Advertisement

LJWorld.com weblogs Science Becoming Religion

Same Sex "Marriage" Is Biologically Impossible

Advertisement

Marriage is a biological function, not something created by government to discriminate against homosexuals.

Regardless of how government may artificially define marriage in legal terms, marriage is really the union of the two different types of human beings -- males and females. Two members of the same sex cannot have a marriage relationship regardless of what ignorant politicians like President Barack Obama say.

Marriage unites members of the different sexes to form a unit that has all the human characteristics. Two men or two women cannot form such a unit. They are like two left shoes or two right shoes. A man and a woman fit together like two puzzle pieces. Two people of the same sex are just mirror images.

Males and females not only have anatomical differences, they have different biochemistries, including different skin PH ( http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_pH_in_the_human_skin ) . Men's and women's brains function differently. ( http://www.mastersofhealthcare.com/blog/2009/10-big-differences-between-mens-and-womens-brains/ )

Males produce chemicals called pheromones that are beneficial to females. ( http://www.athenainstitute.com/discovery.html ) ( http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro03/web2/kshiner.html ) The research on how males might benefit from pheromones women produce is less clear because most research on female pheromones deals with how they attract men. Research does indicate that men benefit from marriage and the benefits may involve biochemistry. ( http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mens_Health_Watch/2010/July/marriage-and-mens-health http://www.themedguru.com/20110128/newsfeature/marriage-good-mens-physical-womens-mental-health-86143466.html

The fact that men's and women's brains function differently complicates relationships, but provides the couple with the benefit of viewing the problems faced from two different perspectives. This difference stimulates the relationship and makes the opposite sex more intriguing. A member of the opposite sex is more likely to respond "unexpectedly" to a situation than a member of one's own sex.

The brain differences can potentially allow an opposite sex partner to provide a type of support that someone with the same type of brain cannot. However, some people may be psychologically unable to provide or accept support from others.

Having sex with a member of the opposite sex allows an individual to experience the physical sexuality of the opposite sex. Having sex with a member of one's own sex provides no such benefit.

To women, men are strength. To men, women are energy.

In many cultures a man will refer to his wife as his "better half". A woman may call her husband her "other half". A husband or a wife is half of a unit. Both together are a complete unit. http://originalwavelength.blogspot.com/2011/03/why-does-man-call-his-spouse-his-better.html

When a man calls his partner a wife he is indicating she is his female half. For a woman, a husband is her male half.

A woman who calls her partner a "wife" is implying the partner, rather than her, is the female part of the unit making her the "male". A woman who calls her partner a "wife" and expects her partner to have any children is acting like a man and is very likely a transsexual rather than a homosexual. She may call herself a lesbian because she fails to understand that she is attracted to other women because she has the brain of a man.

Some male homosexuals claim that they look at other men the same way men look at women. However, scientific research by Dr. Ivanka Savic of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, indicates that in their brains, homosexual men "look at" other men the way women look at men. This tendency could indicate that these homosexual men have female brains and are thus transsexuals. They call their partners "husbands" because subconsciously they think of themselves as women. http://www.naturalattraction.com/research/nytimes_2.html

A study by of lesbians by Dr. Savic indicates their brains responded to certain chemicals that might be pheromones in the same way as the brains of heterosexual men rather than in the way that heterosexual women's brains responded. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9125-clue-to-sexual-attraction-found-in-lesbian-brain.html

Homosexuals don't understand that the characteristics of the human body only determine how the body can engage in sexual activity. Human sexuality is determined by the sexual identity of the brain. A female brain is attracted to a male body. A male brain is attracted to a female body. A person attracted to someone with the same type of body most likely has a brain of the other sex.

A study of brain structure by Dr. Ivanka Savic and Per Lindström, of the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, indicates that homosexual men and heterosexual women have similar brains and that homosexual women and heterosexual men have similar brains.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm

Heterosexuals desire a marriage relationship to gain a feeling of completeness by being part of a unit that contains a member of each sex. Homosexuals cannot become complete by having a relationship with a member of their own sex, even though they may think that calling a relationship a marriage gives them what heterosexuals have in a marriage. Homosexuals who want to call their relationship a "marriage" are implying they are dissatisfied with being homosexuals and want what they believe heterosexuals have by being married.

Homosexuals don't understand sex. They don't understand marriage. They don't understand their own medical condition.

Comments

Melinda Black 1 year, 10 months ago

This has got to be one of the oddest posts I've ever read on the ljworld.com site.

Marriage is a social and legal construction. Reproduction is a biological function.

0

ssteve1 1 year, 10 months ago

I'm thrilled to have read this. I just learned that two men can NOT have a baby. Please, somebody just slit my throat.

