I want you to tell me exactly why Amy Wolfe, a 33-year-old “US church organist”, can’t marry her favorite roller coaster. You heard me. Roller coaster—an “80ft gondola ride.” Exactly, now.
No fair saying, “It’s illegal”. Same-sex “marriage” is illegal in many spots too, but lots of people are still for it. Why shouldn’t she be allowed to do as she pleases?
Wolfe sure looks happy in a picture of her and her intended, surnamed “1001 Nachts”. The Daily Telegraph reports:
“I love him as much as women love their husbands and know we’ll be together forever,” she said.
Miss Wolfe first fell for the ride when she was 13: “I was instantly attracted to him sexually and mentally.
“I wasn’t freaked out, as it just felt so natural, but I didn’t tell anyone about it because I knew it wasn’t ‘normal’ to have feelings for a fairground ride.”
Point one: she said, “I’m not hurting anyone and I can’t help it…It’s a part of who I am.” So Wolfe ‘oriented’ towards roller coasters. If you say no, why?
It’s not an argument to laugh or scoff and say, “That’s absurd!” Maybe it is absurd: your job is to tell us why. It’s also not an argument to say why you’re in favor (if you are) of same-sex “marriage.” I don’t care—not here, anyway—unless the reason you’re in favor of SSM is the same as why Wolfe should be bound by matrimony to her ride.
No good using the word “obvious” in your proof. It’s obvious to me, for example, that SSM shouldn’t happen and that Wolfe needs a good psychiatrist; perhaps it’s obvious to you that SSM is A-okay and Wolfe is free to do what she wants. We have to go deeper than obvious.
Point two: though she didn’t use the word, in effect she said she’s “oriented” towards playground rides. Very well. Perhaps this “orientation” is biological; I mean, caused (in some way, we know not how) by her genes, raging hormones, or perhaps a swollen amygdala.
Coincidentally, I was reminded of a study by Bearrman and Bruckner: “Opposite-sex Twins and Adolescent Same-Sex Attraction (in American Journal of Sociology, 2002, pp 1179-1205).
Oddly, despite the popularity of the idea, the evidence for genetic and/or hormonal effects on same-sex orientation is inconclusive at best. The most publicized genetic findings, for example, the discovery of a marker for homosexuality in men (Hamer et al. 1993) has not been replicated, and studies purporting to establish a genetic or hormonal foundation to human sexual orientation to have serious methodological flaws.
The reason genetic markers are looked for is that it has been noticed that, sometimes, homosexual behavior runs in families. But then so does trout fishing. Meaning sometimes behavior is not genetically predetermined. Meaning that’s it’s possible, and even likely, that sexual behavior is at least sometimes chosen, a politically unwelcome idea. Anyway, with human behavior as complex as it is, it would be a wonder if there was just one explanation for our amorous proclivities.
Science News also reports “no major gene for homosexuality has been found despite numerous studies searching for a genetic connection”; instead some people are looking for epigenetic “shocks”, so to speak. But it’s all theoretical at this point, meaning the epigenetic idea “isn’t based on actual experiments,” quotes one scientist. (This is all necessary because evolutionary theory predicts genes for non-heterosexuality would quickly disappear because non-heterosexuals acting non-heterosexually don’t pass on their “selfish” genes.)
Even if the epigenetic shock theory were true, it wouldn’t explain people like Wolfe, those who are ‘oriented’ towards our four-legged friends, those oriented towards the infertile (children and the deceased; not much evolutionary advantage here), or folks with other non-standard desires.
The old-fashioned natural, scientific answer to today’s question is that marriage is between one man, one woman, mated for life and for the purpose of making and raising children. Used to be, up until about five, six years ago it was customary to acknowledge this, at least tacitly, especially the bit about kids.
People (even “researchers”) used to say that kids raised in homes with biological mom and dad did best. Evolutionary psychologists were even on board with this idea, saying (for example) adopted kids in man-woman families were under increased “risk” of death (step dads want to eliminate rival genes, you see). “Researchers” are now having to present data which “shows” that kids raised in any state whatsoever are equal to kids raised in scientific families. Given the loose requirements of statistical evidence, they’ll find it, too.