Same Sex Anniversary Cards Now Available!

I’m actually not sure this is new, but it’s new to me. I was looking for a wedding anniversary card at a popular card shop and I saw this:

I was surprised, but then again, not so surprised. Once passed my not-so-surprised-ness, I thought, “Why have a special section dedicated just for this?” There is no special “opposite sex” card section. Many of the anniversary cards are not specific about any kind of sexual preference. They say things like, “To the one I love”, “For my husband/wife” or “For my spouse”. The one I purchased in the “non-same sex” section said, “You’re the one for me!”

Why did I see this for the first time this June? Is it because of the SCOTUS ruling last June? Maybe so, but suppose it suddenly became legal in all 50 states for people over age 18 to marry people under age 18 without parental consent. Would we need a special under 18 anniversary card section with cards that say things like, “For the special minor in my life…”?

A same sex anniversary card section is not needed for someone to find an appropriate card, but it is certainly helpful in the ongoing effort to normalize homosexual behavior. It’s the same with marriage rights. A legally recognized civil union that grants the exact same rights as marriage laws is not good enough. It must be called marriage just like heterosexual marriage. The same word must be used, even though it is not the same thing. Using the term civil union in place of marriage is seen as “back of the bus” stuff. Don’t forget about our public schools in the normalization process. They need to teach our young and impressionable children about what is normal and what is not, right?

Is homosexual behavior really normal? Is heterosexual behavior really normal? What would make it normal? What’s the trigger or the mechanism that says it’s normal? What can we use to judge fairly and accurately? Consider “design”. If we observe the physical design of the human body in terms of sexuality and then we note the facts about certain sexual acts (without going into too much detail), we can say that some physical acts are deviant to the design. It really does not matter if one believes we were designed by almighty God or by almighty evolution. The same goes for things like infertility or impotency. They too can be called abnormalities without any discussion about morality or the intrinsic value of the person involved. To call these kinds of things normal is not only unreasonable, but also irresponsible. Remember that the first step in dealing with any problem is to admit there actually is a problem.

So what will be next—a same sex section in the family planning aisle of your local drug store? Probably not.

Welcome to The New "Non-Normative"

The proper definition of freedom is not being able to do what we want, but being able to do what we ought. This freedom to do what we ought relates to our fundamental human rights which relates to our fundamental human needs and tendencies. A reader sent me THIS LINK to a very interesting interview with a priest named Fr. Marcel Guarnizo who connects these ideas in terms of same-sex attraction and marriage rights and since thinking means connecting things it’s certainly worth a closer look.

Humans all have natural tendencies which stem from our desire for self-preservation. We have natural tendencies toward food, drink, shelter, sleep, etc. If anyone tries to take these things from us or prevent us from getting them, they are violating some of our most basic natural human rights. Even the freedom of speech comes from our natural tendency to communicate; freedom of religion comes from our natural tendency to worship or to connect with something transcendent.

Beyond self-preservation of the individual, humans also have a natural tendency toward procreation. Our sexual tendencies relate to the preservation of the species and also self-preservation in terms of passing on our traits and culture to our children. This is why all humans have the right to reproduce and why marriage rights find their rational basis in the context of procreation.

 

 

Any natural human tendency can manifest itself in non-normative ways in terms of excess, deficiency or defect. In the case of the natural tendency toward food we have non-normative excesses like bulimia and non-normative deficiencies like anorexia. In the case of sleep there is narcolepsy and insomnia. Paranoia is a non-normative state that relates to our natural tendency for self-preservation in a disproportionate way. Being suicidal would be another non-normative state working against self-preservation. The same is true for our sexuality. Nymphomania would be a non-normative excess of sexual tendency and impotency would be a deficiency. Sexual tendencies toward children, close relatives, other species (animals) or members of the same sex are also non-normative as they do not foster self-preservation in terms of the preservation of the species.

How can we objectively say a tendency is non-normative? It’s not necessarily a discussion of moral vs. immoral. Sometimes it’s just about data. If you were late to work only 4% of the time, would it be fair to describe you as “normally” late to work based on the data? If you were late to work 96% of the time, would it be fair to describe you as “normally” on time? The percentage of those who claim to have same-sex attraction in the U.S. is less than 4% (interview link above sourced the 2013 National Heath Study). This makes it objectively and statistically correct to say same-sex attraction is a “non-normative” tendency without any discussion of the inherent dignity or morality of the individual.
 

