Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Same Sex "Marriage" Is Biologically Impossible
Town Hall ^ | May 16, 2012 | reasonmclucus

Posted on 05/16/2012 2:46:11 PM PDT by kathsua

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. Men's and women's brains function differently.

Males produce chemicals called pheromones that are beneficial to females. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

TOPICS: Government; Politics; Religion; Society
KEYWORDS: biology; homosexual; marriage; transsexual
I wonder if Christians would have more success opposing homosexual marriage if they relied on a scientific argument instead of a moral argument. Obama and many other politicians frequently demonstrate that they don't care about morality. I think the idea of two men getting married or two women getting married sounds incredibly stupid.
1 posted on 05/16/2012 2:46:14 PM PDT by kathsua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kathsua
The scientific argument is the moral argument.

I like framing moral arguments around "suppose everyone did it".

Guess more human race.

2 posted on 05/16/2012 2:51:35 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kathsua

Christianity’s response to homosexuality is far more than a moral argument: it advocates TRUTH, as proven by a resurrected Messiah. While science can and should be used to support truth, ultimately the Creator’s opinion is the only one that matters.

3 posted on 05/16/2012 2:56:40 PM PDT by Salvavida (The restoration of the U.S.A. starts with filling the pews at every Bible-believing church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kathsua
'Human sexuality is determined by the sexual identity of the brain.'

Oh, no more a sin, eh? How about the gay gene, or fat gene. Perhaps the lying gene. Pedophile identity in the brain? I don't know how far the writer wants to take that part of the argument.

4 posted on 05/16/2012 3:09:06 PM PDT by Theoria (Rush Limbaugh: Ron Paul sounds like an Islamic terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kathsua

If previously past generations could look down from heaven and see the current crop of humanity perplexed over the definition of marriage they would say what a generation of morons we’ve become.

5 posted on 05/16/2012 3:10:03 PM PDT by tflabo (Truth or tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kathsua

I always thought being gay was an extreme form of narcissism.

6 posted on 05/16/2012 3:20:43 PM PDT by dragonblustar (Allah Ain't So Akbar!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tflabo

WOW - I get to be the first to mention DARWIN!

7 posted on 05/16/2012 3:22:35 PM PDT by reg45 (Barack 0bama: Implementing class warfare by having no class!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kathsua
I am a Christian and I also hold a Masters degree in biology. I base my opinion that homosexuality, except in rare cases, is a choice rather than genetic on my knowledge of biology and natural selection. There is no genetic “motivation” for something that does not serve to increase the likelihood of producing viable offspring to insure the survival of the species. Until recently, a gay man and a lesbian woman could not produce a child together without having sex in the heterosexual manner. Therefore, a gene for "gayness" would not likely have been selected for. I feel the same way about allowing a child to determine their "gender identity" and those who chose to undergo sex-change operations. If your genes say that you are XX, you are a woman. If your genes say XY, genetically you are a man, no matter what your mind (and whatever artificial hormones you may be taking) says.
8 posted on 05/16/2012 3:33:03 PM PDT by srmorton (Deut. 30 19: "..I have set before you life and death,....therefore, choose life..")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kathsua

It makes no sense from any point of view to permit gay radicals (feminazis) the power to re-engineer heterosexual sex and family. If you recall, in the past lesbian feminists were naming normal heterosexual sex, rape. They named normal heterosexual flirtation, sexual harassment and have ruined plenty of men and women with their legal activism in the name of feminism.

They can be strangled by their own twisted notions. They hate heterosexual unions and families, naming it the root of sexism against women. They hate children - naming them shackles on career women (women who want to pretend they are men - dykes).

If we open the door to special “race” rights for homos, gay “intellectuals” will destroy heterosexual love, marriage and family in the same way black race baiters, filled with race hate, have destroyed post segregation race relations. They don’t understand normal men and normal women and, in fact, lesbians hate heterosexuals sexually. They hate Christians, too.

9 posted on 05/16/2012 3:37:38 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
“Guess more human race.”

Artificial insemination and surrogate (or even artificial) wombs could theoretically allow for a reproducing human race that is entirely homosexual or asexual. We produce entire fields of livestock without sex and do it very cheaply.

I think we are headed to a more “segregated” society as technology makes men and women need each other less and less. Sex may someday be similar to what weight lifting is today. You don’t NEED to lift the weights to survive today, but it is healthy because our bodies evolved when heavy lifting was a necessity. Sex might be reduced to a simple exercise involving robotic partners with increasingly exaggerated looks and abilities that don’t exist in real humans. After many generations of this, there would be no physical attraction between real flesh/blood humans. They will all become “friends” and have no interest in sex with each other. We are already seeing the beginning stages of this with internet and cartoon porn making Japanese men uninterested in sex.