1

Bill_Slu 1 year, 10 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Leslie Swearingen 1 year, 10 months ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGj4_C...

This is all we know and all we need to know. Like I said above, really very simple when you get down to it. No need to complicate things.

0

Barclay 1 year, 10 months ago

Reasonmclucus- What is most helpful to me is that you have largely left religion out of your discussion. Well said. Well done. I embrace the religious arguments favoring heterosexual marriage, but approaching this scientifically and psycho-socially is an excellent approach. Thank you.

0

pace 1 year, 10 months ago

As tragically silly as the premise of this piece is. I just think, good luck to the same sex marriages, as I wonder about opposite sex marriage being possible. As I feel tonight, same sex marriage might be easier. I sometimes can not fathom the differences between the sexes. Why has god forsaken me. Can't two people agree on what being on time means!!!!

0

jellybean08 1 year, 11 months ago

WHERE IS THE DOWN-VOTE BUTTON?

0

grigori 1 year, 11 months ago

If I'm going to town on myself with a bottle of shampoo... is that marriage?

0

Leslie Swearingen 1 year, 11 months ago

"There ain't nothin' I can do or nothin' I can say That folks don't criticize me but I'm going to do Just as I want to anyway And don't care just what people say."

Lyrics from "Ain't nobodies bidness if I do", sang by Billie Holiday who was known as Lady Day. You go your way, I'll go mine and maybe we will meet in the fork in the road and then, maybe not.

0

jayhawkca 1 year, 11 months ago

To adequately support the claims in your blog, you need peer-reviewed sources, not Wikipedia.

0

Gregory Newman 1 year, 11 months ago

Marriage is a spiritual principle ordained by God and is conducted in a ceremony with a man and a woman that professes and confesses that they acknowledge God as their spiritual Head and possess His Spirit to set as an example for a divine purpose.

It is stated in the 14th amendment Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge- (reduce, curtail, slash, cut) the privileges or immunities (the condition of not affected) of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

According to this amendment of our constitution Gay couples have a right to marry regardless of anyone’s personal feelings. Bible principle is not constitutional.

It is stated in the first amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress (to remedy or rectify) of grievances.” So therefore same-sex marriage should never be heard in court at any level period.

In America it became a habit to announce the 1st amendment as the separation of Church and State. But the term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.

The original text reads: "... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion. The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution.

Since our civil liberties have accepted marriage as a privilege. The institution of marriage is not anyone’s idea or personal property to manage as one would deem fit. So therefore, it would be profane to determine what is fair or equitable about a principle that belongs to God to define humanity. So any magistrate that grants homosexuals to marry will result in an unexpected unfavorable consequence for that stated jurisdiction by God.

0

funkdog1 1 year, 11 months ago

"Homosexuals don't understand that the characteristics of the human body only determine how the body can engage in sexual activity. Human sexuality is determined by the sexual identity of the brain."


Well then you should declare yourself king of the homosexuals and teach them the errors of their ways.

0

tange 1 year, 11 months ago

I could be wrong...

/ may the road rise with you

0

Leslie Swearingen 1 year, 11 months ago

The way I see it is that I would feel bad if I had the right to deprive someone of a lifestyle that would make them happy. What would I say to them? Sorry, and I do know this is what you want for your life, and I do know it would make you happy, but I wouldn't do that, so you can't do it either. Seriously? No. You live your life your way, I live my life my way and we can still meet and greet and be friends. Simple, ain't it?

0

Agnostick 1 year, 11 months ago

"Homosexuals don't understand sex. They don't understand marriage. They don't understand their own medical condition."


They understand these things a lot better than you ever will.

So, riddle me this, Batman:

If a married couple discovers that they are infertile--that they are medically incapable, for one reason or another, of producing biological offspring--should their marriage then be annulled?

Following that line to its logical conclusion... should The State and/or The Church conduct medical exams, tests etc. of single men and women to validate proper biological reproductive functions... and only allow marriage between those individuals that can produce viable, healthy offspring free of health problems, deformities, or even genetic defects such as Downs Syndrome?

If a middle-aged or older woman should lose her husband through an untimely death (disease, disaster, crime etc.)... should we exclude her from the chance to remarry and find happiness, support, comfort, etc. from another man... just because her reproductive processes have shut down due to the natural onset of menopause?

I always find it odd that those that proclaim "freedom" and "liberty" the loudest, and point their fingers at "liberals"... are often quick to resort to the most barbaric, overbearing, controlling policies and mechanisms when their perfect little social orders are threatened.

0

mjkiran 1 year, 11 months ago

Dear Well-Intentioned but Only Partially Informed Author,

You like to rely on science and experts? Please read the following statement on marriage from the largest anthropological professional association in the world:

http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/marriage.htm

To sum up, a) marriage is a social construct NOT a biological relation, and b) it is not defined in all times and places as between one man and one woman...not even in the US.

