Biology Speaks Louder Than Words

Many same-sex couples want the right to legally marry because they are in love — many, in fact, have spent the last 10, 20 or 50 years with that person — and they want to honor their relationship in the greatest way our society has to offer, by making a public commitment to stand together in good times and bad, through all the joys and challenges family life brings. -Human Rights Campaign

I have to say that the issue of same sex couples being able to wed has become quite a volatile issue in the public square.  I would like to think that the extreme polarization of this issue suggests that it goes to the heart of this society.   Marriage as an institution is one of the fundamental building blocks of any society, but the question hinges on what makes up a marriage.

From what I see, same sex couples what to say that marriage ought to include individuals of the same sex.  On the other side, many find that the institution of marriage would be better served if we maintain that only a unity of couples of opposite sex within marriage.  I would think it would be easy enough to begin labeling opposing sides, but that is nothing more than an attack on the person which does not answer the fundamental question: “What is marriage?”

We can agree that marriage is a union of two couples, but who decides who these couples are?  I remember reading the following from San Francisco Chronicle:

For Natalie Garcia, a 13-year-old student at King Middle School in Berkeley, Thursday’s showdown was her first demonstration. She held a “No on 8″ sign, as did many of the more than three dozen classmates who rode in on BART for the parent-sanctioned field trip.

“I think it’s wrong that people are for the ban,” she said. “Marriage is about love, and love is love.” -SF Chronicle

I think that this is the sentiment of a lot of people and I would have to say that they are not wrong.  Marriage does consist of love, but I am left wondering though: “Is that it?”  If love is the only sufficient requirement for marriage does not that lead to marriage being defined in any way?  Let me give you an example, if I were to say that a couple who are decidedly committed, monogamous, loving, and consenting, should they be able to marry?  What if I were to include in all this the couple is a son and his mother?  Or a sister and her brother? What would you say?

What about a young boy loving and marrying an older man?  Don’t think it is possible?  Here is an excerpt from NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association):

As never before, our society is beginning to recognize the value and richness of human diversity.  The manifold nature of our humanity appears in the emotional, spiritual, and physical attractions between people.  Attractions between men and boys can be found in every society, crossing lines of race, age, temperament and occupation.  They form a sure basis for mentoring and friendship traditions the world over.  Man/boy love is exceptional only for the degree to which it is still misunderstood in cultures derived from Northwestern Europe.  Most man/boy relationships are based on mutual respect and affection, and strongly desired by both partners. Such relationships do not harm anyone, and often entail many benefits for both man and boy.  Boy-lovers and boys alike respond to the needs of those they love — needs for affection, understanding, and freedom.

Who we are is perhaps best understood from Dr. John Money’s account of two boys, who speak about how they view their adult lovers: Andy – “Just as normal as anybody else.  He is like a second father to me.”  Burt – “He’s neat; and he’s nice, and gives me more respect than anyone ever has …  he treats me like an adult, not like my parents treat me.  To me, he’s my best friend.” – NAMBLA

It would seem to me that if we reject the son/mother, sister/brother, child/adult relationship and deny them marriage, then we would have to say that love, commitment, consent, and monogamy (although that is being questioned) is not a sufficient definition of marriage.

I would like to suggest that marriage also consists of what I would call biological complementarity.  Simply put, at the physical level, nature has made humans in such a way that a male and female are best suitable when they are together.  The human anatomy tells us that only the unity of both a man and woman are best or they complement of each other.  This also being reinforced by the ability of man/woman relationship being capable of producing offspring.

Evolution No Friend?

I find it curious that evolutionary theory which posits the survival of the fittest would be largely incompatible with this homosexual social issue because the theory would seem to suggest that the propagation of this behavior does not serve a favorable biological end, namely, the furtherance of the species.  It could be argued that medical technology has largely made this argument superfluous, but I think that it would only serve to show the unnaturalness of it all.  If a same sex couple must resort to medical technology in order to provide them progeny then even nature seems to testify that the union is not natural.

One could then ask: “What about those couples who cannot reproduce due to the other spouse having some reproductive problems?”   I think it would need to be pointed out that fundamentally for the woman and man, their situation is not due to the unification of two people of same sex who cannot ever reproduce, but rather two biological complimentary individuals who are unable due to a sexual dysfunction.  Once again, one is due to a sexual dysfunction while the other has to do with the sexual incompatibility.  One is a dysfunction within the nature  of things, but the other is a violation in the nature of things.

If The Animals Do It, Why Not Us?

I thought that this argument to be misleading.  If it could be established that an animal carries out a certain behavior, then it must follow that the behavior is natural. Laying aside the issue of human dignity and the degradation of it, could we accept such an argument?  In the TIMES Magazine I found an interesting article entitled “Animals That Kill Their Young“.

For India’s langur monkeys, infanticide works. In his classic work On Aggression, Nobel Laureate Konrad Lorenz argued that man is the only species that regularly kills its own kind. This concept, which contrasted the order and restraint in the animal world with the chaotic aggressiveness of man. reflected the mood of the time: the shadow-of-the-Bomb pessimism of the ’50s and early ’60s. But Lorenz was wrong; since 1963, when his book was published, naturalists have identified dozens of species that kill their own, including lions, hippos, bears, wolves, hyenas, herring gulls and more than 15 types of primates other than man.

I think if I were to take this argument used by some same-sex advocates, it would seem to me that the article would make it possible to argue  that the killing of infants is done by other animals, so it must be right if done by humans.   We would have to chastise the three member board that decided it best for Marybeth Tinning to stay behind bars for smothering and killing her 4 month old daughter and maybe her other 7 children.  The fallacy is namely in equating animal behavior with human behavior, as if to say that human behavior is synonymous with animal behavior.  We don’t try dogs in animal court if one dog ends up fighting another, nor do we demand welfare checks from a male cat for having left a female cat with a sizable litter.  We recognize the differences even if we are unwilling to acknowledge them.  This argument goes without saying that some individuals will go to extraordinary lengths to prove a bad point.

For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn’t natural. They make a leap from saying if it’s natural, it’s morally and ethically desirable. Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn’t be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don’t take care of the elderly. I don’t particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes. – Dr. Paul L. Vasey, of the University of Lethbridge in Canada

So in conclusion, marriage is not only a social recognition of a loving and committed relationship, but an acknowledgement by society that nature has exhibited that the union of a man and woman best serve society.  I know that much more can be said, but I will have to leave that for another post.