The Gay Question

My next topic has to do with gender, it has to do with gay marriage, a hot concept in this country. So, my stance is complex, but essentially I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I believe something in particular by that. You will hold judgment until allowing me to elaborate.

Basically marriage is between a man and a woman, but what does this mean? Fundamentally, a man is an idea. A man is someone who stands up for what he believes in, is willing to fight and suffer for it. A woman is similar yet distinct. A woman is someone who cares for what she believes in. These are at their core ideas, but they are the most important concept of what make man and woman. A man is more than just a biological association of parts. It's more than having a male genitalia. A man at his core is someone who stands for something great. This is why we say that a man who stands for nothing, like a man who beats his own children, is not a real man. We call people like that all sorts of names, but why? They are certainly biologically a man, but why do we call them not a real one? It's because indeed at a core, a man is not just a biological formation, he's more than the sum of his parts, he's an idea. But these ideas, man and woman, are not just passing fancies. They are universal elements of human nature that will always exist.

That is why all cultures at some point possess concepts of marriage, of man and woman, and why the two are allowed to get married only, historically, at least. Now, however, we as a society, as a world, even, are facing the question of what it means to be a man or woman. I believe that's what this transgender issue has to do with as well, and perhaps I can get into that later. But marriage can only be between a man and woman, because those are the two essential, universal concepts of nature. It makes sense. You need someone willing to fight for something, and another willing to care for that thing.

But this is where it gets complex. Because the idea of man and woman is far more important than the biological reality, several questions need to be asked. In my opinion, the idea of what it means to be man or woman is the defining aspect of either, and the biological aspect is important, but secondary. Under this framework, we must first consider who a person is in terms of gender by asking if they fundamentally stand and fight for what they value, or whether they care for something they value. Yes, there are overlap between men and women. We have far more in common than we differ, and that is an empirical psychological fact. But, the defining aspect of the two is that by which one is fundamentally stirred. When you move toward an idea, you may use various tools or techniques, but do you fundamentally move toward it by caring for it, or fighting for it? This is man and woman. It's not a biological question, at the most crucial aspect, which is why we do not call men who stand for nothing men, but a host of other names. We all know this.

Now, the biological question comes in second. This is a severe issue plaguing the nation and other countries, but I think the biological question is important, yet secondary. Let's get back to the question of gay marriage. As stated, the fundamental question is whether two men or women can marry. The answer depends on their true nature. Are the two women distinct in terms of their fundamental character? Is one women more of a man by virtue of nature, in that she fights for what she believes in and is less caring relatively, the other the opposite? Under this framework, a case for them being married presents itself. The same applies to men, if they can demonstrate the same thing. If they cannot, if two men are both caring or both the type to fight for their values, they cannot marry, because they don't fit in a natural sense. Nature demands one person fight, and another care, because they fill in each other's weaknesses and holes. They make a team, and become stronger than the other individually. When they do not fill each other's weaknesses but possess the same, this team does not have the same unifying property, and their relationship fails to be defined as marriage, no matter how strong it may be. That fundamental concept of idea is the defining aspect of man and woman, and because of what marriage is as a team that fills each other's weaknesses, is the primary question in marriage. Thus, the first answer to the question, can gays get married under this framework is: it depends. Do they create a whole? Do they form a team which fills in the other's weaknesses, truly, and meaningfully? Under what I believe, reasonably, to be the natural concept of people's identity in terms of movement toward attaining values, which we refer to as gender.

Again, these fundamental concepts of gender are universal and important. They will always exist. People are afraid, in some cases, because they fear these concepts of gender are being eroded. Gender is a fundamental concept. It cannot be destroyed. Gender is just a question of how you attain your values. People do so in many different ways. Gender just asks whether you fundamentally do so by fighting, or by caring. That's universal, and cannot be destroyed, and is why we all act like this. I've given examples; please refer back to them if needed.

