Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2012 Sanjeev Sabhlok's revolutionary blog
One of the things that came to my notice while watching part 2 of Origins of us (which I discussed in my previous blog post) is that monogamous marriage is not a recent innovation in human society. It is a natural imperative found in ancient hunter-gather societies because marriage was critical to the survival of the human species.
Monogamous marriage is therefore around 200,000 years old, as old as the FIRST humans.
Without monogamous marriage as a pivotal institution, none of us would exist today.
My earlier impression – that marriage is a social institution, i.e. something "designed" by man (however unwittingly) because it was a "natural" thing to do – is incorrect. Marriage is designed by NATURE. It is in our genes.
Marriage was necessary for our species as it gave a crucial survival advantage: the wife foraged for fruits and tubers and the husband hunted animals. The combined relationship provided both the necessary calories and dietary variety, but also the necessary shelter for, and grooming of human children.
In India a wife is called ardhangini, i.e. the other half of a person. This is absolutely correct. Husband and wife complement each other in every way, and this was not a discovery of society. It is a NATURAL MANDATE. Without the family (with a husband-wife and children) as the natural unit of humans, humanity would disappear.
Marriage (preferably monogamous) is thus a crucial INSTITUTION OF HUMAN EVOLUTION.
There is another vital reason apart from the survival argument – that of the design of the brain of children. While the documentary doesn't talk about the survival advantages that children get from having a father and mother, it is CERTAIN that the "need" (if that's the word) of both father and mother is imprinted into the design of the human child's brain – and the role modeling that children learn this way is CRUCIAL to their survival in adulthood.
It may well take another 20 years to prove this theory, but humanity should NOT experiment with children in the meanwhile and try to raise them in relationships that humans have not evolved from. That would amount to destroying the natural development of the brain of these unfortunate children who are used as guinea pigs and their humanity itself discarded.
Gay marriage gives no EVOLUTIONARY ADVANTAGE. This is clearly AGAINST the laws of nature. I'm even more clear about that now.
Where there is no case against a contractual relationship between "gays" on such ground (for gays are an evolutionary dead-end, an experiment that nature is conducting for "purposes" unknown), there is now a very strong case against letting gays raise children.
I'm providing a link to part 2 of Origins of us, below, in case you missed listening to it earlier. This issue of monogamous marriage is discussed in the second half.
I did hope that I've made my objections to "gay marriage" sufficiently clear, but it appears not.
Do read these last two comments first: by PD: http://bit.ly/NpJmCI and by Matt: http://bit.ly/M7S8pc.
The case against me is this:
a) There are marriages where children do not eventuate, so marriages are not just for children.
b) It is better for orphans to be adopted by gay parents than looked after in government orphanages.
c) If sterile parents can get access to IVF, why not gay "parents"?
d) Even an incestuous marriage should be allowed (PD).
The first argument looks at the world from the perspective of the "outcomes" of a marriage. I don't. The second argument looks at the issue from the purpose of charity (i.e. gay parents are at least better than government orphanages). I don't. Both these arguments are incorrect. And so are the remaining two (among many others, being thrown at me).
Marriage is a RELATIONSHIP that is already "taken"
The first argument assumes that marriage is a relationship whose sole purpose is to produce children. That's clearly incorrect. It is a relationship first, and the children come next. To the extent there is ONLY a relationship, there is no difference between a "gay marriage" and a normal marriage.
I have NO OBJECTION to gay relationship that has all the standard "fittings" of a marriage contract. Just don't call it marriage. Call it a gayrriage. Call it anything else. Just don't confound the English language (and other languages) by mixing up two different kinds of relationships.
A relationship between two molecules of hydrogen and one of oxygen is traditionally called water. The relationship between two molecules of oxygen or two molecules of hydrogen, separately, is NOT called water.
The properties of different relationships are DIFFERENT.
The relationship {male ~ female} where ~ depicts a closed, exclusive relationship between what are traditionally known as husband and wife, is called marriage. All these three terms are "taken" (marriage, husband, wife). It is like trying to take over the very meaning of a word, or a domain name that has already been taken.
There is no scope to encroach on these terms.
