DesertFox
08-03-2003, 12:08 PM
<center><font size=4>Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Is Inadvisable</font></center>
Redefining marriage to suit the convenience of gays and lesbians trivializes the one thing that most needs to be treated specially, even reverentially, in a society: the marital tie between a man and a woman that is the formal basis of civilization. "Marriage" means man-and-woman, not man-and-man or woman-and-woman or man-and-horse or woman-and-dildo, etc. If you want unions between these latter, call it something else.
Fundamental arguments support this stand. They come from nature, not from the bible.
The following generalizations apply to archetypes. Individual exceptions can be found to anything, but archetypes drive the species.
The biological mandate of every species, ahead even of self-survival, is reproduction. We are aware of this even if we wish to deny it for political reasons. Heterosexuality MUST occupy a favored position over any other "lifestyle" because as a species we are wired for it, even when marriage does not produce children. Men want women and women want children. This triadic relationship is the stable basis of a civilization. Treating a woman special for the sexual favors she controls takes a man outside of himself and channels his energies into productive paths instead of the pleasure-seeking self-satisfaction that is the norm among adolescent heterosexual males.
There's a reason that the norm in nature is heterosexual mating: production of offspring, which point to the future and take men and women outside themselves to build something for their offspring. The animating premise isn't self, but someone else who will be here after the present generation dies. This reality ensures longer-term thinking which ensures stability, where kids can safely be raised to adulthood.
By contrast, the homosexual archetype lives in the present and for self. Pleasure is the mainspring. No civilization can long survive with that animating premise. It foments disease, encourages selfish, short-term thinking and guarantees instability as everyone seeks to maximize his own pleasure at the expense of any and everyone else.
Adolescent males in general think about sex almost nonstop. With homosexuals, this fixation continues lifelong. With heterosexual males, responsibilities of wife and kids replace it. The process of replacing self-centered pleasure with willing acceptance of family responsibilities is what turns a boy into a man. The drive in this direction is his own seed extending himself into the future.
We often hear that same-sex parents are often better than both-sex parents. Why can't kids raised by just women or just men be as well-raised as kids raised by a man and a woman?
It has to do with what we can best understand of nature's plan. I think we can all agree that if we try to force something against nature, it won't work in the long haul even if we can point to exceptions. Public policy cannot be based on an exceptional case here and there, but must be based on broad applicability.
Had nature intended kids to be raised by just women or just men, she would have built that in, in a way that we couldn't mistake. She hasn't done that vis-à-vis raising kids. Even the most rabid feminists recognize that men and women aren't just different physically; they are different psychologically. Men and women complement each other in ways perfect for making them both grow up emotionally. Men seek to please women and women focus on their children. In this process, each shifts focus from adolescent self-centeredness to adult looking after the well-being of someone else. The psychology at work here provides a model for social living -- being your brother's keeper, helping those who are down on their luck (altruism), the national interest, and so on, all based on the idea that there's more to living than just satisfying individual primal urges.
There's more. Anyone with experience of working with men and women knows that women have much more difficulty working in groups than men do. The "myth" of male bonding isn't a myth but a fact. Men can and do work well in groups under leadership of someone else. They're wired that way. Women are far more individualistic. They want to be boss, at the center of the action. Which is just what a mama has to be -- the center of her own, personally-created group (the family) where she is the literal center. Her man seeks to please her and her kids look to her for direction.
Nature clearly intended that men and women work together in the most important business for the species -- raising young.
Here's the crux: Kids raised without a mother have no model to gauge proper female behavior by. Without a father, they have no model to gauge proper male behavior by. Social roles aren't learned from books, but by modeling. Monkey see, monkey do. This is true in the animal world as well. Squirrels have to learn how to be squirrels in the squirrel social matrix, just as kids have to learn how to be human beings in the human social matrix. Modeling is the way that's done. In humans, verbal instruction complements but never replaces modeling. We recognize this verity in the old proverb that actions speak louder than words.
Hence women-only or men-only families can provide all the emotional sustenance possible, but they can't provide a model of someone who isn't there. Babies know the difference between dad and mom and you can bet they know something's amiss when only females or only males are in their daily lives. Kids raised in these environments aren't socialized the way nature intended they be. They don't see how a man should treat a woman, or a woman respond; or how men and women "handle" each other when they're on the outs, or even when things are going great. How do men and women co-exist when they're so different? These are vital social skills that cannot be learned from a book, or from a man filling the role of mom or a woman filling the role of dad. These skills go beyond the family into the world outside, and the kid who lacks them is at a distinct disadvantage in knowing how to get along in the world.
For all these reasons it's important to maintain the time-honored definition of marriage. Gays and lesbians ought be denied no rights, but call it something else. Handle it some other way. It's important to civilization that we keep marriage special.
