'Same Sex Marriage'? Is it natural?

**rb336** · May-28-09, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by detmich

No more unnatural than two heterosexuals being married for life. For many folks Monogamy is unnatural.

From a purely biological viewpoint, monogamy is unnatural. for the majority of cultures, historically polygamy has been preferred. historically, some sort of cousin-marriage was also preferred [[and was quite common in the US until the late 19th century, and only became rare in the second half of this century in some areas)

**jcole** · May-28-09, 10:55 AM

You notice how he dropped this question yesterday, and has not been back to weigh in? Can you spell T-R-O-L-L?

**1KielsonDrive** · May-28-09, 11:38 AM

Why would same-sex be any more 'un-natural' than opposite sex? It might not occur in nature as frequently as opposite sex but it does occur in nature. It's as natural as can be. As for marriage - that's a creation of man, so it's not natural in any manner. Marriage may be considered normal or regular in cultures, but not natural. Unfortunately, religions think [[or just lie about it, which is more likely) that they created the instituion and so they can define it. It's another canard they lay on people that they hate, just as religions and faiths did with black people [[and still do) for many centuries. Just look back in history and see how blacks were treated by religions in the U.S. south and in South Africa.

**1KielsonDrive** · May-28-09, 11:47 AM

PS: religions would still like to fight the race issue openly, but they can't because they didn't have the sophisticated and expensive apparatus to build their case during previous centuries. So they're fighting it in in more devious manners. The new 'black' people for religions are gays. Religions have decades and centuries of experience, and now have the money to establish think tanks and religious institutions to fight their battles cloaked in 'values'. Gay marriage is just another way for religions to wage their war on 'others' not of their religion.

**1KielsonDrive** · May-28-09, 12:00 PM

Another PS: have you noticed how religions state their support and opposition to issues based upon 'values' or the 'bible' or the 'quran'. They state, "we interpret the bible [[or quran) literally". Have you noticed that they're all so united in their opposition to certain issues like abortion and gay marriage, but in reality they all have differing versions and interpretations of the 'one, true bible'? It's good they have these issues to unite their vastly different congregations, because though they're trying to kill each other on a daily basis based upon their differing interpretations of the 'one, true bible and quran', all 'hell' [[so to speak) would be loosed upon each other if they didn't have these uniting issues.

**mjs** · May-28-09, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by jcole

You notice how he dropped this question yesterday, and has not been back to weigh in? Can you spell T-R-O-L-L?

I noticed 57 other people checked his profile to see if he was real or just some made up character. And nobody took the bait.

**mjs** · May-28-09, 01:05 PM

It is incredibly well written though. Notice how he uses a long run on sentence to make it seem his opinion is the opposite of the one he promotes. Later on, he makes effective use of a pronoun to change the original question into a choice between the answer he wants and a similar answer. Then he asks for input to try to sound neutral on the reformed question. He finally ends with a comment meant to make the debate more emotional than intellectual. He even sells it by introducing a last minute piece of slang at the end of a pretty formal piece. He's a master. A plus work! I was completely fooled until jcole made me take a closer look.

Originally Posted by blksoul_x

I'm not promoting that 'gay' behavior is harmful, however, . . . same-sex is a disadvantage to human procreation/reproduction and ultimately existence.

Do we want to began to open Pandora's box . . . ? Is this [[Pandora's Box) human evolution, or is this another 'nail-in the-coffin,' if you will, toward the destruction of mankind?

I'm interested in your opinions toward this matter. . .

blksoul_atcha! . . . the Color you love to hate!

**Pam** · May-28-09, 01:16 PM

A plus work!

No. Points off for overuse of quotation marks and italics. [[That and the homophobic trolling.)

**Sstashmoo** · May-28-09, 02:10 PM

"Marriage" is a bond in holy matrimony between God, a man and a woman. The Bible is pretty specific about the definition of marriage and the objections to homosexuality. The problem really is and why the principle exists, and that is separation of church and state. The Government should have never meddled in the affairs of marriage to begin with. If two of the same sex see Marriage right for them then so be it. That is freedom of religion. I'm not sure why they would want to, but that's there business, not mine.

