Gay marriage and Pro-Life Stance
Recently I was looking through my Facebook news-feed and saw a video from 2005 by the Conservative Party candidate Andrew Scheer (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/andrew-scheer-gay-marriage-lgbtq-goodale-1.5256095), where he talks about how gay marriage is unnatural because gays are incapable of having children of their own.
As someone who has studied biology and genetics to some extent, the thing I find most ironic is that these people typically also have the "pro-life" stance. It bothers me when people use specific components of biology to further their argument, as they nit-pick points for a misleading portrayal of the data. "Science" is a powerful and misleading way of showing credibility, but of course in the end one must take in the whole picture, which unfortunately Andrew Scheer does not.
To get into the details, the video shown in the article portrays Andrew Scheer claiming that gay marriage does not make sense due to the fact that homosexuals cannot have their own offspring, which he claims is a biological requirement of marriage. In the process, he completely ignores the widely accepted Kin Theory, a concept accepted by both biologists and anthropologists alike. Essentially Kin Theory centers around the fact that due to one's relatives have a very similar genome, supporting one's relatives allows for the gene pool to be passed down regardless of having direct offspring. For this reason, homosexuals actually allow for their family members to better prosper, as the child will have more family members to support them. This concept of Kin Theory extends to other species as well; most notably bees and ants, who defend their queen without reserve for their own lives and their inability to reproduce.
Furthermore, in biology, there is something called the Good Mother Hypothesis, which states that women go through menopause so that they cannot have children at an age where they would be better off taking care of their grandchildren. While this point is not related to homosexuality, it does show the extent of the importance of family supports outside of a mother and a father.
And finally, this brings me to my final point, regarding the "pro-life" stance that many conservatives seem to adamantly support along with opposition to gay marriage. While this post isn't meant to be a pro-life/pro-choice debacle, what I find ironic is that gay marriage actually is beneficial for the "pro-life" stance. It is the fact that homosexuals cannot have children of their own that they can take care of those who are less fortunate by adopting. To carry both these stances concurrently would be a huge detriment to society, as these children will end up growing in conditions that they do not deserve to be in.
All of which is not mentioned in his speech.
As someone who has studied biology and genetics to some extent, the thing I find most ironic is that these people typically also have the "pro-life" stance. It bothers me when people use specific components of biology to further their argument, as they nit-pick points for a misleading portrayal of the data. "Science" is a powerful and misleading way of showing credibility, but of course in the end one must take in the whole picture, which unfortunately Andrew Scheer does not.
To get into the details, the video shown in the article portrays Andrew Scheer claiming that gay marriage does not make sense due to the fact that homosexuals cannot have their own offspring, which he claims is a biological requirement of marriage. In the process, he completely ignores the widely accepted Kin Theory, a concept accepted by both biologists and anthropologists alike. Essentially Kin Theory centers around the fact that due to one's relatives have a very similar genome, supporting one's relatives allows for the gene pool to be passed down regardless of having direct offspring. For this reason, homosexuals actually allow for their family members to better prosper, as the child will have more family members to support them. This concept of Kin Theory extends to other species as well; most notably bees and ants, who defend their queen without reserve for their own lives and their inability to reproduce.
Furthermore, in biology, there is something called the Good Mother Hypothesis, which states that women go through menopause so that they cannot have children at an age where they would be better off taking care of their grandchildren. While this point is not related to homosexuality, it does show the extent of the importance of family supports outside of a mother and a father.
And finally, this brings me to my final point, regarding the "pro-life" stance that many conservatives seem to adamantly support along with opposition to gay marriage. While this post isn't meant to be a pro-life/pro-choice debacle, what I find ironic is that gay marriage actually is beneficial for the "pro-life" stance. It is the fact that homosexuals cannot have children of their own that they can take care of those who are less fortunate by adopting. To carry both these stances concurrently would be a huge detriment to society, as these children will end up growing in conditions that they do not deserve to be in.
All of which is not mentioned in his speech.
Comments
Post a Comment