The homosexual state of mind: Marriage isn't about a man & woman but love & love

[JimG]

Who decides that the ability to reproduce is the defining characteristic of a marriage? It’s not biology. It’s theology. And your opinion is based on theology, which appropriates specific facts from biology (and other disciplines) to confirm its original thesis.

Incidentally, biology also tells us that the human prostate, which can be felt by pressing against the inner wall of a male’s rectum, actually has nerve ends, which, when stimulated, are capable of producing pleasurable sensations. Isn’t that weird? That a gland located right up against the human rectum would be capable of that? What possible use could that have?

When I hear talk of sexual complementarity being a matter of theology, I feel like Alice in Wonderland talking to the Queen:

Alice laughed. “There’s not use trying,” she said: “one can’t believe impossible things.”
“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

But no matter how much I might try to think it, men are not sexually complementary with men, nor women with women. No theology is required.

Marital relations are marital because they occur between men and women, who are made (yes, biologically!) for union with each other.

But that’s only been the case since the dawn of history. I suppose we might change it now. We might also celebrate Dad on mother’s day and Mom on Father’s Day. And we might call white black, and black white, while we’re at it.

I recommend two books for consideration: “Family and Civilization,” by Carle Zimmerman, and “Adam and Even After the Pill” by Mary Eberstadt. The first one traces the history of family structure going back thousands of years, and the civilizational results when family structure breaks down. The second one gives statistical sociological results of the sexual revolution–all of them bad.

 

[ASimon]

Asimon,

I am heterosexual. I think it is relevant. Why do you dismiss my question. Do you treat all heterosexuals this way? I find this disturbing. It causes me sadness to suggest that a notion of mind is just thrown to the ground because I am a heterosexual and now what I say is irrelevant. Please be more explicit as to why?

I’ve explained this already, and I’m sorry if your memory lapses are causing you sadness.

Bad Ideas are Bad Ideas, whether they’re been around for an hour or 10,000 years. You can’t oppose SSM simply on the grounds that we’ve existed without it for thousands of years. You need to defend this opposition on its merits.

The same with Good Ideas. That we’ve existed without something for thousands of years doesn’t automatically mean it’s not a Good Idea, and you can’t oppose it simply on the grounds that we’ve never had it before. You need an argument to oppose it. I’ve already stated my argument in defense of it. Your move.

stewstew03:

Why is sexual orientation “equality” a reason for change?

Because where equality does not work against some greater societal interest, a society with more equality is preferable to society with less equality.

 

[stewstew03]

Incidentally, biology also tells us that the human prostate, which can be felt by pressing against the inner wall of a male’s rectum, actually has nerve ends, which, when stimulated, are capable of producing pleasurable sensations. Isn’t that weird? That a gland located right up against the human rectum would be capable of that? What possible use could that have?

I think you’ll have to do more than just say “biology tells us.” Can you cite the peer-reviewed article where you gathered this information? Thanks.

 

[JimG]

Are we really going to argue about the prostate? No doubt God (or Mother Nature if you prefer) just wants us to be happy to defecate.

 

[ASimon]

When I hear talk of sexual complementarity being a matter of theology, I feel like Alice in Wonderland talking to the Queen:

Alice laughed. “There’s not use trying,” she said: “one can’t believe impossible things.”
“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

But no matter how much I might try to think it, men are not sexually complementary with men, nor women with women. No theology is required.

Sigh…but theology is required to take the next step - to assert that a biological fact like this forms the basis of marriage’s definition. If theology did not exist, you’d never reach this conclusion simply from biology. Because biology doesn’t have such opinion on the social implications of men and women being anatomically complementary.

A conflicting theology could just as easily take the biological fact of pleasure-nerve endings on the male prostate as reason to assert that there is nothing immoral or disordered or evil about two men having sex. After all, why would God have designed us with pleasure-nerve endings accessible through our rectums if not to implicitly suggest that homosexual sex isn’t something to be avoided or ashamed of? And it follows, why shouldn’t gays be allowed to marry one another if they’re having sex with one another isn’t a bad thing in the first place?

 

[Bradski]

Are you saying that, just because something CAN be pleasurable, it should be, no matter what?

‘Could be’ not ‘should be’. I don’t think because something feels good it must therefore be compulsory.

But along those lines, and discounting what you think about various sexual acts, do you think that you should be able to dictate what two consenting adults do in private? It seems from previous posts that some people think that as ‘this’ is meant to go ‘in there’, then nothing else should be allowed.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’ve explained this already, and I’m sorry if your memory lapses are causing you sadness.

Bad Ideas are Bad Ideas, whether they’re been around for an hour or 10,000 years. You can’t oppose SSM simply on the grounds that we’ve existed without it for thousands of years. You need to defend this opposition on its merits.

The same with Good Ideas. That we’ve existed without something for thousands of years doesn’t automatically mean it’s not a Good Idea, and you can’t oppose it simply on the grounds that we’ve never had it before. You need an argument to oppose it. I’ve already stated my argument in defense of it. Your move.

Because where equality does not work against some greater societal interest, a society with more equality is preferable to society with less equality.

Brad,

So what you are telling me is that the history of civil unions is short lived and the history of marriage as we know it one man, one woman has historicity…is that what you are saying?

 

[ASimon]

I think you’ll have to do more than just say “biology tells us.” Can you cite the peer-reviewed article where you gathered this information? Thanks.

This is a pretty well-established biological fact, and if you doubt me, Google is your friend.

