Gay & Lesbian marriage
Certainly a hot topic.
I'd hardly call myself a hard-core conservative, but I'm personally against gay marriage. Not because "God said so" (which is true), but for different reasons. First, "if they love each other, then I don't care" doesn't fly for me. What if I loved a six year old girl? A house? A goat? There needs to be a line drawn somewhere.
Secondly, I believe marriage was created for a reason - providing the perfect environment for raising a family. As any good psychology book will tell you, a child runs serious risks of having issues with things like drugs and violence later in life if he or she is raised in a family without *both* a mother and a father.
Thirdly, it's not natural. Believe in evolution or not, people have a natural desire to propagate the species. Homosexuality is a genetical dead-end.
Having said that, I should say that I'm not against "civil unions" for gays and lesbians. Let them have legal recognition as a committed couple if you'd like, but just don't call it a marriage. That's for a different purpose.
posted by Hans @ 3:41 AM
7 Comments:
so does that mean I can have a "civil union" with a six year old? a house? a goat?
like you said originally, "There needs to be a line drawn somewhere."
just a thought!
And what's with the "it's genetic" excuse? You can't make kids if you're with someone of the same sex so it's can't be genetic...
Yeah, but a six-year-old, or a house, or a goat, cannot reciprocate your love. It is an abusive relationship. If two consenting adults feel a genuine love, then it is a relationship free of abuse. This same argument applies to the "polygamy excuse" - a marriage wherein one man marries several wives is inherently abusive as well. But two human beings feeling love for each other?
Who are we straight folks to say no? Seems to me to be exactly how it works for us.
What do the psychology books say about kids raised with two homosexual parents? The ones I know have come out just fine - in fact, better off than plenty who came from nuclear families. Perhaps they are outliers. Or perhaps there's just not enough information to use that argument.
Homosexuality is present in the animal kingdom as well. It continues for some reason. If it was a true evolutionary dead end, homosexuality would have been selected out a long time ago. As it is, homosexuality has persisted. There's no good response to that one, you're right.
That being said, the gay folks I know in committed relationships have a love just as strong as the love my parents and their parents before them had. I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to express that love in the same way I will one day express it to others.
And blah blah blah, I'm a conservative Republican blah blah blah, let's get that out of the way. No knee-jerk left-wing or right-wing bullshit here. Just talking.
so does that mean I can have a "civil union" with a six year old? a house? a goat?
A completely valid point that I hadn't considered before. I suppose I'm more willing to support civil unions for gays/lesbians because of the prevalent acceptance for homosexuality in our culture and their fervent desire for legal recognition. I don't believe such unions would be "lesser" than marriages, but "different" (which, in actuality, they would be).
Yeah, but a six-year-old, or a house, or a goat, cannot reciprocate your love. . . This same argument applies to the "polygamy excuse" - a marriage wherein one man marries several wives is inherently abusive as well.
A six-year-old can't love? What if she professed her love to me & voiced her desire to marry? What if she wasn't pre-pubescent, but 13? What about polygamy - what makes it "inherently abusive?" Why not let those in love marry who they want?
What do the psychology books say about kids raised with two homosexual parents? . . . Or perhaps there's just not enough information to use that argument.
A valid question. However, I would be surprised if there were no studies done on this. (What I wouldn't give for access to ProQuest right now . . .)
It continues for some reason. If it was a true evolutionary dead end, homosexuality would have been selected out a long time ago. As it is, homosexuality has persisted.
If in fact it is a genetic issue, then it is indeed a dead-end. In theory, it persists because homosexuals have been societally "forced" to breed with the opposite sex, producing offspring with the gene. If all homosexuals were given the ability to have sex only with other homosexuals (which we're seeing more and more of), then the gene would inherently die out. Either that, or it never was a gene to begin with - nobody is "just born that way."
That being said, the gay folks I know in committed relationships have a love just as strong as the love my parents and their parents before them had.
I won't refute their ability to love or remain in a committed relationship. That doesn't prove or disprove anything. What if I was in a relationship with the girl who's 13 since she was 6? Would our mutual commitment to each other allow us to get married?
Yeah, but a six-year-old, or a house, or a goat, cannot reciprocate your love...
...Homosexuality is present in the animal kingdom as well. It continues for some reason.
ok, minor detail... if at first you are saying animals are not capable of making that sort of decision, then you turn to say that homosexuality is present in the animal kingdom... therefore we should 'deal' and/or accept it!?
you are nullifying any argument you've made thus forth in my mind.
either animals are just that: animals... and they do what they do because they don't necessarily have the cognitive skills & development we do (since we are supposed to be 'masters' of them, according to the Word), or animals are just as developed sexually as we are, and we should look to them to see that we are not that far off!
decide what side of the fence you are on, and make an actual argument please!
ok, i can't just stop at that... I keep re-reading "...Homosexuality is present in the animal kingdom as well."
and all my head conjures is a myriad of reasons why I'm not too fond of the idea of looking at the animal kingdom for an example.
first off, dogs eat their own poop... I don't know about you but I'm pretty sure that's not the most healthy, or even sanitary way to go.
secondly, racoons have fleas... I'm not gonna just sit back and let fleas consume me, as racoons do!
third, and my final extreme example, the female black window *throws head back in evil laughter, bwahahahaha*
do I get to go be her example: find a mate... get it on, kill him, and then eat him?
Post a Comment
<< Home