Thoughts on economics and liberty

Scientific evidence that marriage is a NATURAL imperative (hence that “gay marriage” is ENTIRELY unnatural)

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.

Sanjeev Sabhlok

View more posts from this author
5 thoughts on “Scientific evidence that marriage is a NATURAL imperative (hence that “gay marriage” is ENTIRELY unnatural)
  1. Tejas Subramaniam

    This is an appeal to nature [1]. So what if gay marriage isn’t natural? Government should legislate based on the “harm principle,” which holds that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” It draws a distinction between other-regarding and self-regarding acts. The government shouldn’t prevent anything that doesn’t pose harm to non-consensual others [2]. Gay marriage poses no such harm.

    Of course, your argument is that children are harmed by gay parenting. That’s nonsense. The majority of scientific research has consistently shown that gay parenting is, on balance, a positive for children. Children raised by same-sex couples are psychologically and socially as well-adjusted as those raised by heterosexual couples [3, 4, 5, 6].

    The only reliable study that suggested that same-sex couples have worse parenting is one by the NFSS, led by sociologist Mark Regnerus, that suggested children adopted by same-sex couples had some psycological harm [7]. But that study has been thoroughly refuted for all these reasons:

    1. The study by Regnerus focuses on children who watched short, unsuccessful, non-comittal relationships between their parents, so the impacts are similar to those children raised by divorced couples. Regnerus concedes that only *two* same-sex couples in his study had committed relationships, and in both cases, the children were raised as well as a committed heterosexual relationship.

    2. Gay parents, like any other adoptive parents, choose parenthood — so they are arguably better than biological parents, who have kids by accident. They actually really want to be parents.

    3. Outside of the two exceptions in (1), all the other same-sex couples in Regnerus’s study were adopted *after* birth and a year or so in foster care. The foster care system is quite bad in the locations which the study in question concerned, and, as such, the children were already affected by foster care.

    Furthermore, the vast majority of research contradicts Regnerus’s study, and the scientific consensus is against that position.