TO LEGALIZE OR NOT

Polygamy, from a biological point of view, is a more likely candidate for legalization than homosexuality. But even it has its problems, namely, you can search the world over and find very few women or men who would gladly put up for long with sharing their spouse in a slumber party of other reproductive partners. Among Muslims, who allow for one man to have up to four wives, the data strongly suggests that the arrangement is immeasurably more popular with males than females.

The biological fact is that two men or two women (or even polygamous homosexual relationships) are sterile, they don’t produce children. Putting all religious and moral concerns aside, homosexuality is a biological dead end, an unnatural phenomenon. Physiologically, the sexual structures of two women or two men simply don’t match. Furthermore, studies have at least raised questions about the psychological and physiological differences between males and females, differences that make them uniquely compatible and even necessary for one another and certainly necessary for the continuance of the human race. On a genetic level, humans are distinctly male or female, with each cell of the body containing either the male XY chromosomes or female XX. Since the dawn of the Homo sapiens the biological process of the male sperm fertilizing the female egg has been a genetic “marriage.” This biological event underlies all cultural traditions and forms that have evolved to define marriage. But before the earliest humans had any cultural or religious signs and symbols of civil marriage, biological forces were putting one man together with one woman in intimate relationships where the marriage of their chromosomes produced offspring. So how did this ever become an issue of social and political contention?

One answer probably has to do with the amazing advances in biotechnology. For the first time in human history, biotechnology seems on the verge of successfully producing a child from two people of the same sex. If the procedure is perfected, it would offer wealthy homosexuals the option of “wedding” the genes of one partner to the genes of the other. Technology offers other possibilities. For two women, one can donate an egg to be artificially inseminated and then implanted in the other partner to carry to term. Two men would be more limited, having to resort to the help of a woman to carry the child of one of the men. It gets complicated doesn’t it? The homosexual “marriage” isn’t limited to just two people, but to at least one other person, who could participate in the childbearing by donating an egg or a sperm and later wish to be part of his or her child’s life. Technology seems to make what is unnatural and impossible, natural and possible. The push for legitimizing homosexual marriage has arisen with the advances in biotechnology. People used to say, “If man were meant to fly, he would have wings.” Well, man still doesn’t have wings, but he does certainly fly. So the homosexual community says, “Just because two men or two women aren’t able to naturally reproduce, it doesn’t mean we can manipulate nature to have children.”

Click to advertise on this website

But why is legalized homosexual marriage so important? There are rightfully laws against homosexuals and heterosexuals seducing and molesting minors. As far as I know, there is no legislation against homosexual behavior. Even if an adult homosexual couple wants to have a wedding ceremony and consider themselves married, they can. But homosexual couples are looking for the same kind of legal rights granted a heterosexual marriage. Is this to gain financial advantages, social, legal? Will it give them access to a higher standard of living? What is the purpose of normalizing homosexuality in American society?

Perhaps the movement to legalize homosexual marriage has something to do with matters of the conscience, something like an attempt to move society from the stance of “I’m okay, you’re not okay,” to “I’m okay, you’re okay.” Furthermore, the homosexual community is saying, “Unless you accept that I’m okay, you aren’t okay.” Even if many if not most homosexuals live with nary of pang of doubt or frustration that their sexual relationship is biologically sterile and statistically minimal, the larger population of global society still considers homosexual relationships of a character sufficiently different from monogamous heterosexual relationships to express the will that they not be elevated to the same legal status. The outspoken homosexual community lobbying for legalized civil unions seems to chaff at the existence of a nay-saying legal majority, regardless of how socially tolerant it might be.

Will they be satisfied if lawmakers make homosexual marriage equal to heterosexual marriage? Even that might not be enough. There will still be people of various religious and philosophical persuasions who condemn homosexuality, churches that deny homosexuals the right to serve as clergy, religious schools that will fire a teacher because he admits being a practicing homosexual. What then? Will the legal fight go to a new level, so that homosexuality becomes normalized at the expense of freedom of religion and conscience?

These questions aside, biology stubbornly ignores political correctness. While homosexuals noisily fight for their rights and legal recognition, biology continues to quietly say, “Heterosexuality is reproductive, homosexuality is not”…so the homosexual community must resort to politics or technology to advance their cause. Elevating the importance of biologically sterile homoerotic attraction above the importance of sexual reproduction and child-nurture in the heterosexual family “soul nest” can only work in a society that is willing to diminish the value of children, even the value of its future. If as a society America comes to believe that the highest purpose of marriage is for two individuals to achieve self-fulfillment, legalizing homosexual marriage will be only one of many major changes yet to come.