Who are you?
When you go to ‘ciphering’ on that question, I bet you think of family. To be is to have a mother and a father, grandparents, sibling, cousins, aunts and uncles. To say ‘you’ is to picture ‘the rest of us.’ Personal identity that is based on blood and birth is the foundational way in which society is imagined. This is the very stuff from which life begins. It is this basic familial material that humanity spends its days (and nights) weaving into the various human worlds that enrich our planet. It is what history is made of.
How did such a universal vision arise?
It’s obvious, really; or used to be. Every human being who has ever lived has a mother and father. Every single one. No exceptions. And the same is true for the parents of those parents, back ‘world without end.’ The web spins out in all sorts of directions. We belong to others, and they belong to us by birth-with all of the duties, sorrows, joys and responsibilities that ‘belonging’ implies. That is how we understand the bedrock of our existence, and up until this generation society has built its institutions on that reality.
Unless actively frustrated, every sexual union of the type that is necessary to consummate a marriage is capable of producing a child. Unless, of course, something is broken. Creating children is the very biological end of a sexual union between man and woman. It is a ‘privilege’ granted to them by nature herself- a privilege that is non-transferable to unions of other kinds.
One man and one woman= children.
Every child conceived- every child= one man and one woman.
Now think about this. Every Same Sex relationship that involves a child, necessarily involves a third party. No exceptions. This is true in some heterosexual relationships, too- even marriages, but only and always because something has gone wrong. There is an unwanted child in need of an adoptive home. There is a barren womb, an impotent man. Sterility. Brokenness.
Let me ask you: What is broken in the Same Sex relationship?
Now, if in order to avoid ‘discrimination’ we are to treat those relationships as being in every way identical to that of a heterosexual couple, then fertility, fecundity… the significance that comes from the ability to have children must be stripped from our legal conception of all marriages. The significance of biological relationship must not be acknowledged. It is unallowable, because unavailable/nontransferable to the same sex couple. It discriminates, and so must not be a part of the legal institution. This is why I said in an earlier letter ‘(SSM) is not the extension of some supposed ‘heterosexual rights’ to homosexual people; rather it is the remaking of all marriages according to the standards of something new. ‘Gay’ people don’t get what ‘straight’ people have; rather in the eyes of the law, all men and women will be entitled to only those rights that a same sex couple are capable of enjoying. Anything more would be discriminatory. Marriage- all marriage- is reshaped in the image of Same Sex Marriage.
Now think; if the very stuff of human identity depends on biological relationship, then what does this mean for human identity as we know it?
If society can no longer be based on ‘extended biological kinship,’ then what is left? Children are left belonging to the State or the Market- either cogs in the Collective or commodities for acquisition. Without biological families, what else is there?
Perhaps this sounds like extreme alarmism, but the imaginations of most young people seem to have embraced this change already. I see this in the ready way in which the technological necessities behind every Same Sex family is accepted as normative. To every mention of Same Sex sterility is offered the promise of technology. Of course.
But kids, to normalize these technological measures so as to make them identical to natural birth is by definition to disconnect birth from the sexual act. Birth and the human relationship that naturally gives rise to it – even if only that of a one night hookup- must be seen as at best, artificial. That might be how some families come into the world, but certainly not all. Without exception, its not how any Same Sex family originates. And so children, birth and family are re-envisioned. So called ‘Heterosexual Marriages’ must not have that which is not available to ‘Same Sex Marriages’. ‘Same Sex Marriages’ can not have full biological ties with offspring. So rights arising from biological parentage must be downplayed. QED.
Same Sex Marriage must become the standard for all marriages.
‘Heterosexual Marriages’ will continue to result in children. ‘Same Sex Marriages’ must likewise be granted children, but where will these children come from? Sperm donors and surrogate mothers demand both payment and privacy; but the children of such efforts at meeting the demand for ‘offspring’ still wish to know who their biological parents are. The two desires are incompatible. Donors wish to remain anonymous; children wish to know ‘who their biological parents are.’ Which seems the more natural longing to you? Which desire must be treated as insignificant, if Same Sex Marriages are to be legally affirmed as identical in every way to what was once simply referred to as marriage; and what does this mean if not that the legal recognition of the significance of biological kinship must become intolerable.
From whose ecstatic human embrace did you come to be? Who are you? Who is responsible for you? Who are you responsible for? Who do you belong to? As I’ve said many, many times: the institution of marriage as we’ve inherited it answers those questions by privileging biological kinship, but it is the privileging of biological kinship that Same Sex Marriage must deny. In such a world, children- all children- can only be viewed as an acquisition- not the natural result of human biological bonding.
What will such a world look like? We have no idea. It’s never been tried, and yet like the naive members of the Children’s Crusade, we dance and celebrate on our way to that dreadful place ‘we know not of.’ To paraphrase Jeff Goldblum- ‘the complete lack of humility for nature and the combined wisdom of human experience that’s being displayed here is staggering’
It has always been this way- this human way, and for me it’s difficult to imagine it being otherwise, but there have been those who’ve undertaken the thought experiment of revising family, sex, birth and child. In 1984 Orwell imagined one horrible route to hell on earth- the State. In Brave New World Huxley imagined another- Amusement and the Market. Which is the more likely? My money is on Huxley, but with purposefully deciding to declare the bonds of biological kinship, insignificant, both paths are wide open.
How far will we go down either of those paths? No one knows, but why would we go down either when we know where they lead? Those who think a people can’t or won’t choose a nightmare for themselves are simply ignorant of history, and wherever we land will be normalized in our imaginations, too.
O brave new world,
That hath such people in ‘t!
It is nothing short of a Brave New World that is being proposed.
Brave because untried.
New because of how we must now answer the question of the nature of the people in it?’
Brave New World because of its seductiveness and inevitable despair.