JimG:

Are we really going to argue about the prostate? No doubt God (or Mother Nature if you prefer) just wants us to be happy to defecate.

Yeah…you’re going to have to do better than that.

 

[ASimon]

Brad,

So what you are telling me is that the history of civil unions is short lived and the history of marriage as we know it one man, one woman has historicity…is that what you are saying?

My name is not “Brad” (again, sorry for your memory problems). And yes, that is what I’m saying. And I’m saying that historicity or lack therefor is irrelevant, by itself.

 

[CopticChristian]

My name is not “Brad” (again, sorry for your memory problems). And yes, that is what I’m saying. And I’m saying that historicity or lack therefor is irrelevant, by itself.

Asimon,

You will forgive me but after awhile all those that are on the side of proposing same sex marriage all look alike.

 

[Crescentinus]

This thread and the other one makes me want to go off a la BadCatholic.

 

[Rob_has_lapsed]

In my opinion when engagine in same-sex marriage discussions it is best to shy away from discussing homosexuality altogether (beleive it or not) …they beleive in love and see nothing wrong with two people who love each other getting married. I recommend staying away from debates about how “homosexuality is disordered” with most people because it usually doesn’t get you anywhere. Try and find common ground where you actually AGREE and most of us do! Expand on the idea that love will be the only requirement for marriage and go from there.

If marriage is changed from one-man-one-woman to simply “people who love each other” then the floodgates are open as they will most certainly be which will impact society in a profound way over time. What is to stop a man from marrying his sister? I am not joking, really what if they love one another…to deny them marriage would be discrimanatory would it not? Or how about three people that love one another? Clearly love can be between more then two people…wouldn’t it be discrimination to deny marriage to a threesome that loved each other?

What if I am older and widowed and alone and have no medical care. Couldn’t my adult son marry me? Really, why not, if he loves me? That way I could be covered under his medical benefits and many other things. You could argue that that would be a disordered marriage however if the only criteria is love then to deny marriage based on the fact that mother-son-marriage are historically unacceptable as a social norm would be discrimination.

Even those sympathetic to gay-marriage can see that changing criteria to “people who love one another” will (over time) clearly open the door for any one to marry any one else or any number of other people. Churches and religious organizations will be forced by law to recognize these marriages or perhaps even perform ceremonies or be in trouble for discrimination.

Many people have gay friends and sympathize…I am saying try and approach it from this perspective. You might beleive in gay marriage but do you beleive in polygamy and most importantly would you be willing to see law enforcement for churches to perform these ceremonies? You might not change anyones mind but it’s worth bringing up and thinking about. God bles.

As previously discussed love has nothing to do with marriage and most definately from a civil perspective. I am perfectly fine with any two adults (related or otherwise) entering into a civil union. If that is also known as a marriage then so be it. Peace.

 

[Viviphilia]

From a public health perspective, supporting public, monogamous relationships between homosexuals is clearly preferable to secrecy and promiscuity. It seems unfair to forbid gays from being public and monogamous and then turn around and complain about promiscuity and disease.

 

[prodigalson2011]

From a public health perspective, supporting public, monogamous relationships between homosexuals is clearly preferable to secrecy and promiscuity. It seems unfair to forbid gays from being public and monogamous and then turn around and complain about promiscuity and disease.

You don’t have to be married to be monogamous, and being married doesn’t prevent someone from being promiscuous.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Sure, it would be easier. “Separate, but equal” is always easier.

As long as we want to make things easy, the government should stop issuing “marriage” licenses altogether - and just issue ‘civil union’ licenses for everyone. Then we’d have equal rights and equal nomenclature.

Heterosexual marriages and homosexual unions are not equal. That is the whole point. This push for a homogenization of all social distinctions in the name of “equality” is emotionally wrought and illogical.

 

[ASimon]

Heterosexual marriages and homosexual unions are not equal. That is the whole point. This push for a homogenization of all social distinctions in the name of “equality” is emotionally wrought and illogical.

Well, try not to get so worked up over other people being happier. It gets better.

 

[Crescentinus]

Correction. The same-sex “marriage” threads here might make me go off a la BadCatholic.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Well, try not to get so worked up over other people being happier. It gets better.

Worked up? You rational folk sure like to throw the emotional invective about alot.
Why, pray tell, does it require government sanction for homosexuals to be happier?

 

[Debora123]

Alright, tell me how it works.

Whether or not MY Church recognizes their arrangement as a valid marriage or not, doesn’t change the fact that in society they have the official label of married and must be acknowledged that way for practical purposes.

Until you give me a framework that justifies your resistance to something that would have no practical effect on you, then religion is all we have to work with. If your religion isn’t driving your thinking, then your opinions don’t even have a basis in a hypothetical reality.

I’ve already given you a frame work and at this point will be repeating myself for the seventh time. It has nothing to do with religion, just reality. The nature of the term marriage, at it’s very core, is definitive of a male/female relationship. As I’ve said, it’s like trying to say that a duck is a horse. It simply isn’t. I feel stupid now because I have to keep repeating myself. You can disagree all you want with me on this issue, but I don’t see why you can’t at least understand the simple concept I’ve presented to you multiple times now.

 

[Debora123]

Nope! No need to change anything, your logic agrees. It can all stay just as it is, and the homosexual activists, those paragons of tolerance and virtue, can be perfectly ok with it because that is just how tolerant, all-encompassing and kind they are. They can call it Singing in the Rain, we can call it Marriage, and nothing needs change at all. Simplest solution, everyone’s happy…

Exactly.