a monogamous relationship between two adults not related by blood, and have it recognized by the state, with all the rights and responsibilities. Straight people are able to do this with the one person they love. How would you feel if you were forced into a marriage with someone who utterly repulsed you? Could you imagine being married to a man? Why the need to force others to do the same--especially in the face of the mountain of evidence of harm done by ex-gay therapies? (Saying that gays and lesbians could marry someone of the opposite sex does amount to gay conversion.) Even if they did marry someone of the opposite sex, what on earth would make you think it would be a real marriage? Would you want your daughter married to a fruity fag, or your son married to a stone butch bulldyke? There are those in other countries who enter into "paper marriages"--usually a gay man and lesbian woman--just to please their family, and then go on to live their lives as best they can as gay people. Tell me, how does that strengthen the institution of marriage?

    Conversion therapy has been proven by all reputable scientists as detrimental to mental health. Attitudes like that are part of the reason there is such a high suicide rate amongst the LGBT population--especially young people, preteens even! The horror of having to live a lie slowly kills you. Or do you subscribe to the opinion that all gay people are better off dead?

    1. Aversion therapy is not the same as treatment for trauma and environmental harm causing deviant sexual behavior. A friend of mine was homosexual until he underwent treatment for another issue. He discovered that having known about his sister being molested altered his perception of male/female sexuality and caused him to see it as filthy. Soon thereafter, having worked through that trauma, he became a happily heterosexual husband and father. Another friend became a lesbian activist because of a traumatic experience instigated by her ex-husband. He had pressured her for years to engage in a menage-a-trois with another woman, and finally she relented. She was humiliated by the experience and felt betrayed by her husband, and by extension men in general. She soon became a lesbian, then an activist. For a while, she married a wonderful man she loved immensely, but she was pressured by her children to leave him and become a lesbian again. Apparently, she felt that as a lesbian she had no right to interfere in their social and sexual decisions, so they got away with anything they wanted. (Although her son ended up institutionalized; we used to hang out when he was out of the hospital.) She eventually left her husband, although she still regarded him as someone she deeply loved. She obtained a lesbian partner who was physically abusive (yes, this happens in lesbian couples too). Both examples reveal the influence on personal trauma on the psyche and behavior patterns that emerge. Some trauma is more subtle--a "manly-looking" woman may feel she is unattractive to men and thus decide to live a lesbian lifestyle. A woman with a verbally-abusive or absent father may decide to seek refuge away from men. A boy with the same issues, or who is overly-attached to his mother, may decide to follow a more effeminate road. These days, many youth who are ignored at school or at home decide to adopt a homosexual persona (even if they do not act on it) to gain social approval--being gay is practically a fad these days.

      The point is that your argument is quite facile. Take animals--Jane Goodall (and anyone who has raised dogs) can tell you that the homosexuality you describe is actually mounting behavior, in which an animal (usually male) displays dominance by "humping" another. You need to do more uncomfortable research--research that doesn't conform to your ideas but challenges them. As a liberal arts major, I had to read and hear your side of the argument ad nauseum. I researched the other side for balance, and found it more logical and convincing. Yes, it seems "cold," but that's how true science works.

  4. The production of children is a clear part of hetero marriage, but it doesn't define it. If it did, then why on earth do we allow things like birth control pills, much less marriage of infertile and/or elderly couples? In older times, gay people often had hetero relations purely for the sake of children, and then went on their merry gay way. In modern times, we have IVF and surrogacy, but even barring that there has always been adoption. Gay people are like nature's adoptive parents--often no children of their own, so they are free to provide refuge and valuable resources to children who have been abandoned or whose parents died. Or do you think it better for orphans to be brought up in orphanages, without the benefit of any parent at all?

    Studies have shown that lesbian parents' children perform as well or better than children of straight parents. Not to mention that there is ZERO child abuse in lesbian households. ZERO.

    Marriage has not always been defined. Look to the Bible for just how many definitions it has had. One man, many wives; man and man's deceased brother's widow; female slave assigned to male slave; rapist and victim; and so on. Even in the recent past, marriage was more about creating family alliances than anything like love. Like it or not, the concept of marriage has ALWAYS been redefined. Like everything in human society, it is not static.

    If you think children and society in general benefits from the stability of legal responsibility, why would you do anything to discourage it? Are the children of gay families somehow less deserving of stability?

    None of my arguments will make any sense to you unless you see gay people as human. If you--as I suspect--see them as sub-human, please don't hide behind the mask of rationality. Every respectable scientific and medical association has already proven you wrong on all counts. (Here I mean respectable in the sense of peer-reviewed science, where they do not start from their bias and work to prove it, as is the case with some religioun-affilited scientific groups.) If it is, on the other hand, your religion which compels you to denounce your fellow people, let me remind you of the freedom of religion that is said to exist in the US, and the separation of church and state. The state's business is equality--if your religion is against it, at least have the balls to own up to it.

    1. Actually, I have another, far more recent post that goes into peer-reviewed science. In brief, you are wrong. Geneticists and lab-based scientists agree that homosexuality is not genetically caused. They look to environmental causes such as nutrition, teratogens (including the influence of a mother's psychological experiences while pregnant and her hormonal output), and early childhood experiences. For example, the incidence of homosexuality among children raised by homosexuals is significantly higher than in normal couples. Studies of identical twins raised apart (a hard group to find and study, but extremely telling with regard to nature/nurture issues) shows absolutely no genetic predisposition, since having a gay twin was not predictive of homosexuality in the other. One common thread among all of these studies is that there are two major contributors: environment and trauma. Many geneticists refer to homosexuality as a disorder since it reduces the likelihood of an organism transmitting its genes to another generation, which is the basis of what is normally meant by genetic fitness biologically speaking.

      I am, of course, looking at this logically. My religiosity allows me to do this on this issue because my knee-jerk reaction isn't to dismiss all evidence against the normalcy of homosexual relations. There are two camps with regard to this issue on college campuses. The liberal arts people (and "soft" (non-laboratory) sciences) see the issue through a politically-correct lens. They cite very subjective, essentially non-verifiable evidence. "A study of 10,000 gay respondents revealed that..." The hard (laboratory) sciences reject such methodology as inherently flawed and instead look to evidence that is not subject to opinion or emotionalism. I side with them. What people feeeeeeeeeel is less important than the real, verifiable cause of those feelings. Wanting to know why people behave the way they do doesn't make them seem any less human to me. I'm against marijuana legalization, too. I don't see drug users as inhuman--I just pity the impact their drug use is having on their lives. I've known people who have died from AIDS. I have known people whose lives have ended or been destroyed by drug use. I am against both phenomena for precisely the same reason: I don't want to see people ruin their lives and limit their potential. That is from love, not hatred or condemnation.

      You can disapprove of a behavior without hating those who engage in it. If your brain can't wrap itself around hat concept or believe in its sincerity, I feel sorry for you.


What do you think? Please share your opinion...