A
AyJSimon
Guest
I don’t wonder - because it was cited.
- Status
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
That is good advice. Unfortunately it falls on deaf ears within the gay community. 50% of gay marriages have “Open Relationship” agreements.
nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html
Gay couples like to keep this quiet because it could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage. In other words a same sex marriage with an open relationship agreement makes a mockery of traditional marriage.
I am sure some same sex couples have life-long monogamous relationships, but those with no intention of fidelity have no business calling their relationship a marriage…
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
If it was, it had no effect on the outcome.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
I would agree that being attracted to people of the same sex is not a choice, because one has no control over his or her feelings. However, how one chooses to act upon those feelings is always a choice. One chooses to be “gay” insofar as he or she decides to live a lifestyle that sees sexual activity between persons of the same gender as acceptable. In the latter sense, being “gay” is certainly a choice.
Regarding your other point, while it is good to promote monogamy between male-female relationships, monogamy does not prevent the kind of physical health issues that arise from the “harmful activities” you are referring to (aside from perhaps the transmission of STDs). Rather, the better action is to encourage both homosexual and heterosexual couples to entirely abstain from those certain “harmful activities” you are referring to.
Peace,
Robert
A
AyJSimon
Guest
Given that it’s clear you never read the Court’s ruling, how could you pretend to know what affected the outcome and what didn’t?
R
Rau
Guest
Are you serious? You believe that sexual complementarity is as irrelevant as race in deciding eligibility for the sexual relationship of marriage? You see similarity in these issues? The superficial and illogical prejudice that prevented mixed race marriages rears its head again when someone suggests men should not be marrying men? The Nature of Man (we come in two, sexually compatible forms) is just another “skin colour” issue? Seriously?
T
Thorolfr
Guest
I’m sure that not so long ago, it would have been quite easy to find conservative Christians, especially in the South, who would have argued that the difference between the races is not superficial and that racial segregation is not an illogical prejudice and that this segregation was based on their understanding of the Bible. It’s good that most people now recognize that such arguments are ridiculous.
R
Rau
Guest
Perceptions about skin colour are not comparable with the sexual complementarity of the sexes. In the context of the sexual relationship of marriage, that is somewhat fundamental.
A
AyJSimon
Guest
The government is free to decide on its own definition of marriage, and on what basis the institution can be said to exist. When deciding whether to validate a marriage, the government holds no particular interest in a couple’s sexual complementarity.
The Catholic Church is free to decide otherwise, but only for itself. Its definitions and prerequisites have no authority in a secular government.
R
Rau
Guest
Who mentioned the Carholic Church?
I agree that one needs to view marriage as an entirely arbitrary thing, and set aside concrete things like the nature of man, to conclude that 2 men marrying is reasonable.
A
AyJSimon
Guest
Marriage is already unreasonable. Leaving aside its original purpose to join families, property, and wealth, the institution promotes monogamy in a species where the biological imperative is to breed as frequently as possible.
That’s the nature of man, friend. By definition, the artificial institution of marriage sets it aside. Once we’ve decided that we’re okay with that, it hardly matters whether the people getting married are two men, or two women, or one of each.
R
Rau
Guest
Look around - there is no imperative to breed as frequently as possible, so let’s dispense with that nonsense.
Marriage is not artificial - it is hugely practical as a vehicle to care for children, which are the natural outcome of most marriages. Or would you hold that Children (and mothers) have no particular right to know their father?
Were the participants in marriage not engaged in sexual activity, I’d agree that their sex does not matter. But we have established previously the incongruity of 2 men engaging in sexual acts.
A
AyJSimon
Guest
Take a biology class. It is exactly what we’re programmed to do. That man-made laws and social mores discourage it doesn’t change the fact. And it’s funny, every time someone laments society’s moral decay, sexual promiscuity tops the list of complaints. But now you’re telling us it’s not happening?
Nothing about marriage ensures that a child will know who either parent is, and not being married doesn’t prevent it.
Which has nothing to do with marriage. No two people are required to be married to have sex with one another, and nothing requires two people have sex with one another once they are married.
R
Rau
Guest
Do you feel programmed to breed as often as possible? Seriously?
What you write might be true of an open marriage, or a marriage in which children are “procured” via third party services. The former is not marriage, and in the latter, the child is not a result of marital relations.
The absence of the commitment which marriage entails (especially combined with your idea about breeding as often as possible) will guarantee that children will not know their father, nor have their father around to support their development. [Perhaps you are confusing marriage with the legal framework States have supported it with?]
A biological and social fact for sure. But marriage is a sexual union, so if 2 men having sex is incongruous, so is two men marrying.
J
JimG
Guest
If human beings did not come in two sexually complementarity kinds, marriage would not exist.
If marriage had no potential whatever for procreation, government would have no interest in it.
The fact that mankind is composed of men and women is the reason marriage has existed since the dawn of civilization.
If marriage had no potential whatever for procreation, government would have no interest in it.
The fact that mankind is composed of men and women is the reason marriage has existed since the dawn of civilization.
A
AyJSimon
Guest
All three claims are false.
R
Rau
Guest
Makes you wonder why in my jurisdiction (and in most until recently) marriage has been the union of a man and a woman. Why on earth pick those too, eh? Nothing sexual here! No, No, No!
Makes you wonder why brother and sister are forbidden to marry! Nothing sexual here! No, No, No!
D
davidv
Guest
Based on what? Your say so? Not!
A
AyJSimon
Guest
Brother and sister are only forbidden to marry in 27 states and Washington D.C., fyi.Makes you wonder why in my jurisdiction (and in most until recently) marriage has been the union of a man and a woman. Why on earth pick those too, eh? Nothing sexual here! No, No, No!
Makes you wonder why brother and sister are forbidden to marry! Nothing sexual here! No, No, No!
- Status