conservatives/ bible thumpers/ capitalists
I really am curious to what sanctity the religious right is trying to protect. A lot more than half of married people get divorced, or live together unhappily. affairs have almost become a norm of marriage. and before our time... marriages were planned, usually between a 12-14 year old girl and an older man.... in all cases marriage has really
( Read more... )
the sad fact of the matter is, everyone can really claim to be in love with anything, a book dog, etc. but free speech IS to protect speech and actions the majority does not aggree with... but a true homosexual... not one of the overexagerated fake homeosexuals i have the delight (sarcasm) of meeting... has the same rights as everyone else. marriage is the bond between two people who love each other... if a gay couple could get married, live a life as a productive american citizen, and do all the same things as a straight couple... then i really cannot see the harm in their marriage. the typical american against gay couples are against it because they think it's wrong... that their opinion... but does that make it wrong... does anyone here think god (i am agnostic... so i do believe there is something out there) would be so stupid and petty, and really care about a persons sexual orientation? to say this is to assume that god is a straight man or womyn. which would mean that god has either two x cromosomes or an x and y cromosome. god could truly be nothing but either intangible, or just plain unimaginable from our human form. therefor wouldn't god be accepting of everyone? wouldn't IT be able to look beneath surface and see the true beauty inside the person? god is not an american... it is a higher being.
i know you did not particularly touch the subject you wrote... but i thought it was something i would like to understand better... i am hardly on AIM so i kinda have to debate through the post... sorry.
Reply
"But isn't marriage just a way of recognizing people who love each other and want to spend their lives together?
-If love and companionship were sufficient to define marriage, then there would be no reason to deny "marriage" to unions of a child and an adult, or an adult child and his or her aging parent, or to roommates who have no sexual relationship, or to groups rather than couples. Love and companionship are usually considered integral to marriage in our culture, but they are not sufficient to define it as an institution."
here is what marriage is: (taken from the family research council)
"The unique trait of what is commonly called marriage is social recognition and approval ... of a couple's engaging in sexual intercourse and bearing and rearing children." Marriage scholar Maggie Gallagher says that "marriage across societies is a public sexual union that creates kinship obligations and sharing of resources between men, women, and the children their sexual union may produce."
well, what about the married couples who don't want kids, or have children? heres your answer:
A couple that doesn't want children when they marry might change their minds. Birth control might fail for a couple that uses it. A couple that appears to be infertile may get a surprise and conceive a child. The marital commitment may deter an older man from conceiving children with a younger woman outside of marriage. Even a very elderly couple is of the structural type (i.e., a man and a woman) that could theoretically produce children (or could have in the past). And the sexual union of all such couples is of the same type as that which reproduces the human race, even if it does not have that effect in particular cases.
you say, well people can reproduce without being married, heres the purpose of getting married:
The mere biological conception and birth of children are not sufficient to ensure the reproduction of a healthy, successful society. Paul Nathanson, the homosexual scholar cited above, says that there are at least five functions that marriage serves--things that every culture must do in order to survive and thrive. They are:
· Foster the bonding between men and women
· Foster the birth and rearing of children
· Foster the bonding between men and children
· Foster some form of healthy masculine identity
· Foster the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults
Reply
why should gays be denied the right to marry you ask?
heres an answer:
The fundamental "right to marry" is a right that rests with individuals, not with couples. Homosexual individuals already have exactly the same "right" to marry as anyone else. Marriage license applications do not inquire as to a person's "sexual orientation."
However, while every individual person is free to get married, no person, whether heterosexual or homosexual, has ever had a legal right to marry simply any willing partner. Every person, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is subject to legal restrictions as to whom they may marry. To be specific, every person, regardless of sexual preference, is legally barred from marrying a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. There is no discrimination here, nor does such a policy deny anyone the "equal protection of the laws" (as guaranteed by the Constitution), since these restrictions apply equally to every individual.
what bad could come of letting them marry you ask?
For one thing, it would reinforce many of the negative changes described above. As an example, marriage will open wide the door to homosexual adoption, which will simply lead to more children suffering the negative consequences of growing up without both a mother and a father.
In addition, studies have shown that even homosexual men who are in "committed" relationships are not sexually faithful to each other. While infidelity among heterosexuals is much too common, it does not begin to compare to the rates among homosexual men. The 1994 National Health and Social Life Survey, which remains the most comprehensive study of Americans' sexual practices ever undertaken, found that 75 percent of married men and 90 percent of married women had been sexually faithful to their spouse. On the other hand, a major study of homosexual men in "committed" relationships found that only seven out of 156 had been sexually faithful, or 4.5 percent. The Dutch study cited above found that even homosexual men in "steady partnerships" had an average of eight "casual" sex partners per year.
In addition, studies have shown that even homosexual men who are in "committed" relationships are not sexually faithful to each other. While infidelity among heterosexuals is much too common, it does not begin to compare to the rates among homosexual men. The 1994 National Health and Social Life Survey, which remains the most comprehensive study of Americans' sexual practices ever undertaken, found that 75 percent of married men and 90 percent of married women had been sexually faithful to their spouse. On the other hand, a major study of homosexual men in "committed" relationships found that only seven out of 156 had been sexually faithful, or 4.5 percent. The Dutch study cited above found that even homosexual men in "steady partnerships" had an average of eight "casual" sex partners per year.
yeah...sorry that was long. but i ceased to leave out all religious matter.
Reply
Leave a comment