jump to navigation

Same Sex Marriage March 7, 2010

Posted by jetson in Personal.
Tags: , , , , , ,

The year is 2010. Exactly 4,410 years since the first recorded homosexual couple in history.

From Wikipedia: (Link)

The first recorded homosexual couple in history is commonly regarded as Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum, an Egyptian male couple, who lived around the 2400 BCE. The pair are portrayed in a nose-kissing position, the most intimate pose in Egyptian art, surrounded by what appear to be their heirs.

Certainly there were homosexual relationships prior to that. Homosexuality is generally accepted in modern societies among consensual adults of a legal age (depends on legal ages of the country). What is not accepted is marriage beween these same consenting adults. Yes, progress is being made, but it is still not generally accepted. The question then, is why? What stops governments from enacting equal rights to marriage between couples of the same gender? What is at the core of this issue? Religion.

Of course this is a blog, and I am not an expert, so this is simply my opinion. But honestly, I see no other compelling argument against same sex marriage outside of objections based on religious beliefs, rules, laws, or commandments. I have not heard one single argument that isn’t based on dogma that proclaims some level of moral decay as a result of anything related to same sex marriage. This is where I separate myself from any person who is against same sex marriage.

I have friends who are gay. I speak to them on a regular basis. I have fantastic relationships with these friends for one reason – they are flesh and blood, just like me, and they are close friends. I love them as friends, and I would do anything for them, just as I would any other close friend. That’s what friends are, and that’s what they do. They are not heterosexual, but apart from that, they are literally no different than any other human being. To me, the same sex marriage issue has a face. There are real, kind, friendly, loving people behind this issue. Many are Christians! (yes, gays can believe in Christ, and He accepts them equally as He does anyone else.)

I realize there are plenty of religious groups that support same sex marriage who are just as bothered by the bigotry shown by their fellow believers, but that’s not good enough. Human cultures and societies have changed over time, and while one could believe that things are getting worse, would they be willing to go back to a time in human history where things were supposedly better? They would have to be willing to give up what they have in this modern society and live within the rules and constraints of a time that is more to their liking. How about they go back and live in pre-Biblical times, say prior to 2400 BCE, where there was no recorded history of homosexual relationships?

I didn’t think so.



1. Tim Cooley - March 20, 2010

Well, check this out.

2. bradley - May 5, 2010

I don’t really understand the problem. Homosexuals don’t really seem to be discriminated against. They have every right Heterosexuals have. They can vote, hold office, eat where they like, and even get married. Gay people can get married all day long, as often as they wish. No one is stopping them. They have every right straight people have.
…. they just can’t marry people of the same gender. That’s illegal.

It’s a little like someone of my lifestyle, one that doesn’t like to pay taxes, claiming that my rights as a Tax-disliker are being infringed upon. I WOULD be discriminated against if I was forced to pay more taxes because of it, or if I didn’t get representation after paying my taxes… sure that would be unfair treatment, based on my lifestyle.
…. but I have to pay taxes. Not doing so is illegal.

3. Jetson - May 5, 2010

Wrong. Homosexuals cannot get married in every single state, like heterosexuals. They also are not considered at all at the federal level, where the wording is explicitly man and woman, excluding same-sex couples from certain benefits.

You should do a little research on this topic, because it is clear that same-sex couples do not have the same rights at all.

4. bradley - May 5, 2010

You’ve missed my point.

5. Jetson - May 6, 2010

You said that homosexuals have “every right Heterosexuals have.” I’m not sure what your point was if it wasn’t exactly what you stated?

Can you back up that claim with facts to support it?

6. bradley - May 6, 2010

Show me one homosexual that is not allowed to get married and I’ll lead the march on Washington. We have equal rights in THIS country.

Now… if they want to marry someone of their own gender, that’s illegal. I don’t think they should be exempt from the law. Do you? Should we be a lawless nation?

Jetson - May 6, 2010

Indeed! Now I understand you completely. And what is preventing the law from allowing same-sex couples to marry? What exactly, if you can identify it, is keeping same-sex couples from legally marrying, and enjoying all of the benefits of heterosexual couples?

I’m fairly certain you know exactly what I was saying, and you are taking a dishonest approach to the real topic, although if you truly did not understand my example, my apologies.

So, if you are against same-sex marriage, for some reason, what is that reason? Are you homophobic? (I don’t like being called a racist, but I can handle it.)

7. bradley - May 6, 2010

Yes, I knew exactly what you are saying. I was illustrating the difference between the homosexual revolution with the Civil Rights movement. Gays have equal rights.

What the Gay group wants to do is change laws that would only benefit them. That’s fine… that’s what America is all about. Get a large enough majority and shape the country the way you want. Majority Rule, with equal rights for Minorities. Just don’t call it an equal rights issue… because they have equal rights. What they want is Unequal Rights. Again, that’s fine… just call it what it is.