Mechanically and practically, this makes sense. No drama, competition, jealousy, disease, etc. However, we are more than mere machines and there is so much more to us than meets the eye…

10 posted on 05/16/2012 3:41:59 PM PDT by varyouga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: varyouga

****No drama, competition, jealousy, disease, etc****

You have identified the one benefit;) Good-bye Hollywood!!!

11 posted on 05/16/2012 3:53:47 PM PDT by sodpoodle (Newt was more able - but the media had more influence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kathsua

Like air water food the heterosexual act / union is required for the human race to survive...logic dictates we acknowledge that unique status in our laws

12 posted on 05/16/2012 4:13:30 PM PDT by tophat9000 (American is Barack Oaken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: srmorton
To piggyback on your comment.

I base my opinion that homosexuality, except in rare cases, is a choice rather than genetic on my knowledge of biology and natural selection.

When people tell me that homosexuality is not a choice, that it is genetic, I ask them to explain vegans.

Human beings are genetically omnivores, our teeth show us to be omnivores, one of our survival mechanisms as a species is our ability to eat whatever is available. And yet people CHOOSE to go against genetics and become vegans, foregoing all meats and dairy products. So again I ask them, how is it possible for vegans to go against genetics, but for homosexuals to be unable to do so?

13 posted on 05/16/2012 4:13:57 PM PDT by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kathsua
"Marriage is a biological function"

No it's not. It is a contract between a man and a woman that fundamentally contains the promise of commitment to a long term relationship.

14 posted on 05/16/2012 4:18:16 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kathsua
I think there might even be a third view.

Marriage ceremonies originated as “religious” ceremonies long before there were governments. Somewhere along the way, a “Church Wedding”, (religious marriage), became the same as a “City Hall/Justice of the Peace wedding”, (Civil/legal marriage).

That difference cannot be emphasized enough. One is a ceremony that unites a man and a woman and links that union to God, transcending the earthly realm. The other is a legal proceeding that unites two people into a legally binding contract. The tragedy was allowing both to be called by the same name.

I know that I, and probably the majority of religious folks have no issue with legal protections for same sex partners that include tax issues, visitation rights, property, insurance, etc, but all of that is legal, to be accomplished through a civil union.

Where people of faith have an issue is when the government tries to impose it's will on a long established religious ceremony.

15 posted on 05/16/2012 4:36:55 PM PDT by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kathsua

Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman, between the families, with posterity and with our culture and God. It is exactly what the left and the radicals pushing the homosexual agenda wish to destroy. The cultural revolution has destroyed enough.

16 posted on 05/16/2012 4:37:55 PM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kathsua

You talked about the differences in the brain, men with female brains and women with male brains. Since I learned about the condition known as chimera, I have wondered if this is the cause of people who think they are the opposite sex as their body and genetics indicate, xx and xy. Supposedly, chimera is caused by the cells of what would have been a fraternal twin, being absorbed by the body of the surviving twin. Thus the surviving twin’s body possesses dna from both twins, yet the absorbed twin’s dna does show up in all of the cells of the surviving twins body, just in some. So if a surviving twin absorbed the cells from a opposite sex fraternal twin, would it be possible that the brain could be affected to think it is of the opposite sex because the absorbed twin’s cells went to the brain? I don’t know the answers, it’s just something that I’ve just wondered about since reading about the condition known as chimera.

17 posted on 05/16/2012 5:21:06 PM PDT by This I Wonder32460
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kathsua

The institution of marriage was designed for males and females for procreation purposes. It was not intended for homosexuals who cannot reproduce. Homosexuality is a mental disorder, not a justification to assume the rights reserved for normal people.

18 posted on 05/16/2012 5:25:41 PM PDT by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pallis
Until recently I was opposed to gay marriage for two reasons. First, marriage was defined as the union of one man and one woman so a same sex union would not legally qualify as a marriage. The second was that I believed the only purpose of marriage was to publically declare an exclusive bond between potentially reproductive partners. This universal cultural rite was intended to channel the base human sexual drive to a higher moral purpose, the raising of human offspring over the exceptionally long period of time required by our nature. As an additional moral benefit this vow serves to constrain on our promiscuous sexual nature.
I still believe that “gay marriage” can never be identical with “marriage” because it does not satisfy the legal definition. That said, I believe “gay marriage” in some form does serve a higher moral purpose by creating a public declaration of an exclusive sexual bond between two persons of the same sex. This is the same benefit as that for heterosexual partners. When coupled with a cultural stigma against infidelity (and a capacity for shame) it serves to constrain our promiscuous sexual nature. This benefits both individuals and society. It doesn't matter if sexual preference is genetic or behavioral. It is a powerful dopamine coupled behavior that can destroy a persons health and happiness if not controlled.
The rules of marriage established by organized religions are arbitrary and only apply to members of those groups. There is no reason to expect that traditional religions would accept marriages (gay, inter-faith, unbaptised, etc) that do not conform to their doctrine.
19 posted on 05/16/2012 5:30:36 PM PDT by Dave Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sergio

“Marriage ceremonies originated as “religious” ceremonies long before there were governments. Somewhere along the way, a “Church Wedding”, (religious marriage), became the same as a “City Hall/Justice of the Peace wedding”, (Civil/legal marriage).”

There was no “separation of church and state” back then. People were fined for not attending church, etc. I read somewhere that the early New England Quakers refused to register their marriages, births, deaths, etc with the local colonial governing bodies as these were all congregations other then Quaker. Of course the Quakers were subjected to fines and penalties imposed by the governing congregation.

20 posted on 05/16/2012 5:32:51 PM PDT by This I Wonder32460
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dragonblustar

That, and the whole point of the lifestyle is to be free from commitment to just one person, to be able to have anonymous sex with as many different people they want, whenever they want, anywhere they want. That is why so few want to get married, it is anathema to the intrinsic lifestyle of gays.

21 posted on 05/16/2012 5:43:30 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dragonblustar

It seems to be a rejection of the opposite sex.

22 posted on 05/16/2012 6:17:58 PM PDT by cradle of freedom (Long live the Republic !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sergio

What a great analogy!

23 posted on 05/16/2012 7:53:14 PM PDT by srmorton (Deut. 30 19: "..I have set before you life and death,....therefore, choose life..")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dave Wright

Before getting into the moral benefits of gay marriage, or some other legal union that makes homosexual relationships equal to the institution of marriage, it’s reasonable to ask what is the source of morality, and what determines a “higher moral purpose.” Apparently we can both agree that promiscuity creates an immoral, or lesser moral position than monogamy. I come to that conclusion through scripture, Christianity, and an understanding of loving relationships, honor, trust and the stability strong family bonds lend to society and posterity. ...Of course, promiscuity isn’t the only alternative to marriage, and probably isn’t a good reason for entering into marriage, despite its obvious personal and cultural consequences. Marriage is no guarantee of monogamy. Whatever the complications of promiscuity out of marriage, they are greatly multiplied in marriage. That leads us to abstinence, a moral position that isn’t inferior to marriage and monogamous relationships, and a superior position for beginning a monogamous marriage. There are many reasons for abstinence, but the best belongs to those who practice it from love for others and themselves, to avoid the consequences of wrong relationships and promiscuity. It is, in fact, the better solution to the problems you propose marriage might solve. Still, I don’t throw out your reasoning entirely, there have been many promiscuous scoundrels tamed by a good marriage. ...On a Christian note, when Paul admonished Christian homosexuals to continue following Christ and not return to their previous homosexual lives, it was most likely abstinence and not heterosexual marriage he was advising. He was also saying they should have a better love for others, one that didn’t do harm.
Now for a sleight change of direction, much of the debate over the legitimacy of homosexuality stems from the proposition that it is natural, either genetically or environmentally caused, and beyond the scope of choice, decision or discipline. For the purpose of this discussion I will accept that proposition, though I don’t believe it. Given their own premise, homosexuality is at least as natural for homosexuals as promiscuity is for heterosexuals. We agree that monogamous marriage serves a higher moral purpose than promiscuity, and yet monogamy isn’t the nature of all men and women. A case could be made that we are not a monogamous species, making the higher moral purpose of monogamous marriage something other, or higher, than a natural act. Marriage then is an extra natural institution, even for those who don’t think of it as a spiritual contract made before God. It is something that shouldn’t be taken lightly or altered in meaning by a mindless cultural revolution, or an agenda as rooted in the baser nature of man as is the gay agenda.

24 posted on 05/16/2012 9:27:05 PM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Dave Wright; Old Sarge; darkwing104; TheOldLady; 50mm; Jim Robinson, you're not a Noob, but that's the boilerplate language.

Posting history:

2 posts in 2012, 2 in 2011, 1 in 2010, and before that, nothing until you go back to 2003.

And promoting gay marriage, and claiming that the "rules of marriage established by organized religion are arbitrary."

There are only two answers to this.

Does that look right to you?



25 posted on 05/16/2012 9:41:26 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson