Saturday, October 3, 2015

"Gay Marriage" — A Perversion AND an Oxymoron.

It's trite to point this out, but maybe some people still haven't realized that the very concept of "gay marriage" would have bewildered everybody just a few years ago. It would have been literally unthinkable, except as some kind of sick joke. Now, you might get a situation like in the Isaac Bashevis Singer stories, but those were about deception, and the "gay marriage," in them was farcical.

Indeed, if I were in a position to refuse a marriage license to homosexual 'couples,'  it wouldn't be because of my belief in the Bible (I'm not religious), but because of my belief in the dictionary, as in the quibcag. There have been all kinds of marriage in human history. Polyandry, polygyny, etc. Remember The Moon is a Harsh Mistress?  Heinlein describes his Lunar society as quite anarchistic, allowing just about every kind of marriage you can think of. Except gay marriage, of course, which isn't marriage, because it does not allow for reproduction in any way whatsoever. And marriage's purpose is reproduction, that is, birth and child raising. So homosexual couples getting married makes precisely as much sense as marriage between a human being and an animal. Or a piece of furniture. And don't think for one minute that activists won't be demanding one or both of those in short order.

Over at The Right Stuff [link], Linebacker II demonstrates that "gay marriage" is irrational in both religious and nonreligious systems:

The Rationale for Gay Marriage: Defective from Any Perspective



God either exists or He doesn’t (actually He does, but that’s a discussion for another time). In either scenario, the rationale for “gay” “marriage” is untenable.

For all you good atheists who believe a warm pool somewhere indirectly gave birth to the profusion of life forms, I’m sure the concepts of survival of the fittest and natural selection are intuitive and sacrosanct. Fine. In that case, you believe humans evolved physical and mental characteristics that gradually increased our versatility and capacity for individual and collaborative achievements. If so, you also believe (or should believe, if you’re logically consistent) that social patterns that have been almost completely universal among diverse societies, across distance and time, became pervasive for a reason: they enhanced the survivability of those who manifested them. Perhaps the most consistent of these social patterns is marriage–heterosexual marriage to be exact (and redundant).
You would also be justified in inferring that there has been a symbiotic relationship between these social patterns and the process of developing young minds, for as long as these patterns have been dominant. In other words, over the ages that people have grown up in families that used this framework, our mental maturation process–the steps by which we have used stable norms to calibrate our ability to think, socialize, and organize—has almost certainly been optimized for that framework. In turn, minds nurtured by the framework continuously refined and propagated it. For this reason, departure from such a fundamental social norm, particularly where the raising of children is concerned, can be seen as a truly reckless experiment, a wilful attack on the foundations of our personalities and very identities.
This critique isn’t new or original, just deliberately marginalized by those who fear its implications. As the historian Will Durant wrote over seventy years ago, “The institutions, conventions, customs and laws that make up the complex structure of a society are the work of a hundred centuries and a billion minds; and one mind must not expect to comprehend them in one lifetime, much less in twenty years.”
Let’s say instead that you have a religious mind-set, insofar as you believe in a deity or deities. In that case, you either believe that your god (or gods, or transcendent principle) has revealed truth about how to live, or you don’t.
If you don’t believe in revealed truth, you’re left to your own powers of reason, so embracing the analysis I’ve outlined above would be the responsible thing to do. On the other hand, if you do believe in revealed religious truth, you need to look at your religion, or at all religions that seem to have a prayer of being true, to see if they offer reasonably clear guidance on this issue. They do.
The classical/orthodox forms of the “Abrahamic” religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) condemn homosexuality and make absolutely no provision for homosexual marriage. The same is true of Zoroastrianism. The positions of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Sikhism–on sexuality and everything else—are less consistent, but in practice the societies where these religions have flourished have maintained heterosexual marriage as an incredibly consistent norm.
Where does this leave us, and in what context do we see advocates for homosexual marriage? In this bad place: a decadent society incapable of critical thought as it fetishizes diversity in all realms as a self-evidently supreme value. In short, in a society that is estranged from its own origins and rationality.
-------
Quibcag: Because actual anime pictures of 'gay marriage' are either nonexistent or far too disturbing, I've instead used, from the anime  Ranma ½ (らんま½), an illustration of Ranma, Tsubasa Kurenai, and Ukyo Kuonji, all three of whom are sexually ambiguous, though in radically different ways. That's the best I can do.

3 comments:

  1. Just because it's your right to do something doesn't mean you're right to do something

    ReplyDelete
  2. Found your blog revently. And when I usually don't agree with your content I'm glad it exists. Seeing actual right wing thinkers as opposed to 14 yer old ancaps on reddit criticism of the progressive left is something we all need. I wish your perspective was more common and better understood. Keep doing what you do :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Recently* it's midnight and I'm on mobile.

      Delete