0

Cai 1 year, 11 months ago

if the law is artificial, why does it need to butt in?

You want to make this point, you want to believe this point? fine. You have that right.

But the fact irrefutably remains that there ARE people who want to live in homosexual relationships - people that are HAPPY in homosexual relationships. The "artificial environment" of the law provides things like social security benefits, tax breaks, right of kin, automatic inheritance, automatic child custody and other rights in this "artificial environment".

Why, exactly, can't the artificial environment that we as society create and control allow for these rights to be given to all happy couples? We're in an artificial environment anyway - the 'natural' environment - by definition of the fact that we all live in and under the law, becomes less relevant.

0

Zazzman 1 year, 11 months ago

You know what your "scientific evidence" actually means, in every day life? Homosexual people are attracted to people of the same sex, as if they themselves were members of the opposite sex. Wow, that's like... something we already knew from the definition of the word "gay".

That's not "marriage" that's attraction. When two people are attracted to each other, they form a couple, they don't get a marriage license on the first date. If they drift apart, it's less of a big deal if people aren't married.

In the end, I'm left with this: http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/131/351/eb6.jpg?1307463786

0

JackMcKee 1 year, 11 months ago

Bartender, cut this man off. He's had enough.

0

OrestessonofAgamemnon 1 year, 11 months ago

This guy and all righties are just plain dumb. where in the bible does Jesus say hate and revoke human rights. If you agree with them you are kin to the KKK.

0

deec 1 year, 11 months ago

Just because marketers have successfully made marriage into a multi-billion dollar industry doesn't negate the fact that a legal marriage is nothing more than a contract. That contract exists in part to protect offspring. All the bells and whistle have nothing to do with the legal status of marriage.

0

tange 1 year, 11 months ago

Opening comments—not the first one, which was stellar, BTW ,:-P — reiterate the contract over biology notion of marriage pervading these forums. One commenter even goes so far as to suggest that biological issues are inconsequential. Presumably, the comment generated spontaneously within the frame in which it appears, as must have all the social contracts predating human union.

Biology—existence—of course IS the precedent. Even marriage origin theorists have suggested: "Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs." Well, whatever the varied, original circumstance(s), marriage has evolved, as have notions about the relationship between men and women (and children).

You don't really see couples picking out a nice frame for their social contract in anticipation of their wedding day. Rings and dresses and the furnishings of a life seem to be the thing. If the contract were the thing, Kinko's could cater the affair, and everyone could get a complimentary copy with which to remember the occasion (custom while-you-dance-the-night-away framing optional).

http://www.islandmix.com/backchat/f9/origin-marriage-50901/

/ indirect source

0

gl0ck0wn3r 1 year, 11 months ago

This is so full of lulz that I thought it was satire. Wow.

0

50YearResident 1 year, 11 months ago

Two (2) of the same sex is only a civil union, like has been said many, many times.

0

grammaddy 1 year, 11 months ago

Homosexuality isn't just about having sex with someone of the same sex. Some folks just don't get it.

0

FloridaSunshine 1 year, 11 months ago

@ Reasonmclucus...Excellent, excellent, excellent!! Thank you!!

We could have guessed the very ones who would find all sorts of wrongs with your blog!!

Thank you for knowing you would be pounded and still putting your thoughts "out there"...I discovered a long time ago that one is not allowed on LJW to have different views from the majority of posters. They will try everything within the power of their words to beat you to a pulp.

So, thank you...again!

0

Glenn Reed 1 year, 11 months ago

Your first sentence is wrong. Just plain wrong.

So wrong, in fact, that it's hard to venture further into the writing without reading that first sentence over again.

It's essentially the same thing as saying "home loans are biologically impossible."

Or "Cell phone contracts are biologically impossible."

Why should anyone take you seriously if you're going to fail at even making the distinction between biology and civil law?

0

Leslie Swearingen 1 year, 11 months ago

Reasonmclucus I think you make a lot of sense. I think that people should be able to be married in a church with no legal paperwork and still have the marriage recognized by the law in case of divorce. If I am understanding this right, if you live with someone for six months it is considered a common law marriage even though those involved may not think of it that way.
Maybe we should just make decisions about ourselves and our families and let everyone else do the same. It seems to be the legal aspects that has everyone tied in knots.

0

Paul Decelles 1 year, 11 months ago

I wouldn't make a big deal of the Savic and Lindström study. The sample sizes were small and the statistical analysis might not have been appropriate. Also, homosexuals are not transsexuals and I suspect even Savic and Lindström would disagree with you.

