Thursday, August 9, 2012

Two Space Aliens and a Sex-Study

The Chick-fil-A fiasco is showing us the rapid de-evolution of society. We are reaching the point where one must agree with same sex marriage OR BE PUNISHED. Even the leaders of major U.S. cities, like Chicago and Boston have publicly hinted at this. Many have used a slow sounding metaphor, like “boil the frog” to describe the intolerance, perhaps it’s more appropriate to say something that invokes speed, like “microwave the frog”.
Those who agree that marriage should only be defined as one man and one woman are said to hold to the Biblical definition of marriage, but which came first, the chicken or the egg? Which came first, opposite sex marriage or the Bible? How many citizens of Japan, China, India, Ancient Greece or Ancient Rome would say their view on opposite sex marriage comes from the Bible?

Traditional and Non-Biblical Chinese Wedding
WWCD - What Would the Chinese Do?

Kang & Kodos From Planet Rigel IV
Since emotions run very high with this issue, we lose objectivity. Let’s consider a most objective scenario outside of ANY human society.

Two space aliens, let’s call them Kang and Kodos, have come to earth to study the sexual behavior of the planet’s most highly evolved species. This is of great interest since this alien species from planet Rigel IV reproduces asexually; they have no detailed knowledge of heterosexual reproduction or any sexual behavior involving more than one member of a species.

Kang and Kodos have never heard of marriage, since there is no need for such an institution on their planet. Additionally, our alien friends know nothing of the Bible or God, although the inhabitants of Rigel IV do wonder about “The FirstCause” and what a curious thing an uncaused cause would be.

Kang & Kodos observing "behaviors"
Don’t worry; these aliens have no intention of harming us, in fact they wish to help us evolve or “progress”. Part of the overall mission is not only to learn about our sexual behavior, but to study how our sexual behavior can help the common good of ALL humans. They objectively observe and report on the following human sexual behaviors with no discussion of right or wrong; good or evil.

  1. Rape
  2. Incest
  3. Prostitution
  4. Masturbation
  5. Random sex between consenting homosexuals
  6. Random sex between consenting heterosexuals
  7. Exclusive, but temporary sexual relationships between consenting homosexuals
  8. Exclusive, but temporary sexual relationships between consenting heterosexuals
  9. Exclusive and permanent sexual relationships between consenting homosexuals
  10. Exclusive and permanent sexual relationships between consenting heterosexuals
Since thinking means connecting things, Kang & Kodos have made some connections:

Connection #1: Sexual coupling between human males & females tends to create human offspring, although not in all cases.

Connection #2: Sexual coupling in context of behavior #10 tends to create stable and productive offspring within the basic cells of human society called “family units”, although not in all cases.

Connection #3: Sexual behaviors #1 – #9 tend not to achieve what has been observed in connection #2 and tend to cause or accentuate problems for humans such as unwanted offspring, disease, addictions and other emotional & physical trauma, although not in all cases.

Kang & Kodos have also drawn a conclusion from the facts and the connections:
It is in the best interest of human society to encourage and support behavior #10 for their continued existence and progressive evolution. Behavior #10 is unique among the other sexual behaviors/relationships in terms of its procreative, unitive, healthy & stabilizing effects on human society.
Kang & Kodos rejoicing after a successful mission

As has been discussed before on this blog, the rational basis for secular marriage laws is rooted in procreation for the establishment & protection of family units (not romantic love). Many relationships, other than marriages, have tremendous personal significance to those involved; the fact that we do not call them marriages is not evidence of bigotry, but recognition of reality.

Marriage should be reinforced, not redefined.


  1. "Which came first, opposite sex marriage or the Bible?" On the Old Testament of the Bible, polygamy came first. And in you point to Adam and Eve, then for their offspring incest came first.

    Surely what we all need to encourage is long term, committed relationships/marriages between consenting loving adults and not get tied up in bronze age writings or hypothetical aliens. We need to repect others,not restrict others.

    1. Who’s restricted? I’m married to one woman; what if I want to marry one more? I can’t legally. I guess I’m restricted.

      As for Adam & Eve, I do wonder if they were the first “humanoids” with a soul. Their offspring would have souls and God could arrange it that whomever they mated with had souls and on and on (not Church teaching, just my musing).

    2. There were no Adam and Eve. We do however all share an most recent common ancestor, both male and female, bit they didn't live at the same time and interestingly they keep changing as people marry partners in different areas of the planet. ( )

      "what if I want to marry one more?" It didn't stop King Solomon. He had 700 wives plus concubines.

    3. I find it odd when trying to discuss this issue on a secular level, secularists bring in religion. When speaking on a religious level, secularist will want religion left out.

    4. I am unclear on your point about King Solomon. The idea of marriage as one man and one woman didn't stop King Solomon from marrying many wives and accumulating concubines, true. This was a bad thing. The Bible tells how Solomon was led away from following God.

      Solomon's kingdom split into two kingdoms because Solomon did not follow God's laws.

      So actually you are making Ben's point, at least insofar as Solomon was concerned.

