Friday, August 8, 2008

Why, Gender, You Look Fabulous!

I think the very best argument the LDS church has against the theology (as opposed to legality) of same sex couples being married -- my personal definition of marriage is the force that joins two entities as one -- is the need for gender complement (not to be confused with a gender compliment as is exampled by this post's title... huck-yuck).

Anyway, I remember when I was going through counseling at LDS Family Services, I told my counselor that I didn't understand why two men or two women couldn't be eternally sealed; she said something to the effect of, "I imagine it has something to do with Yin & Yang, the need for a harmonious balance of natures."

This got me thinking, and it makes perfect sense. After all, how can you make something perfectly whole if the two pieces are not complementary?

Such was back in 2005, and I've done a great deal of pondering and observing with this hypothesis that two people of the same sex cannot complement each other. In my observations, I noticed something sticking rather starkly out there, something that is found from humble acts to derogatory jokes: a homosexual's innate and inward gender balance is different than a heterosexual's -- even the "butch" and "fem" homosexuals have a noticeably different makeup of inward gender interactions than a heterosexual counterpart.

I used to think that, perhaps, this implied more than two genders, but the more I observed, the more I noticed there are, indeed, only two genders: male and female; a homosexual merely has a different composition of the two complementing genders than a heterosexual. Now, I wouldn't say such is in a more androgynous way -- meaning, I don't think gender is really a quantitative trait, and as everyone has both masculine and feminine traits, it's not "how much more masculine" or "how much more feminine" someone is but the difference in how these two genders interact with each other within an individual... if that makes sense.

To perhaps put it a different way, the following symbols represent how I see the manner in which the two genders, male and female, generally interact within heterosexuals and homosexuals:





In my observations, I noticed that, when it comes to complementing natures most perfectly, a heterosexual male and a heterosexual female complement each other most completely; a homosexual male and a homosexual male complement each other most completely; a homosexual female and a homosexual female complement each other most completely:







Of course, such is in "completely heterosexual" or "completely homosexual" cases. There is something else I have observed: as with everything else when it comes to an individual, each person doesn't follow the exact class of a "homosexual" or a "heterosexual" nor is any marriage a perfect complement -- that is, the marriages that work best, I believe, come close, but I've yet to see a perfectly whole union of two people.

Anyway, such a flux between individuals is why some mixed orientation marriages work -- and work well: the spouses' gender compositions are such that is created a mostly whole complement when united. (I've also seen that such is not reflected in how sexually attracted someone is to a specific sex.)

When applying this to rearing children, I believe there is, indeed, a need for a child to be brought up by two parents complementary joined as one. I also believe there is as equal of a complement of genders in homosexual couples as there is in heterosexual couples.

It is my opinion that children are extremely perceptive and conceptually grounded, that they innately are capable of learning and experiencing this complement, even when socially driven definitions of male and female are not present.

Of course, this is just a thesis I have according to what I have witnessed and sensed in life. I only have my observations as my sole empirical data; albeit, the more I observe, the more my thesis seems to hold true.


  1. I've had thoughts right along these lines, myself, and while there's something in me that just insists there's a common-sense, unique duality and complement in the union of male and female well-matched/complementary in other ways, another part of me can't shake the idea that well-matched/complementary people of any gender can bring most (maybe all) of the same traits to the table.

    I still think there's just something special about having a mother that I would prefer no kid goes without. And there's something different about a father that a mother can't quite replace. I'm not sure I can quantify it or defend it yet, though there are supposedly studies which do. But there's something to it that I can't shake. Yet I still insist that two men or two women can make excellent parents who can bring up very well-rounded children with all the confidence, strength, conviction, sensitivity, and love they need to maintain strong principles and build society.

    All of that aside, I much love the awkwardness of the diagram of the homo male and homo female together. Beautiful. I laughed.

  2. I wonder if some children raised by homosexual couples would say something similar about not having 'two dads' or 'two moms.'

    (p.s. It's good to hear from you; I hope you're doing well!)