The relationships {male ~ male} or {female ~ female} or {transgender~male} or {transgender~female} are DIFFERENT by their very nature. This is a self-evident truth.
Therefore the idea that marriage could be "standardised" to include ALL KINDS of relationships is untenable. That's all I'm saying. I'm NOT denying "gays" the privilege of inventing new terms for their relationships. I've said clearly that I'm happy to attend such events. I'm NOT anti-gay. I'm pro humans and pro-liberty.
There is NO LOSS OF LIBERTY in my way of looking at this issue.
Children are not play things, toys, or pets like dogs and cats
The second argument against me is more powerful. It can persuade those who don't think more diligently.
But I'd like to invite your attention to my basic claim: that nature NEVER intended a child to be born of a gay relationship (unlike in the case of sterile marriages, where sterility is a rarity). This claim is total, comprehensive, and unassailable. It is true beyond the slightest iota of doubt.
But now note this*corollary) VERY CAREFULLY!!
Note that nature not merely "designed" the production of children through the union of a male and female, BUT designed children to naturally want/ benefit from a mother and father.
In nature everything works in cohesion and harmony. Everything "fits" and works smoothly.
The human child is born with a half-developed brain which takes at least two years to develop to a somewhat complete "level". The actual development continues till around 25 years of age. No one knows all details of what the child needs during this period, but we can deduce from the way nature produces the "unfinished" child, that children are NATURALLY DESIGNED to be nurtured by a mother and father.
This is the natural law. It is not something man should seek to casually upturn. A human brain is a marvel of nature, the development and workings of which should NOT be distorted by man.
We should not allow experimentation in this regard, either – of children being given to gay "parents" and then "measuring" what happens to these children. Such experimentation would be deeply unethical. Somewhat close to eugenics in the disruption of nature that is intended. A form of Darwinism that Darwin would have seriously balked at!
True, it is physically possible to treat a child like a plaything, a pet dog or cat – a "creature" which can presumably be reared by ANYONE. But that's a dangerous assertion. Children ARE not like any other animal. Even the adopted child should still be given access to a mother and father.
The society must NOT treat a human child like a dog that can be brought up by just anyone.
Even orphanages are FAR BETTER in this regard than gay "parents". The child grows up in an orphanage knowing that he HAD a mother and father who either died or abandoned him. He is damaged, but nothing compared to the the harm caused by the absurd situation of having only two "moms" or two "dads". The orphan can form natural relationships with his peers/ guardians, and with uncles/aunts. That's healthy. That's normal. That's the way nature intended it to be.
Admittedly, economic provision for an orphan might not be as good in an orphanage as economic provision through adoption in a wealthy gay couple's home, but such provision is not guaranteed (there can be desperately poor gay couples), nor is it crucial. Economic provision is NOT the only driver of a child's well-being.
If gay people are REALLY interested in the well-being of children, they should contribute to such orphanages both monetarily and physically (by providing their services to the orphanage). That way children will get BOTH males and females who care for them. That will be an acceptable way for gay couples to interact with children without upturning the laws of nature.
Note that IVF for a married couple is totally different to IVF for a gay couple. IVF for a married couple is desirable, for it is entirely consistent with nature.
The child born through IVF to a married couple (often with borrowed egg/sperm) will have a NORMAL upbringing (with mother/father). Modern laws are (rightly) being modified to inform the child of the name and other details of the true egg/sperm donor, so that the child can better appreciate his or her identity. Such upbringing within a family unit (mother/father) is therefore consistent with nature, even though the child is harmed to an extent (by not having access to its natural mother/father). Such family upbringing, with one parent having contributed DNA to the child, is TOTALLY DIFFERENT to a similar "gay" couple upbringing.
Remember, there is NO LIBERTY TO HARM. Distorting natural processes of upbringing may be acceptable for dogs and cats. It is not acceptable for human beings. Let's not destroy the very foundation of humanity.
Are you "gay" and want to play with children? In that case why not become a school teacher, or go to your relatives who have children, or volunteer in the local orphanage? Gays must always remain accountable to the laws of nature.