I’m personally against state sponsored homosexuality because at its root, it’s anti-society… and ultimately anti-Life. It doesn’t reproduce. And, wouldn’t we want our society to reproduce? For example, If we want worldwide freedom, wouldn’t we want to populate the world with freedom-loving children?

Granted, sex is not strictly just for reproduction. It should be enjoyable for all persons involved. It’s kind of like eating… we eat for nutrition and for pleasure. However, eating for pleasure when we’re not in need of nutrition makes us fat and unhealthy. So, I’m against state-sponsored and society-encouraged gay-marriage because it’s simply fat and unhealthy. Being fat and unhealthy is fine, if that’s the way we choose to live our one and only life on Earth, but should we teach our kids to be fat and unhealthy?

8. Jetson - May 6, 2010

State sponsored homosexuality? Do you have any gay friends? How do gays go against society? Do you honestly care what a heterosexual couple does in the privacy of their relationship? What is it about homosexuality that you simply cannot accept?

In fact, society is going against them – it is the exact opposite. Society oppresses gays – based on….wait for it, wait for it!!!! Religious dogma! Unless you can show me how I am wrong on this?

We’re having a discussion right now on whether humans have a responsibility to control reproduction, resulting in what many seem to feel is a serious resource problem with overpopulation. I’m not sure where I stand on that, but I’m inclined to think that humans are animals, with the intelligence to understand our impact on earths resources, but saddled with the biological instincts for survival and reproduction. I have a very close female friend who is gay, and who will be getting pregnant this year. She and her partner already have one child.

I’m not sure if you are aware, but the rate of homosexuality in humans is not high enough to cause any noticeable imbalance in reproduction. And it would also be strange to consider that allowing same-sex marriage would lead to some sort of societal breakdown, where everyone wants to be gay, and stop having children. That is a fear that I have heard before, and I find it unfounded and homophobic.

Homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom, and has been well documented and studied. It is not a choice for someone. It is a biological issue that is still being studied and understood.

I’m confused about why you would think that same-sex marriage would give homosexual couples something that only benefits them? If they cannot marry today, and we let them marry tomorrow, they are only then catching up to what heterosexual couples already have, are they not? Where would legalizing same-sex marriage provide them a benefit that no one else gets?

9. bradley - May 6, 2010

We’re not mere animals, Jetson. We are humans. Humans that can decide the direction our species goes. Comparing behaviors within our species, one that understands what it does, to brainless animals that will just as easily hump a pillow or leg as it would an opposite sex is a little embarrassing.

I’m not saying that some people could not be genetically predisposed to certain bahaviors… I mean, I swear I have a gene that causes me to drive way beyond the speed limit, but I just can’t seem to prove it. However, does that mean it’s right for society? Promoting negative behavior that is bad for society is anti-society.

As for controlling our population… don’t be duped into weakening our society. Limiting human population growth may seem appropriate for all the right reasons, though every other civilization appears to be on a different page, except for maybe communist china. Does that seem a little more appealing to you? Do you like the idea of every human being born into a pre-existing straight jacket of laws that dictate our every move? I’d say that’s exactly what you don’t like about what you think Christianity is.

As for your friend. Congratulations to her and her girlfriend. They have absolutely every right to raise their kids to whatever liking… be it homosexual, anti-christian, racist, or whatever else may occur to that family. Thank God for the freedom we possess in this nation, right? Although, I still don’t understand what you’re talking about if same-sex marriage was legalized they would just be catching up, rights-wise? If they choose to stay single, that’s their business… but either one of them could have gotten married at any given moment. What they want to do is get a free pass to go way beyond the speed limit on the highway… Don’t lessen what the freedom fighters did while fighting for TRUE equal rights. That’s rude.

Jetson - May 6, 2010

What is wrong with homosexuals? What about them makes you think that they can, or would even want to go “beyond the speed limit”?

They are humans, just like you? Do you have any homosexual friends? You continue to elude to something that is inherently bad about homosexuals, and I would like to know what that “bad” is?

I don’t think population control is a great idea on the surface, and I certainly don;t want to live in a society where having children is mandated in any way, for or against. But what if the numbers begin to clearly show that net growth cannot be sustained from a resource perspective? Then what?

We are indeed mammals, but with the highest levels of intelligence as a differentiating factor. That does not make us special, just different. We can’t fly, we can’t breathe underwater, etc. But as you said, we have the intelligence to know what we are doing to the earth’s resources, as an example. So we try to figure out ways to go easier on those resources. I’m not sure we’ve been that successful at it though.

I fully support same-sex marriage, as I don’t see a single, legitimate reason to think that it would bring any harm at all to any society. Hell, we used to think that letting black people share water fountains and schools would break down society. Where the hell did that pure stupidity come from, and how is same-sex marriage any different?