But if we acknowledge the importance of gender's true value, not as a set of cells but as a concept that transcends the mere sum of a physical system's parts, we should not fear. I do not mean anything superstitious by using that language. I just mean an idea is greater than any physical entity in the sense that it exists beyond a single person, beyond their death, and so on. That's all I'm saying here.

Now, the biological reality of gender is also important, but it is secondary to the core value. But it is still important. Being a biological man still does mean something, so does being a biological woman. But in the context of gay marriage, you must first ask the defining question, "Are they a man and woman in the true concept of the meaning of man and woman, that pre-exists pure physical nature?" If so, then two biological men can maybe get married. Second, are they indeed two biological men, notwithstanding, and assuming the first question is answered in the affirmative? If the answer to that is yes, then I can only say whether nature permits their marriage is a complex question decided by a complex set of factors to which I have no easy answer. Marriage, and man and woman, is a fundamental human value. The exact nuances of gay marriage and its role is currently beyond my ability to figure out, though I can offer what I have so far, and I will say that I believe that if two people are meant for each other, truly, then they should get married, no matter what else may be the case. The verbose details of every case, I may not be currently qualified to sort out. Perhaps there are those who can, and perhaps I may gain such ability. I will make it clear if and when that becomes the case, but this is my current stance, and I will stand by it.

I will end by saying two things. One, this relates in a large degree to the transgender question or questions that are common these days. If those can be sorted out, which I can perhaps speak on, I can clear up many things and also assist with that, since people debate over it very frequently and intensely, and in my opinion miss out on certain keys that I've established here that reign supreme over some arguments from the parties on either side, from the opposition of them.

And second, I will also state that in the end, I think it's best to let anyone get married as long as they believe they are meant for each other. When we talk about gay marriage, the real question isn't so much whether you are for or against it personally, but whether you think it should be legal or illegal. Well, the Court has decided it should be federally legal, yet this is still a contentious issue to some, and indeed the Court has changed its opinion in the past, so there is still reason to discuss it. Even if you are against gay marriage, for it, or don't care, the real question as I see it comes from legalizing it or illegalizing it. Because who is the state to decide whether two are meant for each other? If man and woman are supreme concepts, and physical concepts only second–which they by virtue of concept are–then no matter people's biological gender, you must let them decide whether they should get married or not. You cannot let the government infringe upon a decision as important as whether two people are fundamentally good for one another or not. Who is the government to decide such a thing? No one. I can steel man my argument with an example.

If you are against gay marriage because you believe two people should make each other whole, and gays are, at least in some cases, not capable of that, you would also have to be against the state barring straight people from getting married if it deemed them unfit for each other. The state could look at one man and one woman, argued by no one, and say that it believes they don't make a good couple under the fundamental concept of man and woman, which is defining, and deny them. What if the state is wrong? You cannot deny gays from getting married under this concept unless you would also bar certain straights from getting married, but if you did that, you would permit a reality in which the government got to approve or disapprove the unity of human beings, which is not something for the government to decide, it is for the two human beings to decide. Is it not? Certainly those who are so staunchly in support of marriage for its moral value need to agree. Therefore, the argument is logically untenable unless you admit A) that the government should decide whether two people in any case are fit for each other before wedding them or B) that the defining aspect of gender is not a fundamental concept, but foremostly a biological reality. Both fly in the face of either the sanctity of marriage as articulated by those who view it with such moral weight, and the cultural view of what gender is that has survived not just for generations but for time immemorial.

In the final analysis, perhaps some gays should or shouldn't get married if they are not a man or woman at heart, since that defines whether two people make each other whole: it's how they pursue beliefs–through care or fighting. And secondarily the biological fact. But you cannot give that decision in any case to the government unless you support a totalitarian, state-approved wedding for any couple. Therefore, you must let gay marriage be legal or bar certain straights from marrying legally. The more rationale option is the former under nearly all sensible principles.

Now, I can segue from here to the transgender issue, if I like, which of course is now even more contentious and which could shed more light on this. But I should be very careful and continue to stress the importance of the principles of man and woman and true concept I've identified here, combined with a physical importance, and the order of each, with assessment and allowance for personal disapproval.