Slippery slope: Supporters of "gay marriage" may even support "incestuous marriage"
I was not quite sure to what extent van Gend's claim about the slippery slope held water. But PD's comment ("I believe that consenting adults should be able to enter into incestuous relationships (though they should be given extensive genetic counseling)") makes clear that there is indeed a VERY SLIPPERY slope.
I should perhaps not generalise from PD's case, but many of the arguments used to promote "gay marriage" are pretty much consistent with support for "incestuous marriage". Depending on the argument used, one perhaps can't support one without supporting the other.
Note that children born of incestuous "marriages" may well have a mother and father, but they don't get two different sets of grandparents. That signals a distortion of nature (apart from the argument that the children will be susceptible to more diseases). There is a rhythm, a system of nature that has evolved over THREE BILLION YEARS, the violation of which our minds naturally oppose. For good reason. Being in "love" is not reason to upturn the laws of nature.
On the other hand, do please note that I'm not relating gay relationships directly with incestuous relationships (which are much worse). I'm comfortable with contractual gay relationships that do not try to have, or bring up a child.
I hope that this blog post will now finally close the debate.
I find that my views on "gay" marriage (not on "gays", a subject on which I have no views) are attracting persistent interest from a few people who want me to offer "scientific evidence" for my views. This insistence is absurd. It is these proponents who need to offer me scientific evidence.
They need to show me ONE example where nature has created ANY human child from a "union" of two men or two women.
Had nature intended to have children from such a "union", this would have happened by now. After all, nature has had over three BILLION years to perfect evolution (without meaning to imply any intent behind evolution).
And yet nature could not produce ONE child from such "union".
Such "unions" are intended (if such a word can be used) to be STERILE.
These are purely relationships. These contracts could readily be recognised for all legal purposes, that's fine. But these relationships are intended by nature to be STERILE. Therefore, these relationships can have NOTHING to do with children.
I'm glad that there is now an Australian Marriage Association which is conducting research and working to demolish this mindless insistence on "gay" marriage. I quote from an article in The Australian today. Note that I don't fully agree with this article, but cite it as one of many strong arguments against the idea of "gay" marriage.
"Gays" can call their relationship "gayrriage" if they want to rhyme it with marriage. But a "gayrriage" must be a STERILE relationship. No children can or should be entrusted to such a relationship, in violation of THREE BILLION years of natural evolution.
Will incestuous couples want marriage rights?
DAVID VAN GEND
THE day we cut marriage adrift from the rock of nature, from the mammalian order of male-female-young, is the day we lose any fundamental reason to deny "marriage equality" to any consenting adults, whether polyamorous or incestuous. And that way madness lies.
Daniel Brennan, former chairman of the Bar Association in Britain, wrote in March: "After all, if you can abolish the most important precondition of marriage, namely that it requires a person of each sex, why should you be able to retain other preconditions, such as limiting it to only two people?"
Another taboo will fall before the inexorable logic of "equal love". In April, an incestuous relationship came to the European Court of Human Rights. Patrick Stuebing from Leipzig argued that he and his sister had the right to a "family life".
The case had inspired calls to legalise familial sexual relations. The ECHR refused, saying it was necessary for "the protection of marriage and the family" to punish incestuous relationships. But how long will courts uphold this quaint notion of "the protection of marriage and the family" once "homosexual marriage" has breached the levee of sexual taboo that alone protects the natural order of marriage and family?
In Queensland under Labor's Civil Partnership Act 2011, two men can sign up at the Marriage Registry, issue the "bans" and organise a state-licensed celebrant for a public ceremony complete with rings and confetti and the March from Lohengrin. Then under Labor's Surrogacy Act 2010 the two men can create a baby of their very own, and the Registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages will officially falsify the birth certificate to record the names of the two males as "parents", with no mention of any mother.
Against this parody, serious politicians must assert one unifying policy: that no law shall be enacted or allowed to stand which tends in any way to diminish the ideal of "a mother and a father for every child".
Such a policy will exclude the artificial creation of babies by single people or same-sex couples and exclude any same-sex institution that mimics marriage.
Frank Brennan, a former chairman of the National Human Rights Consultation Committee, writes: "I think we can ensure non-discrimination against same-sex couples while at the same time maintaining a commitment to children of future generations being born of and being reared by a father and a mother."