    5. Okay, then pick many of the Old Testament figures. Multiple waives were a matter of course in those days. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all Abrahamic faiths. Abraham had three wives, Sarah, Hagar and Keturah.

      Times and morality have changed and fortunately polygamy is no longer allowed and polyandry was curiously forbidden in the Old Testament. I wonder why God allowed polygamy, and banned polyandry. Something a man would come up with.

      Society needs to encourage stable, loving relationships two between consenting adults. If you want different sex partners, that's your choice, sames sex would be other people's choice.

    6. Abraham had one wife, took his wife's servant once and thereby disobeyed God. This was also not good. He displayed distrust in God's promise. Keturah was his wife after Sarah died. I don't think anyone thinks Keturah counts as a multiple wife.

      Jesus points out that the proper relation is a lifelong relationship of one man and one woman in Mark 10:6-9. In the Old Testament, many people did what they considered right but was not what God wanted. That does not legitimize the behavior.

  2. As Christ said, marriage was one man and one woman from the beginning. Moses allowed divorces because the people were stiff necked and that is not how marriage was to be. Subjective morality may change but objective morality(i.e. God) does not. Should we do away with marriage because of divorces, abusive spouses etc? Should we do away with the office of the presidency because of bad presidents? Should we do away with laws against murder since people murder anyway? It does NOT matter what people do sexually as per their own version of morality, the point is there is a standard of morality, God, and those who choose to ignore that do so at their own peril. We make our choices, hence, we invite the consequences of those choices.

  3. The fact that you put so much attention and so much effort (both sides of the spectrum, secular and religious) to this is just... -dumb-, for lack of a better word. And the fact that you oppose to this with -chicken- just makes it even worse. So what if they can marry? They're already together, so what difference does it make. Seriously. It's just a social contract between two persons and the fact that people oppose just to -that- is ridiculous beyond measure and is discrimination, plain and simple. It is no different than denying a job to them.
    Instead of worrying about how to better society, like taking care of the needy, getting rid of discrimination, fighting off promiscuity and vulgarity, helping to not pollute, and opposing war and poverty, you worry about whether two men or two women can marry. And for the record, state marriage has nothing to do with sacred marriage anyway.
    Finally, why is it that there are so many catholics in the internet who follow whatever the Bishop of Rome says uncritically, and particulary in sexuality issues and not anything else?

    1. Hello Alejandro,
      Whether speaking secularly or theologically, same-sex marriage (SSM) is simply unintelligible. Opposing it has nothing to do with hate or discrimination. See post “The Unintelligibility of SSM”. As far as how it effects society, see post “SSM – What’s it to you anyway?” Both are in the popular post list to the left. Thanks.

    2. It is discrimination, because as I said, it's just a social contract, and denying this to them is like saying they can't get jobs. I never said anything about hate though. Again, so what if they can marry? It doesn't make any difference because they are already together. The only thing they want as far as I heard, is to be equal under the law. Why can't you just respect that? Maybe you oppose it because the state will force churches to marry them, but in Spain, where it is legal, it's simply not the case. And it's not like they are making normal marriage illegal or anything. So again, it is ridiculous. There's much more important things to talk about and care for than whether or not two men or two women can marry. Personally, I'm more worried about the rampant promiscuity there than homosexual behaviour.

    3. Do we need a government social contract if we want to be recognized as “best friends”? How about for roommates? How about teammates? Is there a social contract between parents and their adult children or any other relatives, even if they share a house hold? Are all these other relationships being discriminated against? The reason governments get involved relates to procreation for the establishment & protection of family units. It is not because of “love”.

      As for effects on society, public institutions shape our ideas and ideas have consequences. Removing the rational basis for a norm (marriage, sex & procreation are all linked) will erode adherence to that norm. How are the birth rates in Spain doing? I believe the government of Germany has recognized that they will be a Muslim state in a few decades. Is it the same in Spain? How well will SSM law hold up in a Muslin state I wonder?

    4. We need population levels to decrease, for one. And you say as if the number of muslims was a bad thing. Maybe you think Islam is a bad religion, with no evidence, I don't think you have even read the Koran or Hadith and just go for whatever the news tell you. For two, marriage is about love, not just procreation. And again, it's just a social contract that has no moral implication. Like I said, sacred marriage=/=state marriage. You say that a friend relationship doesn't require a social contract, of course not, because it's just friendship. You then say a child also doesn't need this, but a child is in the legal protection of a father, so I don't know what's your point. Maybe you don't want same sex couples to adopt children, and that's the main reason you oppose this, but it's no different than them being raised in a normal couple that teach them that this kind of stuff is not wrong, and the goverment simply cannot interfere in aspects of personal morality. Them being able to adopt is not saying that this is good or not wrong. And is the church really that non-confident in teaching the faithful well and guide them rightly that they now need state intervention? People are dying, and we discuss this kind of stuff? Really? It's just ridiculous. I'm willing to agree here with Bill Maher that Bush won the reelection due to SSM, and right now people from both political spectrums prefer to talk about this than helping people in need.(and joke's on me for even debating this, but that's because talking about this is silly in the first place)

    5. I don’t wish to debate Islam. My secular points are #1, the government has no logical business in a gay relationship, but it does have business in a procreative relationship (new future citizens result). #2, legalizing SSM perpetuates sexual confusion because procreation is clearly removed from the rationale. Sexual confusion has many ill effects like unwanted pregnancies and diseases just to name two. The ultimate is extinction. The current birth rates of “progressive” western style cultures will lead to extinction. It’s just math.