0

Alyosha 1 year, 11 months ago

Clearly you have no historical understanding of the history of marriage. For instance: "In the period up to roughly the thirteenth century, male bonding ceremonies were performed in churches all over the Mediterranean. These unions were sanctified by priests with many of the same prayers and rituals used to join men and women in marriage. The ceremonies stressed love and personal commitment over procreation, but surely not everyone was fooled. Couples who joined themselves in such rituals most likely had sex as much (or as little) as their heterosexual counterparts. In any event, the close association of male bonding ceremonies with forbidden sex eventually became too much to overlook as ever more severe sodomy laws were put into place." See http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/gay-marriage-medieval-style.html

1

Ron Holzwarth 1 year, 11 months ago

From the last sentence: "They don't understand their own medical condition."

Take a look in the 'Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders', fourth edition, (DSM IV), which is the guidebook that psychiatrists use to diagnose mental disorders. Guess what. Homosexuality is not listed, because it is not considered to be a "medical condition".

If you have some new discoveries that the psychiatric community should know about, you should be writing a thesis and having it peer reviewed, not blogging about it here.

But, the joke is on all of us, because we are taking you seriously in what has to be some kind of joke.

0

Ron Holzwarth 1 year, 11 months ago

Is it still a "marriage" if the man has had a vasectomy? Or if a woman is past menopause? Because after that, they couldn't have any children, so there would be no point in having a biological "marriage".

I would recommend that you read the Kinsey Reports that were published in 1948 and 1953 before you blog on this topic again.

1

pace 1 year, 11 months ago

If my spouse tried this argument on me, that "Marriage is a biological function" I would suspect someone dipped into the budget to buy a boat. My spouse and I think this partnership as something more substantial than a roll in the hay. If that is all this guy's marriage is, just a biological function, he needs to talk to his spouse and see if there is agreement. It may be true for him , that is all he has made of it, but most marriages are much more, more work too. He should probably get to work.

0

Fossick 1 year, 11 months ago

We are at a societal crossroads where we do not know what marriage is for us. Is it a public (i.e. government-approved) contract that gives rights like visitations and tax breaks? Is it an agreement between families making them de-facto friends and even allies? Is it a celebration of true love and the monogamous dedication that the chemical feeling of "being in love" drives us towards? Is it a special relationship, joined by God himself (and therefore subject to his tacit approval approval and rules) between a man and a woman? Between a man and 5 different women?

The problem is not just that marriage has been all of these things, but that while all of us agree that our own marriages might fit 2 or 3 or 4, they may not be the same ones, and we probably disagree about the relative importance of those things we share in common.

One good solution was that proposed by CS Lewis 70 years ago: "My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not."

The church (or churches) can have their own rules, and the state can have rules that apply to everyone, or it can have (as I'd prefer) no rules at all.

1

ccp 1 year, 11 months ago

Click on his profile and go to his blog site.... Wow. Just wow.

0

Gotland 1 year, 11 months ago

Should men have the right to have babies?

0

jonas_opines 1 year, 11 months ago

You should submit this to the Onion.

/I'm assuming, given the glaring assumptions, leaps of logic, and other flaws in this piece, that it is satire.

0

somedude20 1 year, 11 months ago

"Marriage is a biological function" No, the fluid you secrete during climax (so hard not to be dirty) is a biological function and there are many sexless marriages out there. Just Google it and you will see.......

Now, if you are worried that same sex marriage would kill the sanctity of marriage (the kind you like)think about these other ways to get married: rapist on victim unions (don't forget to pay the victim's father 50 shekels) or male soldier and prisoner of war marriages (wives must submit sexually to their husbands) http://www.upworthy.com/the-top-8-ways-to-be-traditionally-married-according-to-the-bible?c=la2 The many ways to get hitched, now I know why you want to protect it

1

Chuck Anziulewicz 1 year, 11 months ago

DEAR REASONMCLUCUS:

You're confusing the legal institution of civil marriage with the biological act of sex.

Couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the ability or even desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.

The the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration before friends and family members that they wish to make a commitment to one another’s happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows.

THAT’S what makes marriage a good thing, whether the couple in question is Straight OR Gay

1

Liberty_One 1 year, 11 months ago

Umm, marriage is a legal status and a contract. The only biological requirements to meet those two concepts are being a human being who is old enough to make a binding contract. Your further biological definitions are arbitrary and inconsequential.

1

tange 1 year, 11 months ago

Although rife with memes (a woman taught me that word) and stereotypes, your blog rightly points to the fact that men and women complement one another across many more dimensions than just puzzle-piece genitalia.

RM: "In many cultures a man will refer to his wife as his "better half". A woman may call her husband her "other half". A husband or a wife is half of a unit. Both together are a complete unit."

Be apprised, however (as have I), that modern women are whole, "complete," and not in need of bicycles.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.