Basic human rights and thus our laws are based on universal and normative human tendencies. With same-sex marriage we have a situation where we have made universal legislation based on a non-normative tendency. This is not only unreasonable, but also irresponsible. In trying to do justice we erode a fundamental rule of law; making it biographical or relating to a special interest.

Other than same-sex attraction, we never celebrate non-normative human tendencies. There are no pride parades for anorexia. But we should be concerned and ask “Why?” We should seek the root cause or causes instead of just telling people to embrace it and demonizing those who question it. Truth is the foundation of compassion and mercy. Any mercy without truth is not merciful; in fact it is quite the contrary. Unless we recover our intellect, we will not be able to recover our civilization.

INTERESTING SIDE NOTE:

The interview mentions nations like Croatia, Slovakia and Macedonia recently amending their constitutions to protect marriage as being between a man and a woman. Could it be that these nations oppressed by communism for decades understand and appreciate basic human rights and justice more than we do?



I want YOU to recover your intellect!

What If We Compare Marriage Rights to Voting Rights?

God is the author of true marriage, but this does not resonate well with same-sex marriage activists. The “Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve” argument doesn’t go very far. Reflex rebuttals include, “You have no right to impose your religion on others.” and the familiar “Separation of Church and State”. When the dialog shuts down I find that secular arguments tend to re-boot the discussion.

Why is the government in the marriage business? Why does the government grant certain rights at all? Why would one set of rights be seen as unfair and another fair? To help answer the question it can be helpful to compare what is perceived to be a problem to what is perceived to be OK.  This can also help to determine if there is actually any problem at all.
 

No comparison is perfect, but comparing voting rights in the context of elections to marriage rights in the context of procreation comes eerily close. The granting of special rights normally implies some special responsibility with regard to said rights. If one is granted the right to vote or the right marry, it follows that you should do something with that right for the common good.
 

Voting:

So what can we say about voting rights? The base rationale for voting is to conduct elections. People given the right to vote are generally anticipated to actually vote, but no one will force you and no one will take away your right because of non-participation.

Not everyone is allowed to vote. There is an age limit because a serious responsibility is involved, and a unique status called citizenship is required. The French are not allowed to vote in a U.S. election and neither are the Chinese. This not because of hatred toward the French and the Chinese, it is because they are not applicable to the situation.

The sought after outcome is a functional government. We all know that voting & elections do not guarantee a functional government, but if we have a one, the elected members will strive for the common good and everyone ultimately wants that.

Marriage:

So what can we say about marriage rights? The base rationale for marriage (as far as the government would ever care) is procreation. People given the right to marry are generally anticipated to procreate, but no one will force you and no one will take away your right because of non-participation.

Not everyone is allowed to marry. There is an age limit because a serious responsibility is involved and a unique status of a male-female union is required. Close relatives are not allowed to marry and (in many places still) gays are not allowed to marry. This is not because of hatred toward close relatives and gays; it is because they are not applicable to the situation.

The sought after outcome is a functional family. We all know that marriage & procreation does not guarantee functional families, but if we have them, the created members will strive for the common good and everyone ultimately wants that.

Visuals are most helpful:

 

 

And then we get into all the “Buts”…

• But gay couples could raise a functional family too.
• And the French could vote in a U.S. election, possibly resulting in a functional government, so we should let them? The French are not applicable to a U.S. election just as gay partnerships are not applicable to procreation.

 

• But they can adopt.
• Adoption is not procreation; it is dealing with children that are already with us.

• But what about surrogacy and impregnation?
• This is procreation, but that’s all it is. Any one person or group of people can arrange it. If this is how to achieve functional families, then special marriage rights would not be intrinsic for either gay or straight couples.

• But marriage rights have nothing whatsoever to do with procreation. Childless married couples prove this.
• Just like voting rights have nothing whatsoever to do with elections. People who don’t vote prove this…Really?

• But if you give those who don’t procreate the right to marry, you have to let gays marry.
• And if you give those who don’t vote the right to vote, we have to let the Chinese vote?

• But marriage is about love.
• And voting is about patriotism? Are we after some tangible objective for the common good or just granting rights for the sake of granting rights; rights for the personal happiness and gratification of individuals?

In the last analysis, if there were no elections, there would be no voting. If there was no procreation, there would be no marriage. Of course, if there was no procreation we would not be here to discuss it, but let’s say humans reproduce asexually; would marriage exist at all? Seems silly, but think about that one. Do you suppose that defining marriage throughout history and throughout the world the way humans reproduce, as one man and one woman, is some kind of weird coincidence?