**Bong-Man** · May-28-09, 02:20 PM

I believe in the natural laws of "tab A" being inserted in "tab B". That makes me slightly homophobic. However at this time, two gay men could buy the house next to me....put in a built-in pool.....and play marco-polo the rough way all night long, and there ain't a thing I can do about it as long as they don't break the law. With that in mind, why the hell would I care if they got married ?

**vetalalumni** · May-28-09, 02:43 PM

It is beneficial that we are beginning to witness greater robust [[and hopefully comprehensive) discussions regarding opposite marriage. Open, honest discussion is appropriate. Organized leadership, lacking previously, will carry the cause. Will of the people and all. Crisis or chaos management ensues when relevant issues such as this one are not adequately addressed.

Strategists know that ignoring, mongering fear, or ridiculing opposing views helps to zap the energy out of ideas before exhausting their potential merit.

Gay/Lesbians have always want the hetrosexual to stay out of their business...

Categorically untrue.

After reading this thread I am beginning to think that the only people who object to same sex marriage are the ones who know the secret foot tapping code in airport mens rooms and or have sleep overs for the alter boys at the parish rectory.

Funny.

**Johnlodge** · May-28-09, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by Bong-Man

I believe in the natural laws of "tab A" being inserted in "tab B". That makes me slightly homophobic. However at this time, two gay men could buy the house next to me....put in a built-in pool.....and play marco-polo the rough way all night long, and there ain't a thing I can do about it as long as they don't break the law. With that in mind, why the hell would I care if they got married ?

Is that how it works? That doesn't sound fun at all.

**rb336** · May-28-09, 03:02 PM

1 Samuel 18:

18:1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul
18:2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.
18:3Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
18:4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle

nearly identical wording is used to describe a marriage, except that the husband gave his sword to the new wife

detmich · May-28-09, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

"Marriage" is a bond in holy matrimony between God, a man and a woman. The Bible is pretty specific about the definition of marriage and the objections to homosexuality. The problem really is and why the principle exists, and that is separation of church and state. The Government should have never meddled in the affairs of marriage to begin with. If two of the same sex see Marriage right for them then so be it. That is freedom of religion. I'm not sure why they would want to, but that's there business, not mine.

The bible also encourages daughters to rape and seduce their fathers. The old testament is a work of fiction with some nice ideas and some bad ideas. Sort of like a Stephen King novel.

**rb336** · May-28-09, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by detmich

The bible also encourages daughters to rape and seduce their fathers. The old testament is a work of fiction with some nice ideas and some bad ideas. Sort of like a Stephen King novel.

and an incredibly vile, nasty, insecure main character

**Sstashmoo** · May-28-09, 04:15 PM

Oops I mentioned the Bible around people that don't believe in it. Man they turn wrong side out and their head starts spinning.

detmich · May-28-09, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Oops I mentioned the Bible around people that don't believe in it. Man they turn wrong side out and their head starts spinning.

Oops we didn't agree with sstash, so now he wants to make fun of us because he looks stupid.ooohohhhh

**otter** · May-28-09, 04:43 PM

To address the parts of the OP's post that pertain to the subject line, if not to all of the body [[no time for long replies now), I don't know how marriage of any kind can be considered 'natural' as it is a human cultural institution, whether it is considered as a civil one [[sanctioned by governmental bodies) or a religious one [[sanctioned by religious bodies). To make any kind of argument about 'naturalness' you would first have to make the case for a definition of 'natural' that includes human culture in all of its varieties of practices.

I don't think that this is what the OP had in mind, though. I get the impression that their use of 'natural' goes to the 'eww, buttsecks!' hetero discomfort with homosexuality.

O.

**mjs** · May-28-09, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by detmich

The bible also encourages daughters to rape and seduce their fathers. The old testament is a work of fiction with some nice ideas and some bad ideas. Sort of like a Stephen King novel.

Encourages or mentions? The two children born from the incest began the Moabites and Ammonites who remained in conflict with the Israelites for the rest of the book and wouldn't help the Jews when they wandered the desert. Jews did not consider them as part of God's chosen people. The Jews and Christians began their disputes in the Old Testament when Jesus and his disciples taught that non-Jews can choose to earn God's favor and Jews can fall out of favor depending on whether they obey his teachings. Neither religion encourages incest and the Muslims say the event never even happened.

I believe gays and lesbians should be able to marry by the way.

**Blueidone** · May-28-09, 05:09 PM

IMHO, marriage is a decision between two people who love each other and choose to spend their lives together. There is no reason for me, or anyone else for that matter, to take part in that decision. Once two people decide to get married, they should be able to do so, whether in a church of their choice, or a civil ceremony.

To me, it's not a matter of freedom of religion, because a marriage ceremony is not necessarily a religious ceremony. It is a matter of personal freedom...the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

**Detroitej72** · May-28-09, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by mjs

Encourages or mentions? The two children born from the incest began the Moabites and Ammonites who remained in conflict with the Israelites for the rest of the book and wouldn't help the Jews when they wandered the desert. Jews did not consider them as part of God's chosen people. The Jews and Christians began their disputes in the Old Testament when Jesus and his disciples taught that non-Jews can choose to earn God's favor and Jews can fall out of favor depending on whether they obey his teachings. Neither religion encourages incest and the Muslims say the event never even happened.

Good points, Mjs, but I think some people on this board are pretty anti-religion, and will take any opportunity to bash Christianity.

I personally think the right uses gay marriage as the new boogieman to scare people into voting for their candidates. I mean, seriously, we have far greater problems in this country right now than weather or not two men, or two women get married. But if you listen to many of the righties, if gay marriage becomes legal, all of civilization will cease.

Its another one of those hot button issues that creates controversy and allows the Republicans to maintain their fundamentalist, [[faux) Christian faithful following.

**East Detroit** · May-28-09, 05:52 PM

How about a law that only people who engage in the missionary position every other Saturday are allowed to get married?

The anti-gay contingent should be happy that more people want to engage in the institution of marriage. What if people just started rejecting marriage and everyone decided to stay single? Would that be preferable?

**Sstashmoo** · May-28-09, 07:14 PM

Quote: "Oops we didn't agree with sstash, so now he wants to make fun of us because he looks stupid.ooohohhhh "

No, I was just pointing out, if you mention religion in any fashion some vile A hole can't spew their caustic blather fast enough. They start cherry picking Bible verses in an almost comical manner, their ignorance of the matter is pathetic. They view Christians as weak and easy prey as most are. Attacking someone of faith is a very ignorant and cowardly act. It proves nothing, but the person doing it is extremely insecure with themselves.

**East Detroit** · May-28-09, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "Oops we didn't agree with sstash, so now he wants to make fun of us because he looks stupid.ooohohhhh "

No, I was just pointing out, if you mention religion in any fashion some vile A hole can't spew their caustic blather fast enough. They start cherry picking Bible verses in an almost comical manner, their ignorance of the matter is pathetic. They view Christians as weak and easy prey as most are. Attacking someone of faith is a very ignorant and cowardly act. It proves nothing, but the person doing it is extremely insecure with themselves.

Yes, they are insecure, no doubt. So, just ignore them. Why bait more reactions to their insecurities?

**gibran** · May-28-09, 09:08 PM

I find that when you get to know the couples wanting to express their ultimate love in marriage very rewarding..they have a strong love for each other and enough love to face the bullshit that many throw at them...every person in the world is unique and have individual rights; [[isn't that what the conservatives always say; "the good of one outweighs the good for all"...something like that?) so if the so called conservatives rally against government intervention so much-why do they rally against two people who love each other and want to exercise their love...what more of an expression of self advocacy and independence than the ability to give and receive love...who are we to judge two peoples love