RE: Using Biology Against Same-Sex Marriage

from Cagle’s Blog.

I read this news article from New York Times because it came up on my iGoogle homepage (a good way to force-feed yourself the real world).

An old Christian couple was arguing against Same-Sex Marriage with what they believed to be a new twist: Biology instead of Religion.

“It takes a man and a woman to create children and thus create a family,” the old lady said. Implying that since two men or two women cannot create cihldren, they cannot create a family. What a novel concept!

But the interesting thing is, this old couple cannot have children either. Uh-oh. I think her statement has to be modified to “It takes a viable man and a viable woman to create children and thus create a family,” and if she really wants to link the ability to reproduce to the validity for marriage, then she would be the first one to sign away her marriage certificate.

They were quick to back away from that unsupportable argument (otherwise they would be taking on everyone with infertility issues including themselves), and argued that children brought up by parents of the same sex have a disadvantage over children brought up by heterosexual parents.

Hm, so, where’s the biology in that? Biologically, we seek a mom (F) and a dad (M)? Maybe. Although I can’t help but to think of the little ducklings who follow the duck farmer because he was around when they hatched. Were they biologically programmed to find someone who’s 100 times bigger than themselves, or just someone who could take care of them?

Bottom line is, I believe no one can use any scientific field to argue against same-sex marriage, much the same way as using science to argue about abortion, morality, etc. Science is based on empirical observations and critical examinations that never seeks to prove, but to disprove. Any absolute claim such as “same-sex marriage is absolutely unacceptable” or “gravity absolutely exists” is unsupportable by science: science can only say “gravity has so far been found everywhere we looked, and it has thus far followed the Law of Gravitation. Until this is disproved, let’s accept this hypothesis for the sake of progress.”

Although biology may be less rigorous and “clean-cut” than physics and math, just because you feel you need parents of both sexes doesn’t make it a biological fact.

So please play the ball in your own field, mister and mis’ess.


3 thoughts on “RE: Using Biology Against Same-Sex Marriage

  1. haha~~i love that comics (the humor part)lol

    how interesting that is….whole bunch of scientists all over the world are working so hard just to “disprove” one thing after another XD

    this reminds me the lab manual I used back in 1st year which bolded the line which says student must not say “we prove….” in the report but “we disaprove…..”

    呵呵~~有種空忙一場的感覺. 不過事實上當然不是這樣啦! 還是因為有這麼多的disapprovement才回有今天科學的成就咩!!

    哈哈哈~~好像有點離題了!NVM….當我自言自語好了 : P

  2. Yeah… but truth is we can’t prove anything with science, cuz we can never observe the entire universe.

    We can make a claim that’s probably true, and we might even assign it with a statistical probability of being true (and this probability can be 99.9999%), but to get to 100% would require an infinite sample size.

  3. why is marriage the second time to my soul mate of 25 years. Sex is such an insignificant part of our lives as the goverement regs. Have a relationship and keep the sex to yourselves. Live as if there is no tommorrow. Sex is not an idenity. Pay your own way.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s