Marriage should be reinforced, not redefined. Take that into the voting booth the next time you're there.

Religious Liberty & Analytical Problem Solving

One of the basic tenets of the analytical problem solving process employed by our company is to carefully compare what is perceived to be a problem to what is perceived to be OK.  The more closely related the two things are, the more relevant the comparison. From here one can fret-out distinctions between what is seen as OK and what is seen as a problem and use those distinctions to formulate possible causes, or to help determine if there is actually any problem at all.

This kind logic can be applied to the religious liberty debates going on right now. If refusing to sell goods & services for a same-sex marriage celebration because of one’s personal beliefs should be illegal, then other similar “refusals” to other similar “events” should also be illegal.

THIS ARTICLE from National Review does a good job of presenting some relevant comparisons. Here are a few of my favorites:

• Are we prepared to handcuff a feminist photographer who won’t take pictures at a strip club event?

We may not know whether or not the photographer hates the people in the club or loves them, she just does not want her business to be associated with this specific kind of event. Should she be punished?

• Do we respect a black jazz band’s choice not to perform at a Ku Klux Klan chapter’s “Negro Minstrel Show”?

Here again, the band members may not hate white people at all. They just do not want to be part of this performance in any way. Should they be punished?

• Do we respect a pro–gun control photographer’s right to choose not to snap pictures at a “Sharpshooter of the Year” banquet organized by the local chapter of the National Rifle Association?

It’s not that the photographer will never take any pictures of any NRA members at any event. It’s the meaning behind this particular event that is the concern.

• Do we respect a Jewish calligrapher’s right to choose not to produce hand-written invitations for a Hitler Day brunch organized by a local neo-Nazi group?

Once again, the ideology behind the brunch and what it represents is the problem.

The following would be a dissimilar comparison:

• A restaurant owner refuses to serve gay people because he personally believes all gay people are evil.

So what is distinctive between the first four examples and the last one? The focus of attention with the first ones is some event or celebration and the ideology behind it, not the actual person(s) involved. In other words, it’s about the principle, not the person. The difference is vast.

 

The more our society accepts transcendent things, like right vs. wrong, as only opinions, the more we will accept a kind of soft tyranny where the government takes on the role of “moral compass". They will tell us which way is just and which way is unjust, fair or unfair and you will obey or be punished. Religious liberty is a founding principle of the U.S. and watching its own citizens leading the charge against people of faith into this oppression may be the saddest part of the whole mess.

You will obey or be punished!

 

 

The Outside System

It was around the age of four or five that our children began to speak to me and my wife on the topic of “fairness”.  The normal emphasis would be on the things they deemed unfair. As they explained themselves, I noted an astonishing correlation. All that they disagreed with also happened to be “unfair”. As we questioned them further, a second amazing correlation revealed itself; all which they agreed with also happened to be “fair”.

I’m afraid our children, if left alone, would determine right vs. wrong on their own via their own internal passions as opposed to any outside system. By the way, if you doubt the existence of original sin, spend some time with toddlers or small children. You will note that there is no need to teach them how to be “bad”. It just comes naturally.

Unless guided, children will not use an outside system to judge things and adults are not much different, other than perhaps they will more readily yield to the majority. For many, cultural consensus has become the guarantee of truth. If enough people told you that up is down and right is wrong, you’ll cave unless you have an outside system to refer to.

If this seems ridiculous, ponder the insanity of abortion. If educated people can actually be made to believe that an unborn baby is a “non-person” with no right to be alive, what else can they be convinced of? If said persons were to ask, “When did we become persons?” They would accept subjective thresholds of viability or conscience as dictated by the majority, instead of the observable and scientific point of conception. We often fail to live up to the edicts of the obvious.

Reflect on the unintelligibility of same-sex marriage as well. Too many have been easily duped into thinking that marriage has no rational basis in procreation; that marriage having been defined the way humans reproduce is somehow a trivial coincidence. If humans did not reproduce the way they do, marriage would never have been defined the way it has (male-female) around the world and throughout history…but back to outside systems.

Consider a Compass:

Allegories to a moral compass are just about perfect for describing a moral outside system. The compass uses the earth’s magnetic field to determine which way is north. It does not matter what direction a group of travelers believes is north. The way the magnetic field and the compass needle react to each other is completely independent of the minds of the travelers.

