Barrett Garese

Q:also i know you'll probably say something about over population or how we don't really need to create more children considering all the children that exist without families, or even about the validity of those couples unable to have children so for over population it's true, and i'm not saying the threat to our existence is here now but it does go against nature. as for couples who cant have children, natural selection takes care of that.

Anonymous

When I wrote this, I knew I’d get at least one comment like the above. I’ve broken it down line by line below:

also i know you’ll probably say something about over population or how we don’t really need to create more children considering all the children that exist without families,

You “know” wrong - I won’t, and I won’t need to.

or even about the validity of those couples unable to have children so for over population it’s true

Also wrong: I don’t feel the need to judge the “validity” of other people’s relationships.

and i’m not saying the threat to our existence is here now

Foreboding, but okay. Aside from ourselves, neither am I.

but it does go against nature.

Huh. That’s interesting, in its complete and total inaccuracy.

Which part of “nature” are you referencing this being against? The part where gay animals actually exist? The part where gay animals also exist as monogamous couples? How can something that already abundantly exists in non-human “nature” be “against nature?” How can something that naturally occurs in all species above a certain intelligence threshold be “against nature?”

More importantly, how can something that naturally occurs in human beings be “against nature” unless you’re using some new and vacuously self-serving definition of “nature”? To be totally honest, this is such a specious argument that I’m not even entirely sure what you’re trying to communicate.

as for couples who cant have children, natural selection takes care of that.

So your entire argument for monogamy is procreation? I think you’re missing your own point here. In fact, I’d argue that if your goal is procreation and continuation of the species, monogamy is more of a threat as it inevitably leads to a limitation on human production. Hell, tossing monogamy would help solve that natural selection “issue” you mentioned earlier as it would allow the potentially positive advantageously procreative genes from one partner to not be limited by the other partner’s nonprocreative genes.

But that’s not what you’re actually saying, is it? You’re not actually making an argument for a human institution to be regulated by the “laws of nature.” You’re just inventing arguments that sound similar enough to scientific concepts that you hope they’ll convey scientific weight to invented arguments like attributing an innate morality to nature. Put more plainly: You’re obviously grasping at straws hoping that if you make enough small points that sound like they might be valid, they’ll come together into a larger one that will.

But that’s the funny thing about small points and logic: they don’t work that way. They each need to work together for a larger point to be made. Yours work at odds against each other: Disregarding the incorrect “definition” of “nature” as demonstrated above, either male/female monogamy is “against nature” for its inability to produce children (meaning that the goal of procreation is paramount, and monogamy as an institution falls apart) or the monogamous coupling itself as a social structure is paramount and therefore it doesn’t matter whether children are produced or not. You cannot have it both ways.

But you knew that. You were just hoping that if you threw enough of those straws into the air, your lack of an actual point wouldn’t be as obvious.

So I don’t need to say anything about overpopulation or the number of children that currently require families; while they’re important topics, they don’t need to be addressed to invalidate your argument. All I need to invalidate your argument is your argument, as it inevitably invalidates itself.