      If the rationale for secular marriage law is “love”, be consistent in your position. Why should “love” be limited by government to only two people? Why not 3 or 30? If I, as an adult, share a household with my single mother and we want marriage benefits, who is the government say we do not “love” each other and therefore we cannot be married. By love, do you really mean sex? Many ask why procreation should be linked to secular marriage. I will then ask, why should sex be linked to secular marriage?

    6. "There's much more important things to talk about and care for than whether or not two men or two women can marry."

      Oh great, here comes the Guatemalan Hypocrite.

      -Hezekiah Garrett-

  4. "People are dying, and we discuss this kind of stuff? Really? It's just ridiculous."

    You're right. It's ridiculous but not for the reasons you think. It's ridiculous because we would not even be having this debate were it not for a very small minority who are pushing for SSM and trying to redefine marriage. It's ridiculous because you have a minority that in the last ten, fifteen years decided that they know better as to what is good for society and completely ignore the 6,000 years of human history where marriage had always been defined as a union between a man and a woman.

    It's ridiculous that even the idea of SSM be given the light of day since it would not even constitute a marriage, a union that was naturally designed in nature created by God between a man and woman. What is even more ridiculous is the idea that an institution created long before governments came into being can be redefined by the stroke of a pen.

    SSM was not introduced to give equal rights to homosexual couples living together as a married heterosexual couple. They already have that in a legal same sex union. Few people would deny them those rights to inheritance, hospital visits, tax purposes and property rights. The reason they want to redefine marriage is to ensure "acceptance" by society. People may have to abide by a law that says homosexuals are married, but acceptance of such a law and the respect of the homosexual couples "marriage" will never happen through coercion.

    SSM will not affect others that do not accept it? Wrong, we are already labeled hateful and homophobic for believing what our faith has taught us. We are called intolerant yet it is those that hurl insults at us for believing in our faith that are the intolerant ones. Same gender couples can do what they want and I will tolerate that as long as I am not coerced into accepting what they do as right and holy. For it is not. If I am being hateful and intolerant for not accepting SSM, then they are being just as intolerant for not accepting my beliefs and calling me hateful and homophobic. They are seeking to change something that they did not create. Marriage is not their creation to change at will.

    1. Bobby,
      Good point about expending time & energy on this debate when there is so much suffering in our world. Proponents of SSM forced this debate on us, not the other way around. The minority seek to force their view of marriage on the majority.

    2. That minority is a majority. Here in Canada although many do not wish to participate or accept same sex marriage (just like many Catholics do not accept remarriage) there is very little societal or political will to prevent SSM.

      I think that is the greatest fear among those who oppose it. Once people see their friends and maybe even family members marrying same sex, it's hard to call them sinners just because they are wanting to make a commitment to love someone. This is especially true with the young and vilifying SSM will simply turn many away from conservative religions.

    3. I was referring to the U.S. SSM supporters are clearly a minority here when it is put to a public vote.

      It is nothing new for Catholics to see their friends and family members in sin. For example, any sex outside of marriage is still taught as a grave sin, even a committed hetero couple living together (check the new Catechism if you don’t believe me). In Roman times, a Christian honoring Roman God’s was in grave sin, but how many did it to fit in or to go along with the crowd. There has always been "the narrow path."

  5. As Ben said, seeing family members committing sin is nothing new. I've witnessed it and I know they have witnessed MY committing sin also, but there is a big difference in being a sinner while approving others to do the same and a sinner that is repentant. It is our duty and responsibility in light of the commandment to love one another as he has loved us and that is not by standing by and letting our loved ones put their souls in danger and our not speaking out against such actions. Make no mistake, it is a hard thing to do but it must be done. I've spoken out against the actions of my own younger brother. I didn't harass him afterwards. I said my piece and let him choose. I did what I was supposed to do. While one may think nothing can be done to change a family member, we always have recourse to prayer.

    If we are brothers and sisters in Christ, then it is OUR responsibility and duty to call out evil actions we see committed by others also. Yes, we get called all kinds of names, but that is what it means sometimes when confronting others who do wrong. They may not think their actions are wrong, but as a Christian, Catholic, I do think it is wrong. They may not like my speaking out, but at the same time, I disagree with the actions they take that faith considers sinful. As I said before, they may do as they wish but just do not try to force me to accept such things because I won't. If I as a Christian have to tolerate sinful actions on the part of others, then they have to tolerate my beliefs that those actions are sinful.