Same-sex relationships are really no different than hetero. But opponents want us to think that the moment we allow same-sex marriage, all hell will break loose, and people will start becoming gay, and then the streets will be filled with sinners and gay sex, or some other non-sense. It’s all bullshit, and it all appears to be based on ignorance, fear, hatred, and bigotry, supported 100% by religious dogma.

If you can show me, through peer reviewed facts and evidence, that same-sex marriage will create any of the things you seem to fear about it, then I will concede and reconsider. Ideologies, religious texts, majority opinions, and dogma are NOT acceptable to me as evidence of a thing.

10. bradley - May 6, 2010

So many questions.. I’ll do my best to go in order.

It’s not that there’s anything inherently BAD about homosexuality. It’s just that there’s nothing inherently GOOD. Which makes it bad. It’s fat and unhealthy. It’s McDonald’s at 2am. High fructose corn syrup might be tasty, but should we serve that junk to our kids in schools? We only need to look at kids to see the impact of soft drink machines and other rubbish we “force” down their throats. I say force because don’t teach them to NOT drink it. Remember when they used to serve us milk? What the hell…

I have family that are gay.

If our population gets out of control… disease, starvation, or war will balance Life… all of which are not pleasant, but at least more of mankind will have had the benefit of experiencing life. (Life is awesome, ya?) That is unless people start deciding that their life is too precious to sacrifice any luxury, and THEIR Earth should not be shared with others.

Great, support same-sex marriage all you want… for w/e reason you choose. I’ll oppose for w/e reason I choose. See?… getting along better, already, when we decide to stop trying to control other people.

There you go comparing making new laws for homosexuals with destroying unfair laws for minorities, again.

I’ve clearly stated my reason for opposing state-supported homosexuality, and none of it included ignorance, fear, hatred, or bigotry… and I never once used religious dogma. It’s just based on millions of years of natural law. Gay does not produce life. Now, I’m sorry if you don’t like God calling homosexuality an abomination, but if God is Life, and millions of years of evidence supports that homosexuality does not reproduce, what else would it be. It is the ultimate rebellion.

The more we establish a pattern of behavior that rebels against life, the less life we’ll have. It’s why abortion is wrong, and why state-sanctioned euthanasia is wrong. With such a pattern of death in place within a society, all we really need is something like “limited global resources”, based on the opinion of whoever is in power at that time to turn life horribly wrong for everyone.

I mean no ill-will toward gay people, and I’m not saying “all hell is going to break lose.” It’s just not an equal rights issue, and we definitely can’t really alter natural law… It’s nature, man. It’s an unhealthy thing to promote for a society that wants to live. To stick to my original analogy of “fat and unhealthy”… your friend’s situation is merely liposuction. It will dispose of the fat temporarily, but it’s just not the same as a healthy diet and exercise.

I support teaching our kids about a healthy diet, exercise, and how to love one another. What the kids choose is their business.

Jetson - May 7, 2010

I would certainly have to disagree that something that is NOT GOOD, is automatically BAD! You seem to be resting a large part of your case on the fact that homosexual couples cannot reproduce, which naturally brings us to the fact that you are focused on what these couples do in their bedrooms, something I doubt you ever consider when it comes to heterosexual couples. In other words, the gay couples will do “unnatural” things with their sex life, which can’t possibly produce children, which is ultimately bad – according to you.

There is no rule in modern society that requires a monogamous couple to have children, so I’m not sure why this is so important to you. Perhaps you believe that The Bible tells us to go forth and multiply, and you see that as something all humans should do?

Obviously, gay couples are fully aware that their sexual relationships will never produce children, and many of them still have the instinctual desire to have children. So they resort to adoption, or in-vitro fertilization to fill that need. But relationships are far more than just about having children. And again, I would argue that we have plenty of couples having children, and there is no reason to think that that trend is in ANY danger at all.

Fat and unhealthy just doesn’t cut it as an analogy, because we are talking about perfectly healthy humans, who happen to be homosexual, a phenomenon that is recognized by modern science and medicine to be something that cannot be chosen. It is natural. What makes it unnatural is ignorance, fear, hate, and bigotry. These people are people, they are not some bizarre abomination of natural biology. No, they cannot physically reproduce, but there is nothing inherently bad about that.

Homosexuality is not a behavior that society should denounce, or suppress. It is exactly natural for those who are homosexual. That’s the part that you are in denial of, or cannot accept.

The bottom line is that not all humans should have children, not all humans want to have children, and not all humans can have children, so calling it fat and unhealthy is the same as calling all of those groups fat and unhealthy. Homosexuality being unnatural is no different than calling black skin unnatural.

11. Tim Cooley - May 7, 2010

Bradley, you are starting to sound like a racist, so please think carefully about what you say next.

12. bradley - May 7, 2010

Which part sounds like a racist?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: