"Same-sex marriage isn’t natural"

[bbernardini]

Once again, the homophobes appear in the local paper, under the guise of "Guest Columnist". Below is the link, with a brief quote. Please, use the "voice your opinion" option.

http://www.dailylocal.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11072861&BRD=1671&PAG=461&dept_id=17785&rfi=6

"It’s just that two same-sex homosexuals cannot physically, naturally comprise a marriage. They cannot procreate with each other and all the legislators, judges, ACLU lawyers, or scientists in this world cannot change that natural law."

[DarkPhenyx]

1. no, it isn't natural.

then again marriage isn't natural either. Except for a very few spercies monogamy isn't natural either. We are the only primate species that it is commonly accepted as "normal" for.

They really don't want to open this "natural" argument.

[kayell]

24. It's completely natural

just ask the bonobo, our nearest primate relatives, who are 100% bisexual. Or dolphins who are known to have a range of sexual preferences. Or geese, whose homosexual couples also pair bond for life. (although they, like their heterosexual geese counterparts, also fool around) Or just about any animal species you care to name.

[DarkPhenyx]

25. That isn't what he said.

Read closer. "homosexual marriage" is what he said. Of course it isn't natural. MARRIAGE!!! isn't natural.

I was developed by people lucky to live to the age of 20 w/o gettingeaten by a dinosaur for crying out loud.

[kayell]

27. A pretty good argument could be made that pair bonding in some species

that lasts for more than one breeding season, or in some cases for life is the equivelant of marriage.

[DarkPhenyx]

28. However, like homosexuality in nature...

...it isn't normal. By and large the animal kindom is made up of polyamorous species. The great apes, of which we are one, are soly poly amorous I believe. I can't think of a species, besides ourselves, which practices monogomy. Monogomy is definately not our "natural" state.

[kayell]

29. The range of sexual expression in the animal kingdom is extremely wide.

The bonobo are apparently 100% bisexual. Human homosexuality is estimated depending on source to be in the 10% range. That amount of difference between us and our closest relatives.

The range in differences around sexual mores among human cultures is also very, very wide, although many seem to have pair bonding rituals of some sort. Given that, it is hard to say that either monogamy or polyamory are unnatural. I suspect that they are both a part of the natural human spectrum of sexuality and relationships.

[DarkPhenyx]

30. The reality, however...

...is that no matter what the prevalance in any one species, true homosexuality across the spectrum of all species is actually pretty low. It isn't "normal" per se. Nor should it be. If it occured at higher, or even high, percentages it would have extremely averse affects on the species as a whole. Birth rates would drop off, and survivability, as well as genetic diversity, would be at greater peril.

[DarkPhenyx]

31. Within our species they are not normal.

Natural is a different issue. There are a lot of things which are natural which are not "normal". Normal in this case meaning common and preferable for the survival of the species.

[kayell]

35. To say that a naturally occuring trait that occurs at relatively low

frequency (ie: 10% +/- in humans)is unnatural, is rather silly. That's like saying that since left handedness is only around 10% of the population, it is unnatural. Or red heads, world wide, are a very low percentage. So Red heads are unnatural or not normal. :eyes: A trait that occurs across a very wide (yes, see last paragraph for that) range of species is undoubtedly natural, and almost certainly has evolutionary survival benefits.

The main theory on this (as I understand it) is that while the individual homosexual may not reproduce and pass on their individual genes, a family member who is homosexual may increase the chances that young of that family will survive to adulthood and breeding age. The homosexual member of the family is not occupied with young of his/her own and serves as an additional caregiver and food provider for young who carry family genes, (including of course genes that the homosexual also carries).

I highly recommend that you take a look at the book "Biological Exuberance : Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity"
by Bruce Bagemihl http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312192398/104-8006363-7014361?v=glance in order to get a better view of what is natural/"normal" in the animal kingdom.

[msmcghee]

36. Not so.

There are many different strategies for reproductive success in nature - even between males and females within a species.

In humans, the male strategy is to impregnate as many females as possible. For females it is to selectively mate a few times in life with the highest quality male possible at the time.

With bees, one queen does all the egg laying in a hive after mating once during her life with a few drones high in the sky. The worker bees are all sterile, yet by dividing the tasks, bees (and bee genes) have been around for million so years.

There are several plausible theories around that there are advantages to a species that requires an extended learning period of several years before sexual maturity - to having a small percentage of homosexual (non-procreating) members available to an extended family group - which is how humans lived for millions of years in our history.

For example, all women lose their ability to reproduce after menopause and yet evolution has allowed them to remain alive to pass on their knowledge to the young - which can certainly enhance the survival of the group's gene pool.

Native Americans recognized the special skills these "two-sprited" persons had and went to them for guidance on some matters.

Evolutionary biologists call this "kin selection" and it is a well accepted theory in science. i.e. it is to your advantage to have any of your genes survive into the next generation. You can do this by sexual reproduction but you can also do it simply be enhancing the success of others (like siblings, etc.) who also share your genes.

The genes don't care where they came from - or what helps them to regenerate into future generations. Enjoy the dance.

[kayell]

37. Thank you for your reply

You put this SO much more clearly than I did. It is very frustrating to see the words unnatural and abnormal bandied about so blithely, without any understanding of the natural world and its amazing range of variation.

[LiberalFighter]

39. Which was called common law marriage back in the old days

[Nikia]

34. It is to some extent

Women are inclined to monagamy because it is better to have a constant partner to help her raise her relatively few children so they survive to adulthood. Men are also inclined to monogamy. If they were not, they would have sex with any woman who they could, rather than being picky about looks or any other factor.
If men are not inclined to monagamy but spreading their seed everywhere, bisexuality is natural for women because they still need a faithful partner, which would be a woman, to help raise their children after the roving male has planted his seed and moved on. Actually, it is most natural to have a faithful partner with secret affairs on the side. It is just something that I read.

[eyesroll]

2. So should we all have to take fertility tests before getting married?

And if we don't produce children within a few years, should we have to explain to John Ashcroft why?

[BR_Parkway]

3. I don't agree with his physically, naturally comprise comment

but it seems that he is making the point that there is discrimination and that it should be addressed - at the state level, not a Constitutional amendment.

[NewJeffCT]

17. True, but in 2000 both Bush & Cheney

they both said gay marriage should be kept at the state level... now, that things are swinging towards gay marriage at the state level, they are trying to stop it nationally!

[northzax]

4. yeah, neither are democracy,

firearms, elvis, missionary position sex, clothing or religion. no other species has these things, so let's get rid of them.

Viva totalitarian, unarmed, naked, doggy-stle aethism, the way GOD wanted things to be, before man determined social constructs.

[FizzFuzz]

8. good one!

Hahahah!!

They cannot procreate with each other and all the legislators, judges, ACLU lawyers, or scientists in this world cannot change that natural law."

mm-hmmm, and that's important to think about in a world killing itself with overpopulation. Uh-huh.

[Vladimir]

5. Marriage is a social construct

which has fuck-all to do with nature.

V

[yella_dawg]

6. "It isn't natural"

is a knee-jerk reaction of the narrow minded. It has no inherent meaning in an argument. The phrase translates to: "I don't know why, I just don't like it."

[DarkPhenyx]

26. Which is also true.

However you will never win fighting the argument like that you ahve to find a better attack. Pointing out all the things they agree with, like monogomy, that aren't natural as well. That's my favorite attack anyway.

[Blue-Jay]

7. since WHEN does procreation equal happiness?

This tired old "not natural because they can't mate" argument is ridiculous at best. If I'm sterile and without "swimmers", I still have the right to marry anyone (female) I want. Having babies is not and should not be the litmus test concerning equal rights. How difficult is that to understand?

[Bucky]

10. I like what George W Bush said

in 2000. "People ought to be able to make whatever legal arrangements they want." If Bunnypants had stopped right then and there and stuck to his word, rather than playing "re"election games, we'd be having a real debate about important issues. And that is what the president of our democracy wants, of course. Right? ...right??

[BlueEyedSon]

9. Lifelong absolute monogamy is unnatural.

OK, it's just really challenging.....
:)

[DulceDecorum]

15. Are you

a Mormon?

[BlueEyedSon]

20. No, just a human male (living)

BTW i meant mongamy to one single partner, not "serial monogamy" (already done that!).

[Ready4Change]

11. Simple minded.

The writer finds it too difficult to separate concepts like Procreation from Sex from Marriage.

Following that logic, a man or woman incapable of conception cannot become married. Even if they intend to get married in order to raise adopted children. Going to be a lot of happy families all broken up by the knowlege that the heads of the family aren't, and never can be, married.

Better toss those kids back into orphanages pronto!

[DulceDecorum]

12. and neither is

the Catholic Church.

Dupre, 70, stepped down Feb. 11, citing health reasons. His retirement came a day after The Republican newspaper of Springfield confronted Dupre with the allegations.
<snip>
Dupre, who served nine years as leader of the Springfield Diocese and its 262,000 Catholics, is the highest-ranking member of the Catholic hierarchy in Massachusetts to be publicly accused since the clergy sex abuse scandal began in Boston in January 2002. Springfield is about 90 miles west of Boston.
Since his retirement, Dupre has been at St. Luke Institute, a private Catholic psychiatric hospital in Maryland where the Boston Archdiocese sent many priests for treatment after abuse allegations were made against them. The institute treats priests with emotional, behavioral and psychological problems.
<snip>
Dupre has been criticized for his handling of sex abuse allegations against defrocked priest Richard Lavigne, a convicted pedophile whom authorities have said is also a suspect in the murder of an altar boy. But the claims made by MacLeish’s clients were the first public accusations against the bishop himself.
http://www.heraldnews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11071930&BRD=1710&PAG=461&dept_id=99784&rfi=6

[Smirnoff]

13. I got my post canned for this kind of a title...

Craziness isn't it?

[AP]

14. Denying federal rights to people based on spiritual considerations ...

... isn't American.

We have a separationo of church and state in America.

[elfwitch]

16. I posted this opinon...

So does that mean that individuals who for whatever reason cannot procreate (infertility, age, etc.) should not be allowed to marry?

If the purpose of marriage is for procreation only, then this would have to be the case. People past their procreative prime would be barred for marriage. Infertile couples would have to dissolve their union because they cannot bring another life in to the world.

Marriage is a social construct. It is a public agreement between two individuals to bind their hearts, minds, bodies, and collective belongings to a legal contract that gives certain rights and privileges.

Marriage is not easy. It is work. It is an action that requires one to re-commit to the process every day. Anybody who has the courage and stamina to make such a commitment should not be barred from doing so.

[LiberalFighter]

40. No different in some states that permit marriage between first cousins

provided they are of a certain age. I believe it was around their 50's.

Essentially, first cousin marriages are prohibited because of the fear of inbreeding problems. But once they reach a certain age I guess they figure they can't procreate so it is okay for them to marry.

[bbernardini]

18. Comments take a while to show up on this paper's website...

I think it's done by hand, or it automatically updates after a certain amount of time. However, I've seen posts from both sides, so I don't think there's any bias.

Just in case you were wondering why your comments don't show up right away. :)

[TreasonousBastard]

19. Marriage isn't natural...

it is an artificial construct devloped by societies to force copulating childbearing couples to stay together and raise their kids.

It is simply another example of states, tribes, religions, and other authorities forcing people to do things they would rather not do, but should do for the good of the community.

Culturally, it's a stretch since we're all so wedded (pun intended) to the idea of marriage, but it might be a good idea to eliminate the state from "marriage" and keep that as a religious sacrament. The state could simply approve of civil unions of any sort as a contract, including those religious weddings.

It will them be up to your own conscience and beliefs whether or not you get "married."

As it should be.

[RememberWellstone]

21. Marriage is screwed up anyway.

Why would gays want to get married anyway? Hell...it does'nt work like it should with opposites why would it be any diffeerent with gays. It does'nt matter to me either way...I think it's just being over-blown in significance.

[newyawker99]

22. Hi Remember Wellstone!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[sendero]

23. Bingo...

... biologically, and what is "natural" would certainly not be a monogamous marriage.

[David Zephyr]

32. Bob & Elizabeth Dole Never Procreated Either.

Nope. Didn't create life. Nada. Zip. Nothing.

And they have the gall to call themselves a real married couple.

[struggle4progress]

33. Well then ...

we need a constitutional amendment against "unnatural things." There's a good long list: cluster bombs and landmines are unnatural, and they hurt a lot of people around the world; flying through the air in planes is certainly unnatural; perhaps the "Guest Columnist" would like laws requiring everyone to revert to our natural unclothed state.

[LiberalFighter]

41. Don't forget to include those repugs and religious zealots

as "unnatural things"

[demigoddess]

38. What if it were natural for mother nature to

make some percentage of the population, sterile or homosexual, so that the offspring produced by others would have a larger support system than just the nuclear family. I have just read that with crows, young crows stay with their parents a few years to help them raise later baby crows before they go off to have their own babies.Seems pretty natural to me.