David van Gend is president of the Australian Marriage Forum.
The "gay" folk (unlike morose ones like me) consider "marriage" as something they must have. As if it were a forbidden fruit.
I've made it clear that it is inappropriate for such folk to want to get "married". They can sign contracts and do other such things, but not marriage. But marriage is a term with long-determined meaning. The idea of changing the very meaning of a word to suit some people is undesirable.
The terms marriage, विवाह, nikah, etc., are not terms of convenience.
Like the precision attributable to the term liberty, these terms connote a precise meaning: in this case a valid union between man and woman with its many rights and obligations. It is just the way it is defined. For thousands of years, the precise nature of this institution has been worked out. It stands for certain things.
No offence meant to "gays" (and I have NOTHING against "gays" or the morose), but you can't really change definitions of words.
A rose must be called a rose, and a tiger, a tiger. And so on. Just because someone like Amartya Sen starts ascribing to liberty the exact opposite meaning of what it originally meant, doesn't make this new definition valid. In DOF I've tried to explain that liberty is purely – in modern jargon – negative liberty. Not positive liberty (of the sort that Amartya Sen wants). Original meanings matter.
The key message is: let's not tinker with words and meanings. That will confound everything.
I understand that "gay" people want to be "regularised" by society. Sure. That's perfectly OK. I've got NOTHING against any "gay" or non-gay person. As adults people can voluntarily trade/contract, subject to not harming any other person (that's crucial).
So if you are gay you are most welcome to prepare and sign a contract that "regularises" your relationship. I'm happy to be a witness. We can all celebrate.
All that is fine. That's part of the concept of liberty.
But the idea that this relationship should be called marriage is nonsense on stilts. Only an Obama could have thought of such a thing.
Note also that this contractual relationship can't demand any right to adopt or produce technology-created children. Children DON'T enter the equation in this relationship. They are simply out of question.
To dispel any confusion on what I stand for, here's a simple table:
I'm unable to respond to the many comments I'm getting on this topic. Commentators are often asuming things I did not say nor imply. I have contested the role of the state in marriage. They don't seem to know that. They have not read my writings on marriage. I'd encourage them to read Online Notes to BFN.
Also, the commentators need to tone down some of their absurd claims, e.g. "And as long as marriage is recognized as a legal contract between 2 consenting adults". It is NOT.
Marriage is NOT any ordinary contract between any two consenting adults.
Marriage is a PARTICULAR type of contract, and in most societies, a sacrament.
It has a spiritual basis in the minds of most people. Regardless of whether there is a God or not, people deserve their beliefs to be treated with some respect, so long as they are not harming anyone.
By trying to get "married" the gays are entirely upturning the meaning of marriage. That's an inappropriate ambition. Such ambition has NOTHING to do with liberty or the "regularisation" of the "rights" of "gays" to pursue happiness.
There are ways to be free (and happy) without disrupting the entire society, AND nature!
Above all let's respect the laws of biology and of nature.
I am happy to elaborate my position on "gay" marriage further for the sake of those who suffer from the misconception that marriage is some kind of "human right".
LIBERTY is the "human right". LIFE is the "human right". [Why I place the phrase "human right" in quotes is explained at length in DOF; basically there are no rights till a constitution is agreed, along with enforcement of the rule of law. By no means are natural rights to life and liberty automatic "rights" .]
But the question before us is: Is marriage a natural right?
No.
A constitutional liberal democracy must enforce the rule of law, through application of laws equally to all citizens. That does not mean, however, that the law must be blind to basic BIOLOGICAL facts of life.
For instance, in public places there are generally TWO separate toilets: one for men and one for women.
Why?
Because men and women are DIFFERENT in their biological constitution. It is not a violation of liberty for men to be prohibited from entering women's toilets in a public place (e.g. airport).
Similarly, children can ONLY be produced from a man and woman (regardless of any technological overlay, which STILL relies on the underlying DNA of ONE man and ONE woman).
The right to marriage is therefore RESTRICTED only to a man and woman who will not just live together but could have have BIOLOGICALLY CREATED (i.e. natural) children.