What happens if a large group of symbiotic travelers refuse to use the compass? They will go “somewhere” based on their beliefs and experience about traveling.  They may split up into smaller groups, but even the smaller groups need to decide what to do. The strongest will rule eventually, whether by physical force or via other kinds of peer-pressure, coaxing or bullying. It’s the same in societies. Even for the most stubborn and independent of individuals, the strongest will rule eventually, whether it’s a dictator by physical force or just a majority via lawyers and laws.

Consider Industry:

If a customer complains that a product or system is not working right, one of the first questions the vendors support team should ask (internally) is… “Is there a deviation?” In other words, is the product/system working within its normal operating limits or not? There are many situations in which a product is working within in its established parameters, but the customer still doesn’t like it. Here we have a situation where the customer is saying “it’s wrong” and the vendor says “it’s right”. So what should they do? Is the customer ALWAYS right?

Many times they will refer to industry standards as the outside system (like ISO). The data comes via an outside body of industry experts. They establish widely accepted benchmarks which are independent of the opinions of both the customer and the vendor.

What of morality then?

If you’re a true a relativist, then this post is not really for you, since pure relativism cannot plant a stake in the ground for anything to be truly right or wrong; there are only opinions. For those of us who think right and wrong actually exist objectively, where do we look to? Should moral standards be left to some “body of experts” like in industry? If humans look to other humans to know what is moral for humans, I would say it is still an internal system, like the travelers looking to other travelers instead of a compass to find which way is north. Humans would need to look outside of humanity, but also higher than humanity, so animals would not suffice.

INTERESTING SIDE NOTE:

Bonobo chimps are most similar to humans genetically and are known for their sexual promiscuity. They do not seem to discriminate in their sexual behavior by sex or age. In addition, communal sex seems to decrease tension and keeps the peace. I’ve heard it argued that if we could be more like the bonobos, we would all be happier. Wanting to use animals as our outside system for sexual morality shows just how far the human intellect has fallen.

Shameful!

Many believe that God is the outside system for human morality. God would act as the unchanging magnetic field in the compass allegory, but what would act as the compass itself, the visible and universal thing that points the way?  Some may point to sacred writings like the Bible as a kind of travelers guide or map, but written words do not “interact” with people the way a compass interacts between the earth’s magnetic field and the travelers. A map would be an irreplaceable tool, but maps will not orientate you in the right direction like a compass will.

If God really does exist and really does care that we know “The Way”, it seems reasonable that He would provide a reliable compass that was visible and universal for each new generation of travelers to navigate life with. We call this “compass” the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. The idea of this kind of outside system is not new; the earliest Christian writers understood its importance…"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." (2 Tim 4:3)


Life without an outside system...

Stanford Nutting

 

 

Heterosexuals Caused Same-Sex Marriage

Does this post title shock you? It is a hard teaching. Who could accept it? I too was taken back when I first heard it from someone else, but it didn’t take long to see the logic. Heterosexuals have been watering down the true meaning of marriage for decades. A slippery slope need not be as fast as the metaphor implies. A lava flow can be slower than 1km/hour, but will destroy everything in its path.

The foundation for the marriage slope was laid by ending the idea of “permanent”. No fault divorce laws coincided with a message that marriage is a mere convenience, an institution that exists only for the personal happiness and pleasure of two individuals. For no fault divorce, it's basically enough to declare that a couple is no longer happy (irreconcilable differences). There is no need to “work things out”.  We can hardly blame the gay community for this. In the eyes of God however, divorce doesn’t really exist. A couple may need to be legally parted in the case of abuse or other intolerable circumstance (CCC 2383), but once God joins a valid one-flesh-union, it exists. There is no way to make it stop existing. Consider your life. Once you are conceived, you exist. Nothing that happens down the road will change this.

If no fault divorce is the foundation, artificial contraception/sterilization raised-up the angle for the sliding slope of marriage. Homosexuals have no use for contraception or sterilization, so don’t blame them. If marriage is for the personal happiness and pleasure of two individuals, then children are obviously an unnecessary by-product. Contraception blows apart the triune nature of marriage, sex & procreation, furthering the idea that marriage is about mutual gratification and sex is for anyone’s pleasure, married or not. Once the rationale is fragmented, the gay community can easily pick-up the scattered pieces of marriage and reform them into something “else”, something that does not reflect the image & likeness of God.

My wife and I help with the marriage ministry at our parish. One thing we do for the engaged couples is give a talk on sex & intimacy in marriage, which relates to the theology of the body, which relates to the image & likeness of God, which relates to the way God loves. From the eternal love between the Father and the Son proceeds a third person called the Holy Spirit. In a similar way, the love between a husband and wife helps to create a third person called a baby. Consider the Catholic wedding vows as well:

Ø  Have you come here freely?

God loves freely, so we should love freely. Love is an act of the will that cannot be forced.

“No one takes it from me, but I lay it down (my life) of my own accord..." (John 10:18)

Ø  Will you honor each other as man & wife for the rest of your lives?

God holds nothing back in loving us totally and permanently.

“…he loved them to the end.” (John 13:1)

“…And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (Mat 28:20)

Ø  Will you accept children lovingly from God?

God’s love is always fruitful and brings life. Marriage does the same.

“I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” (John 10:10)

"Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth.” (Gen 9:1)

Procreation is an indispensable part of marriage and the one flesh union should always be something totally self-giving that holds nothing back; it should be God-like. Catholics call this being “open to life”. Whenever procreation is mentioned as part of marriage however, infertile couples are called on the carpet. If infertile couples can marry, why can’t gay couples? We must remember that an infertile male/female union is still of the same procreative “type” just like any male/female union.

Consider a baseball analogy. A baseball team is orientated to winning baseball games. Even if they NEVER win a game, no matter how much they try, they are still a baseball team and are always allowed on the baseball diamond. A football team also NEVER wins a baseball game, but a football team is not relevant to winning baseball games, neither is a soccer team, or any other kind of team other than a baseball team.

It is really heterosexuals that built the slow sliding slope that leads directly to gay “marriage”. True marriage reflects the image & likeness of God. It is meant to be unitive, procreative, mutually exclusive and permanent and none of these aspects can be intentionally separated. This is not true because the Catholic Church teaches it. The Catholic Church teaches it because it is true!

A Marriage Proposal

With all the talk about same-sex marriage (SSM) in recent days, I’d like to make a marriage proposal. I’d like to propose that the rational basis for secular marriage in every culture, from China to Chattanooga, is not love, or sexual attraction, or property rights, or civil rights. It is procreation; procreation within a unique framework. Defining marriage as one man and one woman, and the way humans reproduce, isn’t just some weird coincidence.

Any definition requires limits to make one thing distinct from another. Procreation within a certain context is what makes marriage distinguishable from any other type of human relationship. If this seems ludicrous to you, let’s take a closer look.

2 become 1

What about “rights”?

If marriage was about property rights or civil rights, why discriminate (for centuries) against people NOT sexually attracted to each other? Why sex? For example, why is it prohibited for close relatives to marry? The reason is because the rationale for secular marriage is procreation (inbreeding tends toward genetic defects).

If it were about rights, why bother with any specific number? Why can’t 3 or more people agree to marry and share rights? The reason is because only one male and one female are needed for procreation, so there is no reason for the government to give incentive for more than this; it only complicates things.

What about “love”?

If it were about “love” (or sexual attraction) would pre-arranged marriages be legal? What about marrying for immigration reasons or financial reasons? Would a 25-year-old super model need to prove her “love” before marrying an 80-year-old billionaire?

Aside from all this, if the rational basis was indeed love, it begs a question. Why would any government care about who or how their citizens "love" and see some need to issue a license for it and grant privileges? How would the government define love? Must it be only sexual love? Why mutually exclusive? How could they distinguish between love and lust?

The government should be about the business of the common good, so secular marriage must be for something more than the gratification and happiness of only two individuals, more than just accommodating a “special interest”, more than government acknowledgment for the sake of government acknowledgment.



Give 'em the ring finger.

Last, but certainly not least, why procreation?

The nature of permanent male/female unions leads directly to the very building blocks of a nation just like the cells of a body. Strong families and a productive future citizenry are the result if done right. This clearly relates to not only the common good, but the very survival of a population. It explains why any nation-state would give incentive & recognize a permanent male/female union as UNIQUE among all other types of human relationships.
 

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.

What about infertile couples or couples who do not want children?

This question brings a new question. Should marriage be defined as any man and any woman or only those willing & able to have children? This new debate would bring much discussion, but the question itself does not logically justify SSM.
 

Heterosexual couples are fertile by nature with some exceptions, so exceptions can be debated. Homosexual couples are infertile by nature with NO exceptions. The former could change their mind or seek fertility treatments, the latter cannot. Even in the case of certain infertility, the former is still properly orientated to that unique type of union that can build an entire nation, the latter is not.

Other things that do not explain the existence of secular marriage:

Ø  Adoption:

Adoption is not procreation; it is about how to deal with children that are already here and have no one to care for them. If adoption is the same as procreation and justifies marriage, then why not let a father and his adult son get married?  Why not a group of celibate nuns? Who’s to say they could not raise adopted children just as well as anyone else?

