In American society's sudden lurch to support the oxymoron of same-sex marriage (SSM), the argument is often made that there is no "rational basis" for limiting marriage to one man and one woman. Indeed, this is the critical foundation for many of the spurious judicial decisions invalidating state laws codifying natural marriage, with the courts perversely distorting the so-called "rational basis" test under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
These judicial decisions rest on the radical premise that all human civilizations throughout millennial history to the present have been (and remain) patently irrational in their establishment of natural male-female unions as the optimal and exclusive essence of what we call marriage. The only exceptions to this historical consensus are the coterie of European and Western countries who suddenly discovered in the last 10-15 years that, mirabile dictu, their forefathers were all irrational clods who lacked the sense to ignore the immutable forces of biology and nature.
Heretofore, however, the millennial and global consensus on the basic nature of mating and marriage has facilitated the unbroken propagation, increase, and advancement of the human race, notwithstanding the epidemics, wars, plagues, and natural disasters that have threatened its survival throughout history. Surely the burden of proof should fall heavily on those who would suddenly supplant a proven system of sustained survival and growth with an entirely unprecedented and radical lurch into the demographic unknown. Yet judge after spineless federal judge has simply fallen into step with the prevailing political and academic trend, mechanically adopted the LGBT talking points, and arrogantly dismissed humanity's historical system of civilized self-preservation as "irrational."
Contrary to this presumptuous judicial sophistry, there are extensive rational grounds for states maintaining the limitation of marriage to male-female unions – for example, the highly reasonable reluctance to institutionalize and encourage dangerous and unsanitary homosexual practices; or simply avoiding the disruptive societal risks of an entirely untried and problematic new paradigm of marriage and family organization.
The most compelling rational justification, however, is self-evident to any soberly reasoning individual: promoting and encouraging same-sex marriage undercuts society's most fundamental function, namely, preserving and perpetuating itself by procreational reproduction. Simply put, SSM will divert persons capable of fertile procreative unions into sterile same-sex unions.
Much of the debate about SSM implicitly presupposes, without expressly stipulating, that homosexual persons constitute but a statistically insignificant percentage of the population. If only a de minimis percentage of the population is homosexual, it might be argued that enabling or encouraging those persons to enter same-sex marriages (if they marry at all) will not have any meaningful negative effect on the propagation of the nation's population.
But same-sex marriage is plainly not limited to the marriage of two homosexuals. In nullifying laws and constitutions limiting marriage to a man and a woman, courts have not simply permitted "gay marriage;" rather, they have opened the door to all kinds and varieties of same-sex marriage. Thus, there is nothing to prevent a "mixed" marriage between a heterosexual and a homosexual, or, indeed, a marriage of economic convenience between two heterosexuals. Certification as a permanent and exclusive homosexual is certainly not a precondition in the brave new world of same-sex marriage.
Although same-sex marriages between one or more heterosexuals may prove to be rare – only time will tell – same-sex marriages involving one or more bisexuals is not likely to be rare at all. And that largely unexplored factor is highly significant.
By definition, bisexuals are perfectly capable of marrying heterosexuals or other bisexuals of the opposite sex, and producing offspring. Indeed, there are numerous bisexuals who have parented children either before or after "coming out" with respect to homosexuality. Acknowledged bisexuals have been especially prominent in the entertainment industry. David Bowie, Angelina Jolie, Drew Barrymore, and Lady Gaga are only among the more prominent self-proclaimed bi's. Others, like Elton John, have turned to a seemingly homosexual lifestyle after having previously experienced heterosexual marriages. Among bisexuals, migration from fertile heterosexual relationships to sterile same-sex relationships has always been a possibility, but it has long been strongly discouraged by both societal norms and the exclusivity of heterosexual marriage. With the advent of SSM, it will be socially encouraged and approved, and legally endorsed.
Statistics on this subject are understandably uncertain and varied. A fairly recent study by the Williams Institute at UCLA Law School purported to find that 1.7% of Americans acknowledged themselves to be homosexual, while 1.8% identified as bisexual. The 1993 Janus Report on Sexual Behavior, on the other hand, purported to find that 5% of men and 3% of women considered themselves bisexual and 4 percent of men and 2 percent of women considered themselves homosexual. A 2002 study by National Center for Health Statistics found that 1.8% of men ages 18–44 considered themselves bisexual, 2.3& homosexual, and 3.9% as "something else". The same study found that 2.8% of women ages 18–44 considered themselves bisexual, 1.3% homosexual, and 3.8% as "something else."
Despite their variations, it is interesting to note that the studies indicate that bisexuality appears to be more prevalent than homosexuality. Among other things, this significantly undercuts the established LGBT doctrine that same-sex marriage is justified because it offers the sole marital outlet or opportunity for those who presumably will pursue it. Needless to say, bisexuals are quite capable of entering and fulfilling marriages with persons of the opposite sex.
There can be no doubt that there have been literally millions of marriages involving homosexual and bisexual persons that have produced offspring throughout history. Indeed, until relatively recent times in historical terms, neither men nor women (especially the latter) had much choice in the matter of whom, or whether, they would marry, at least in certain social classes and milieus. In societies across the globe and in all ages, for example, parents did not exempt their daughters from the necessity of entering a suitable marriage if the daughter professed distaste for either the man they chose for her or for men in general. And the equivalent for sons, albeit probably to a lesser degree. Given the stigma of homosexuality in most societies, few parents were likely to know whether or not a child had that orientation in any event. Whether or not the historical tradition of parents requiring or pressuring their children to marry an opposite sex mate, without regard to sexual "orientation," was fair or sound, it was undoubtedly followed across the ages and societies. In short, history demonstrates that both bisexuals and homosexuals are capable of entering heterosexual marriages and, however reluctantly or indifferently, producing offspring as a result.
The critical point is this: the expanding availability of same-sex marriage will probably divert substantial numbers of persons, particularly bisexuals, from normal man-woman marriages that they otherwise might have pursued. If 2% of the 300 million-plus U.S. population is bisexual, then there would be over 6 million bisexual Americans; if 4%, then there would be over 12 million. Heretofore, the marriage laws encouraged such persons to follow their heterosexual inclinations and marry a person of the opposite sex, if they were inclined to marry.
Now, however, the increased availability of same-sex marriage sharply changes the equation, particularly in the case of genuine bisexuals. Millions of "bi's" who heretofore would have married a person of the opposite sex, and procreated children, may choose instead to enter a necessarily sterile SSM. As a result, by definition SSM undercuts a society's compelling interest in propagating itself. Moreover, inasmuch as even marginal reductions in the rate of a nation's population growth adversely affect its economic growth (except in circumstances of substantially overpopulated nations, a circumstance inapplicable to today's United States), SSM also tends to undercut a nation's or a state's powerful interest in maximizing economic growth.
Both of these indisputable effects of legalizing SSM provide at least a rational basis – in reality, a compelling basis – for enacting laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman. Anyone with even a glimmer of common sense could quickly grasp these obvious implications if presented with the basic facts. But what would be obvious to a reasonably intelligent 12-year-old is a closed book to the obfuscating pettifoggers in black robes who are bent on subverting humanity's most critical social institution.