No Yin For His Yang? Smoothing over Mom Nature to Justify Same-sex unions
Basic equality of humans does not make being crippled equal to being fully bipedal.
But, the state of being crippled is not itself a motive. To be motivated toward something that inherently causes oneself or others to become crippled is an aberrant motive. How crippled is too crippled to bear it?
Is there no possible such thing as an aberrant sexual orientation? And, even assuming there is, is even it not a consequence of something committed in the past by someone else? And, if it is, how aberrant could that ‘something' have been?
In his Blissful Union post, (http://waldo.villagesoup.com/blog/blogpost/blissful-union/920104), Kit Hayden rationalizes same-sex marriage by stating that almost all of us 'get along better with members of our own gender' than with anyone of the opposite gender.
If people 'get along' better with their own gender, then why did Mother Nature/Evolution/God bother to make two genders? If Hayden loves Eastern spirituality so much, and if he thinks marriage is ever at all a good thing, then where's his Yin for his Yang?
We would 'get along' better with our clones, but, for some reason(s), Mom Nature decided we needed variety. Most heterosexuals would be shocked to be told that coitus is inherently better, not to mention safer, with someone of their respective gender than with a suitable individual of the opposite gender.
In all terms, evolutionary and otherwise, even without the need to defend against predation there is the need for 'specialization of labor': one specializing in nurturing, another specializing in exploring. I highly recommend reading the entirety of Glenn Stanton's Secure Daughters, Confident Sons.
The fact is, sexual attraction for one’s own gender rather than for the opposite gender is the absence of the initial key factor for reproduction, and thus the absence of the primary cohesive force of progenitive society. Short of external regulators informing the need for normative heterosexual mating behavior, a population consisting entirely of individuals who lack opposite-sex attraction would die off. In other words, imagine a functionally isolated population made up entirely of purely same-sex attracted persons, and imagine that none of those persons has any hint of the fact that humans have the power to procreate: such a population would, at best, simply die off if none of those persons ever was informed of that power nor of the means by which that power is exercised. 'Mamma, where do babies come from?' 'I have no idea, child.'
By this account, same-sex attraction may be defined as a dysfunction or disability, and, at least in some ways, a most severe, and personally trying, one. By this account, moreover, if sexual attraction were likened to nutritional appetite, then same-sex-attraction would be like appetite for rocks instead of for food.
If, (and only if) there is any inherent problem with same-sex attraction, then there is an even deeper inherent problem with same-sex 'coitus': it is strictly aberrant, a kind of gambling with borrowed biological capital. And Mother Nature owns the metals, the coin, the bank, and the casino.
If 'Civil rights' is like Checkers, then the biological foundations of a sustainable society is like Chess. People are free to think Checkers is the most profound game, but they are not free to believe that Mother Nature thinks so. Despite their presumption that they are playing Her at Checkers, She may, in fact, be playing them at Chess.
To think Mom Nature is just a secular ‘business woman’ with no political opinion is to think that the microbiological ecology on which our individual and collective health depends is essentially random. It is one thing to welcome gambling addicts as friends. It’s another to believe they know what they’re doing with money. Relative to the congruent naivety, some corners seem far more justifiably cut than others. This is especially the case for those corners that, to those who are all-but-insensible to them, seem not to be there at all.
I think everything is connected: that any actions we take in the social, political, or microbiological worlds have some impact on the totality of each, and on collectively all of them.
I think the social, political, and microbiological worlds each are most naturally open to mutual benefit with all parts of each.
I think this mutuality of inter-benefit is where we get our general sense of conscience. But, social civil conscience, and respect for an admittedly very fallible version of scientific authority, is no replacement for basic biological sensibility.
Is there no such thing as not knowing what one is doing with sex? It seems Hayden would have us believe that sex is the saving grace; that sex is like the boy Joseph, so that all other realms of human concern, from politics and education to diet and personal finance, are like Joseph’s ten evil bothers: only provisionally good, and only after they’ve passed the test and repented to Joseph.
But, as virtually everyone with a libido will admit, sexuality not only is potentially the best (i.e., highest) common denominator, it also is potentially the worst (lowest).