The Biology of Gay Marriage....(citations)

Salaam and Guten Tag!

During a recent class discussion, an article (source 1) was brought up as an article against gay marriage.   To be fair I missed most of the discussion, because I came to class late (fittingly I was on a fieldtrip to one of birthplaces of religious evangelical argument), so I was not exactly sure what was discussed.  Being so I wanted to learn more about this article, and particularly this frame that biology is an argument against gay marriage because marriage is biology.   You think I am kidding, sadly I am not.   

-Sean

Source 1-

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/01/opinion/oe-gallagher1

Debating Proposition 8 – Should California eliminate marriage for same-sex couple? ‘Biology, not bigotry’ is the foundation for the traditional form of marriage.

By: Maggie Gallagher

In this article Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, attempts to make the argument that it’s not a religious argument to oppose gay marriage, but a biological one.   She explains that marriage existed before any government and all religions, and that in order for a child to succeed in the world, they must be raised by a father and mother because each have separate responsibilities.   Her claim is that children need a mother and father; they deserve one.  

Maggie is right that marriage is older than we can comprehend.  It is older than government or religion, it is part of the human experience.   The main flaw in this argument is that marriage is biology. It is NOT biology; it is anthropology.  Marriage is a cultural mechanism to help advance society, it is not a requirement of sexual reproduction or child rearing (two things which are biology).   Nothing about marriage is biological.  It’s not about how we are made to live, it’s all about how we choose to live.  

While this article doesn’t really mention any additional sources besides poorly quoted anthropology or biology, Google searches for this article does note that this article is a series of articles “Debating Proposition 8” through different frames.  If this particular frame does not interest you, consider searching for this series and looking at other article.  

Source 2-

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-gould7-2008nov07,0,5469431.story

Misusing biology to oppose same-sex marriage

A recent Op-Ed article in support of Proposition 8 shows a poor understanding about the biological roots of human behavior.

By Katherine Gould

This article serves to refute the false information presented by Maggie in the previous article.  It clarifies what is actually biology and how biology does not mandate marriage.   Biology mandates children to be properly cared for by loving parents, that’s the only thing that studies have shown across the spectrum.  Children from one type of couple do no better then children of an alternative type.   She even cites specific examples in the animal kingdom of species where partners of one sex raise the young while the other sex goes to spread his/her DNA further. 

This article is much more credible in my opinion as an argument than the previous one it was in response to.  Katherine uses specific examples from the real world, from the animal kingdom and from basic biology to support gay marriage.  She even attempts null individually all of Maggie’s arguments.  She admits that some of Maggie’s points hold truth, but they were used incorrectly and out of context.

I chose this article quite arbitrarily.  There are quite a few articles refuting Maggie’s original point.  This was one of the first articles I found.  If you want more information just do a Google search of ‘biology’ and ‘gay marriage’ and you are guaranteed to find quite a few opinions all relating to Maggie’s original point.  

Source 3-

Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health; Jan-Mar2010, Vol. 14 Issue 1, p56-69, 14p

The Neurobiology of Sex/Gender-Based Attraction 

By Laura Erickson-Schroth

This article poses a theory for why same-sex attraction occurs in a biological sense.  While it doesn’t suggest one specific cause of homosexuality, it outlines different neurobiological differences in homosexuals and heterosexuals both in hormone levels, stimulations, and physical anatomy.   Many of the findings suggest the neurobiologies of homosexual males are similar to that of heterosexual females and the neurobiologies of homosexual females are similar to that of heterosexual males.   Interesting.  

I chose this article because in order to understand the biological argument of same-sex marriage, one must understand a little bit about homosexual biology.  The issue I have with this article is that it doesn’t really suggest any cause, it makes inferences based on studies, which is a valid point but it is non-committal.  It doesn’t take a necessary stand.   The whole article read as an extended introduction to a real study/article that should have been done.   

One particular source they mentioned was the 1977 article in American Psychologist that largely invalidated biological causes of homosexuality by saying most studies are inconclusive and hormonal or physiological studies have shown nothing.   It shows the ‘progress’ or changes of thought that has dramatically occurred in the past three –ish decades.