Redefining marriage to suit the convenience of gays and lesbians trivializes the one thing that most needs to be treated specially, even reverentially, in a society: the marital tie between a man and a woman that is the formal basis of civilization. "Marriage" means man-and-woman, not man-and-man or woman-and-woman or man-and-horse or woman-and-dildo, etc. If you want unions between these latter, call it something else.
Fundamental arguments support this stand. They come from nature, not from the bible.
The following generalizations apply to archetypes. Individual exceptions can be found to anything, but archetypes drive the species.
The biological mandate of every species, ahead even of self-survival, is reproduction. We are aware of this even if we wish to deny it for political reasons. Heterosexuality MUST occupy a favored position over any other "lifestyle" because as a species we are wired for it, even when marriage does not produce children. Men want women and women want children. This triadic relationship is the stable basis of a civilization. Treating a woman special for the sexual favors she controls takes a man outside of himself and channels his energies into productive paths instead of the pleasure-seeking self-satisfaction that is the norm among adolescent heterosexual males.
There's a reason that the norm in nature is heterosexual mating: production of offspring, which point to the future and take men and women outside themselves to build something for their offspring. The animating premise isn't self, but someone else who will be here after the present generation dies. This reality ensures longer-term thinking which ensures stability, where kids can safely be raised to adulthood.
By contrast, the homosexual archetype lives in the present and for self. Pleasure is the mainspring. No civilization can long survive with that animating premise. It foments disease, encourages selfish, short-term thinking and guarantees instability as everyone seeks to maximize his own pleasure at the expense of any and everyone else.
Adolescent males in general think about sex almost nonstop. With homosexuals, this fixation continues lifelong. With heterosexual males, responsibilities of wife and kids replace it. The process of replacing self-centered pleasure with willing acceptance of family responsibilities is what turns a boy into a man. The drive in this direction is his own seed extending himself into the future.
We often hear that same-sex parents are often better than both-sex parents. Why can't kids raised by just women or just men be as well-raised as kids raised by a man and a woman?
It has to do with what we can best understand of nature's plan. I think we can all agree that if we try to force something against nature, it won't work in the long haul even if we can point to exceptions. Public policy cannot be based on an exceptional case here and there, but must be based on broad applicability.
Had nature intended kids to be raised by just women or just men, she would have built that in, in a way that we couldn't mistake. She hasn't done that vis-à-vis raising kids. Even the most rabid feminists recognize that men and women aren't just different physically; they are different psychologically. Men and women complement each other in ways perfect for making them both grow up emotionally. Men seek to please women and women focus on their children. In this process, each shifts focus from adolescent self-centeredness to adult looking after the well-being of someone else. The psychology at work here provides a model for social living -- being your brother's keeper, helping those who are down on their luck (altruism), the national interest, and so on, all based on the idea that there's more to living than just satisfying individual primal urges.
There's more. Anyone with experience of working with men and women knows that women have much more difficulty working in groups than men do. The "myth" of male bonding isn't a myth but a fact. Men can and do work well in groups under leadership of someone else. They're wired that way. Women are far more individualistic. They want to be boss, at the center of the action. Which is just what a mama has to be -- the center of her own, personally-created group (the family) where she is the literal center. Her man seeks to please her and her kids look to her for direction.
Nature clearly intended that men and women work together in the most important business for the species -- raising young.
Here's the crux: Kids raised without a mother have no model to gauge proper female behavior by. Without a father, they have no model to gauge proper male behavior by. Social roles aren't learned from books, but by modeling. Monkey see, monkey do. This is true in the animal world as well. Squirrels have to learn how to be squirrels in the squirrel social matrix, just as kids have to learn how to be human beings in the human social matrix. Modeling is the way that's done. In humans, verbal instruction complements but never replaces modeling. We recognize this verity in the old proverb that actions speak louder than words.
Hence women-only or men-only families can provide all the emotional sustenance possible, but they can't provide a model of someone who isn't there. Babies know the difference between dad and mom and you can bet they know something's amiss when only females or only males are in their daily lives. Kids raised in these environments aren't socialized the way nature intended they be. They don't see how a man should treat a woman, or a woman respond; or how men and women "handle" each other when they're on the outs, or even when things are going great. How do men and women co-exist when they're so different? These are vital social skills that cannot be learned from a book, or from a man filling the role of mom or a woman filling the role of dad. These skills go beyond the family into the world outside, and the kid who lacks them is at a distinct disadvantage in knowing how to get along in the world.
For all these reasons it's important to maintain the time-honored definition of marriage. Gays and lesbians ought be denied no rights, but call it something else. Handle it some other way. It's important to civilization that we keep marriage special.