What about the gay couple that has already adopted a child? Could not a legal arrangement be made between two adults and a child without redefining marriage into something unintelligible for an entire society?

What gives?

Ø  Surrogate Mothers:

This IS procreation, but NOT in the framework that secular marriage intended. If surrogate motherhood equates a true procreative union, and therefore justifies marriage, why not let any group of people, like a softball team for example, pay women to have babies and then allow the entire group to marry? Additionally, surrogate motherhood does not occur naturally as part of a human union (neither does adoption). Could not a single individual effectively adopt or employ a surrogate? Why involve marriage?

Ø  Impregnation:

This does not require two women, but women in a lesbian partnership could always find a way to get pregnant with help from a man. This is also procreation, but again, not in the context that secular marriage proposes. If impregnation equates a true procreative union, and therefore justifies marriage, why not let a mother and her adult daughter get married?

Why not just change the rationale?

Public institutions shape our ideas and ideas have consequences. As mentioned, any definition requires limits, and limits require a rationale. This is what makes a circle a circle and a square a square. They are both shapes, but they are not the same. If marriage means whatever you want, then it can mean anything, which makes it mean nothing. Removing the rational basis for a norm will erode adherence to that norm.

Think about it!

Thinking means connecting things and any kind of rational thinking involves asking coherent questions and finding intelligible answers. Why sex? Why exclusive? Why two? Why permanent? Why property? Why government? Why rights? Why bother? Procreation links all these ideas.

Our society is getting very proficient at making assertions & demands, but not so skilled at asking & answering “why”.

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.

Same-Sex Marriage – What's it to you anyway?

Questions that come up in the same-sex marriage (SSM) debate are, “What’s it to you anyway? Why not let them marry? How does it affect opposite-sex marriage (OSM)?” I think the questions themselves show a misunderstanding of the concern. Some troubleshooting logic we use at work may help us to understand better.

When taking some action on an issue, we must try to ascertain if we are taking action on the cause of a problem or an effect of a problem.

Ø Action on the cause is called corrective action; it intends to eliminate the cause
Ø Action on the effect is called interim or adaptive action; it intends to limit the effect.

 

Example 1:

Ø Problem: I have a cold

Ø Cause: a virus

Ø Effect: runny nose (among other things)

v Corrective Acton: kill virus

v Interim or Adaptive Action: blow your nose

We have a problem of sexual sin in our world. The cause of this problem is sexual confusion; by “confusion” I mean not understanding, not knowing, or ignoring the true purpose of sex. A sexual relationship is meant to be something unitive, procreative, mutually exclusive and permanent and none of these aspects can be intentionally separated. It only makes sense in the context of OSM. The Effects of sexual sin are:

Ø  Unwanted pregnancies

Ø  Abortion

Ø  Divorce

Ø  Increased poverty

Ø  Sex addiction

Ø  Child molestation

Ø  Disease (STD’s)

Ø  An unknowable amount of emotional pain

Ø  Probably others I’m forgetting.

This list affects all of us. We do not live in a vacuum. As JP2 has said, there are no private sins.

Example 2:

Ø  Problem: sexual sin

Ø  Cause: sexual confusion

Ø  Effect: STD’s (among other things)

v  Corrective Acton: educate/evangelize

v  Interim or Adaptive Action: medicine/vaccination

I suggest that legalizing SSM is just another effect of the problem, not a cause. Political action defending true marriage is good, but we should be aware that this is addressing more an effect than the cause.

So back to the questions of, “What’s it to you? Why not let them marry? How does it affect OSM?” The government is a kind of teacher with great influence. Public institutions shape our ideas and ideas have consequences. In legalizing SSM, governments are “teaching” society that marriage and procreation are not inexorably linked. This further extends the cause of the problem and thus accentuates its effects. Removing the rational basis for a norm will erode adherence to that norm.

Additionally, if SSM becomes the law-of-the-land, those that defend true marriage (like the Catholic Church) would be seen more and more as a “bigots” that make groundless distinctions. This would logically bring more persecution.

No fault divorce, artificial contraception and legalizing abortion were supposed to make things better for society, make people happier, build stronger marriages, and reduce poverty & STD’s. The data shows the exact opposite. As we s-l-o-w-l-y accept the changes, we are like frogs in water being s-l-o-w-l-y boiled to death, just a few degrees at a time. Legalizing SSM is the next temperature increment we face.

Hey Frog, what's it to ya?