Part One: From the Perspective of Reasonable Conclusions from Biological Science
The Supreme Court of the United States will rule in late June on the legality and “right” of two people of the same gender to ” marry “. The High Court has no jurisdiction over the matter; nonetheless, in the current lawless state of government in America, the Court assumed such jurisdiction. Following the lawless lead of corrupted lower courts whose rulings recently disenfranchised voters in two dozen states who defined marriage as exclusively a union of one man and one woman, the Supreme Court will either affirm ” gay marriage ” or overturn the lower courts and thus leave the definition of marriage to be fought over state by state.
The Supreme Court, nor any court, should be tampering with marriage. Nor should Congress or any state legislatures or executive branches of government. However; since government chose to make the tragic mistake of involving itself in an institution spanning thousands of years of recorded history, established across all major world religions, cultures and the natural world itself, Government must affirm the self-evident truth about marriage as the exclusive union between one man and one woman. The reasons include simple truths derived from Divine Will of our Creator; self-evident truth by way of logic and reason; five or six thousand years of recorded history and tradition; sociological evidence and truth from research; legal roots and precedents; and and, scientific evidence and truth from research.
Perhaps, in the interest of a dispassionate beginning, we ought to start by examining this sacrament and union of marriage from the scientific, specifically biological science, perspective. Male-Female coupling has been the behavioral and cultural norm, overwhelmingly, throughout both humanity and the natural world, through eons of time.
In humans and animals alike, coupling and copulating is male-female, and, to keep anatomical issues simple, the ” parts fit together “. Natural biology prepares the male for entry and the female for reception. It is the only coupling that results in reproduction.
Natural biology does not, in sharp contrast, design the ” parts ” used in deviant (less than 2% of humans) “sexual coupling ” to ” fit together “. Neither humans nor animals have ” parts that fit or properly function for unnatural, ” male-with-male or female-with-female ‘ sexual coupling ‘ “. On a related note, the ” born that way ” genetic argument claimed by gays and lesbians has no basis in science. Since nature disallows reproduction as a result of such ” coupling “, the alleged ” genes ” would quickly become extinct.
But I digress; the female organs of the human and animal species are obviously not designed for sexual entrance of a ” partner “, and the male organs of the human and animal species are even more obviously not designed to be entered by a “partner “. In the animal kingdom, where sexual coupling is a basic instinct, the natural order since the dawn of time, has been male-with-female.
One can well imagine the frustration, should a chance encounter occur, for example, between two male or two females of any species; the ” parts don’t fit ” and nothing works, especially reproduction! Should the animals happen to also be on a ranch, and were, for example, two male or two female horses or cattle, imagine the simultaneous mixture of amusement and frustration of the rancher seeking to increase the size of the brood or herd!
What is unnatural in animal science or human biology, and is unnatural and quite statistically deviant, is just as much so in human biology; sexual coupling between two human females or two human males, a voluntary, and not an instinctive act, is not only rare (under 2% prevalence) and unnatural, but requires a good deal of creative improvisation with the unnatural, uncomplimentary and ill-suited ” parts that don’t fit ” to make something ” happen sexually “. If this is not sufficiently perplexing, consider the conspicuous absence of mammary glands in two unnaturally coupled males, and the similarly conspicuous absence of spermatozoa in two ” unnaturally coupled ” females.
Violation of the laws of nature, much less the laws of God, have scientific, biological effects and consequences. First and foremost, given the CDC research showing the ” LGBT ” population to be only 1.6%, leaving 98.4% on the opposite side of the science, causes gay and lesbian men and women respectively, to fit the statistical definition of ” deviant from the biological norm “. To be heterosexual is, thus by definition, to be ” biologically normal “. Verifiable and reliable experiential and statistical research data clearly demonstrates that gay and lesbian men and women suffer more from diseases, particularly sexually transmitted diseases, and the secondary diseases of effect as well, than heterosexual ( normal ) men and women. Gay men and lesbian women experience significantly shortened lifespans and life expectancy, than normal, heterosexual men and women. Gays and lesbians who are sexually active, have on average, a significantly larger number of different sexual partners than sexually active heterosexuals, which compounds the risk of what is biologically risky sexual behavior to begin with. Research also leads to conclusions that those gay and lesbian adults who are domestic partners or ” couples “, are considerably more likely to have additional sex partners outside the domestic relationship, and far more likely to ” break up ” with each other as domestic partners.
The suicide rate among the LGBT population is many times higher than in the heterosexual population, and the frequency of mental and emotion problems, especially depression, is reported to be far higher in the gay and lesbian minority subset. Newer research and experience-based data is also clearly demonstrating the psychological harm being done to the unfortunate children being adopted and raised in same-sex domestic partnerships. One brief example is the frequently expressed comment, ” I wish I had been raised with a dad and a mom ” ( instead of ” two mommies ” or ” two daddies ” ).
Another, more damaging report from emerging research is that the adopted or raised children who grow up with ” parents ” in same-sex households are statistically much more likely to be gay or lesbian as adults.
Science, and specifically biological science in this issue of defining marriage, has always throughout history been about a nonpartisan, non-biased search for truth. In the medical science branch of biological science, the un-biased search for truth also necessarily involves a search for meaning and correction of biological abnormalities and disease. In the case of the small minority of the general population either drawn to, or engaged in, biologically abnormal, deviant sexual behavior with the enormous set of negative, even disastrous consequences, it appears scientifically, biologically and medically negligent to abstain from professional intervention. For medical professionals, for example to retreat from the Hippocratic Oath and not only fail to intervene but to also take the tragic, active step in the 1970s to declassify homosexual behavior as deviant, abnormal and harmful, was, and remains, from a biological science perspective, gross malpractice and depraved indifference. Where is the compassion? Why would medical professionals commit the outrageously unethical act of turning their backs on a self-destructive, deviant lifestyle that has been so obviously harmful to both gay or lesbian individuals, and the larger society, throughout the course of history? Their actions as so-called medical “professionals ” are, in the most permissive light, based on ” Junk Science “. In the pure light of truth, their actions, as well as the actions of their misguided allies in other fields of endeavor, are not only on the wrong side of history, but also on the wrong side of biological science and human reasoning. There is no reasonable scientific justification for calling the aberrant, deviant and destructive human behavior called homosexuality, normal or desirable; there certainly is no reasonable scientific justification for homosexuals to form, Biblically speaking, Sodomite unions, and dare to call such unions ” marriage “. Such unions are, by historical, statistical and scientific definition, deviant, abnormal unions that are clearly irrational and indefensible as ” marriage “. From the rational perspective of Biological Science, only those human sexual unions consisting of one man with one woman-a male and a female-constitute ” marriage “. How dare medical and biological science, and men and women of purported education, intellect and reason, much less the Supreme Court of the United States, tamper with the rational, traditional, religious and Christian, sacrament of marriage!
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com