posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 02:42 PM
Thank you for clicking on my thread. I want to begin by stating that I am against hatred against any group. I believe that gays and lesbians must be
embraced as not only a full part of the human family, but as people with the full right under the law to have sex and way that they choose, the same
as I want for myself. I am glad that the Courts have struck down laws against homosexuality world-wide. It is no business of government to tell
persons how to live in their private sphere. I am not only for separation of religion and state. I am also for the separation of religion and
Having said what I said, I believe that the issue of gay marriage must be discussed in an intelligent way. Appeals to either religion or to some
absolutist concept of "rights" are both childish. Real adults realize that there will always be homosexuality and lesbianism. Real adults also
realize that all behaviors have social consequences, mine as well as yours. In particular, "marriage" has generally been seen as involving more
than simply an exercise in civil rights. By definition, when you enter in to marriage you traditionally were seen as giving up something of your
individual self to a broader relationship that also involves genes, bloodlines, and collectives.
My concerns about gay marriage are part and parcel of my broader concerns about rapid social change and its impact on the social and biological
evolution of humanity. The divorce of sexuality from reproduction, begun in the heterosexual world, has led to a rapid severing of the father-child
bond. The father-child bond is rare and unique in evolution. All kinds of behaviors are "natural," among them infanticide. The simple fact of a
sexual behavior existing in Nature is meaningless unless we equate the "Is" with the "Ought," something that modern philosophy has been loathe to
do in most ways. The severing of the parental bond could be as natural as anything else. The question is whether or not it is desirable.
The father-child bond evolved out of the vagaries of the selfish gene. Biologist Richard Dawkins has shown us that evolution exists on the gene
level. Whether he is *FULLY* correct (he is definitely a reductionist), we cannot dismiss the fact that for fathers to feel bonded as fathers they
must have a genetic buy-in. Separating sex from reproduction severs that buy-in. All of the socialist or anarchist utopianism in the world cannot
deny the facts of evolution or they become ironically similar to the dogmatism of religious conservatives.
Can human sexuality be separated from the facts of human biology? Yes. But will this produce a society of greater human empathy or less? It is not
a simple question. Banobo's have a great deal of homosexuality in their societies, and they are near evolutionary cousins to humans. They are a
good example of how sex possibly *COULD* be separated from reproduction and create a more equal society similar to the hopes of socialists or
anarchists who have called for the abolition of the family.
But, on closer analysis, we see that Banobo's are small societies in which members are interrelated. There is a genetic buy-in of sorts. We also
see that fathers are not as involved with child-rearing as much as a vast extended matriarchy. Can this serve as a model for human society? I am
skeptical. We are too warlike, too much like the regular Chimps in my opinion.
One caveat. The destructive nature of family breakdown is straight, not gay. Scapegoating gays for something that straights have done is ridiculous.
That is not my purpose here. I am simply asking what I consider to be an adult set of questions. Americans often premise all conversations with the
rights of adults. This is a cultural idea, not something set in the "laws of Nature, and Nature's God." I tend to think that the rights of
children ought to at least be considered as relevant as the rights of adults.
In the Sixties, the idea was that by sexually freeing ourselves we would build a utopian society. Instead of utopia, the cultural liberalism of that
era blended very well with the right-wing libertarianism of the eighties. And, the divorce boom has not led to a feminist egalitarian society---quite
the contrary. Ask and single mother who is struggling and discriminated against. Inequality has increased, not decreased. Now, both forms of
freedom-worship have ended and we have a Police State. And, there is no more strong family unit that can bond people together to oppose that.
Nothing is opposing it except the blank stares of an atomized populace.
None of this is the fault of gays. Frankly, I am glad that there is still a group who believe in marriage! I also congratulate a particular gay
military man Bradley Manning for at least doing something (whether I fully agree with it or not) instead of merely accepting Fascism. Do not get me
wrong. Hatred of gays is a way that religions control their people, and I have none of it. What I can say, however, is that once gay marriage is
accepted we cannot go back to the idea that marriage is primarily about bonding family structures and holding males accountable. We have embraced an
atomistic individualism and the embrace becomes irreversible. At that point, we have accepted that what was once our evolutionary heritage is simply
one lifestyle among many.
OK, those were not questions but statements. Here are the questions:
1) Can supporters of gay marriage say that the altering of traditional norms will not have social consequences that could be negative? Are all social
consequences of greater tolerance positive? Even the American and French Revolutions had mixed consequences. The American Revolution gave greater
freedom for whites but less freedom for Indians. The French Revolution ended Monarchy but extended other forms of tyrannical control. Nothing is
ever pure good.
2) I have no question but that there are loving gay and lesbian homes. Please do not misunderstand me. Loving gay parents may even be the salvation
of someone's life. However, is not the purpose of the genetic buy-in to act as a check and balance on *UN-LOVING* people? In other words, is not
the purpose of male domestication to tame the brute? Compare our families to Chimps, who do not have pair bonding and you will see. Again, this is a
discussion of straight males who would probably have a higher level of aggression than gay males or lesbians, but precedents have a way of extending
3) Why are civil unions (which I fully support) not enough? Why the romanticism around marriage? It is hard work. The union of marriage involves
struggle and sacrifice. If there is no genetic buy-in, the does not marriage become another form of tax shelter?
4) Is it not natural for children to want a mother and father? Is this not genetic?
OK, enough. I ask that anti-gay religious people please avoid spamming my thread with nonsense. This is for intelligent, adult conversation. I wish
my gay and lesbian readers the best, and thank you for reading.