One may well ask: Is it crucial that children necessarily be produced in order for a union to be called "marriage"?
No. Even if a marriage does not produce children, the fact that biologically it COULD have, is sufficient.
The fact that someone must necessarily adopt children or have them technologically produced (as must ALWAYS be the case in "gay" marriage), is fundamentally a different idea to that of marriage. These are two distinct sets; MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE:
There are those who argue that "gays" can adopt and hence "care" for children. But just because one is fit to be a nanny doesn't mean he/she becomes a parent. The whole point of marriage was (and is) the natural upbringing of children.
In sum, there is no natural right to marriage. There is NO constitutional imperative or necessity for a society that guarantees liberty to also guarantee "gay" marriage.
There is, in addition, NO natural right to be able to "care" for children that are not one's own. Yes, in a real marriage adoption sometimes becomes necessary. But that still allows for the NATURAL upbringing of children. Such upbringing of an adopted child in a REAL marriage is NOT comparable in any form or shape to "upbringing" of an adopted child by a "gay" "couple" .
In sum, there is NO system or possibility in nature for "gay" parents. PERIOD.
"Gay" people can live together and have SEPARATELY defined legal rights, particularly contractual arrangements for property or such things.
But no, their relationship is not, and cannot be marriage.
Should they wish to care for children, they can help out in orphanages or otherwise assist as nannies or school teachers. I'm not undermining their possible contributions as humans. But they must not have any access to children for "bringing them up". That is a fundamental violation of the laws of nature.
The NATURAL rights to life and liberty derive from NATURE. The laws of life (biology) have priority over all other laws. Let us avoid making a mockery of fundamental institutions that are rooted in biology and the laws of nature.
I believe that ALL institutions that have evolved over thousands of years serve an important purpose in society.
Caste system
I have shown how the caste system was PIVOTAL to the success of India during the agricultural epoch. It ensured that basic necessary skills (e.g. blacksmithy) were ALWAYS available in each remote, decentralised village. That gave India a competitive edge over the entire world, making it unequivocally the RICHEST society (including in per capita terms) in the world for 12 out of the past 20 centuries.
The fact that India evolved the caste system is therefore, in my view, better attributable to the imperatives of economics than religion (although religion has a role in its continued persistence). Religious explanations merely couched the optimal economic equilibrium in language more suited to the lay man.
Even today, as Gurcharan Das rightly points out, the major industrialisation drive in India is coming from the bania or capitalist "class", which is shifting gears from trade to industrial production. Caste is giving India an advantage even in the capitalist world.
But this should be its last hurrah, its last contribution to India.
Capitalism CANNOT tolerate inequality of status. In this new epoch of industrial and information production, the caste system is NOT optimal any more. The economic logic of capitalism will, in my view, inevitably lead to the death of the caste system – If only India's governance is radically modernised.
Marriage
But the institution of marriage is not defunct and will NEVER become defunct. It serves and continues to serve a most basic purpose in society. It is the place where CHILDREN – the most important beings from the perspective of humanity and Nature – get to experience the dynamics of REAL life, thus being nurtured till they are able to stand tall and compete in this dynamic, challenging world.
The idea of having two "dads" or two "moms" for any child (who is not naturally produced from BOTH parents) is TOTALLY perverse and harmful at ALL levels. Children in such "families" will NEVER appreciate or imbibe the basic organic structure of society. Such children are put at a disadvantage from day one.
I do NOT support any idea that damages CHILDREN and confuses them from the moment they first come into this world.
How will a child suckle two dads? What UTTER nonsense is this!!!!
Why are we depriving CHILDREN of natural upbringing?
It is not my business nor am I interested in what two adults do with themselves. I don't really care whether they are gay or morose.
But I am FIRMLY against the idea of a "family" unit that destroys the foundational institutions of society – and SERIOUSLY damages children.
I oppose the caste system on many grounds, so clearly I'm not a conservative. I'm a (classical) liberal. But I oppose any attempt to destroy or dilute the MOST foundational institution of society: the family.
I firmly oppose the idea of two males/females being allowed to "marry" and thus "bear" children.
Recent Comments