Quote:
Originally Posted by nate2512
Personally, I think it is unnatural. In such a way, that it serves no purpose. Where as male/female relationships serves purposes, it allows procreation, it allows prosperity, and even in relationships where the female cannot have a baby, adoption is acceptable because there is once again, a natural home that the child can grow up into. I believe a child that grows up in a home and has two mothers, or two fathers, is going to have a very distorted perception on life. I don't think it is fair for the child to be forced to grow up in that situation that is quite unnatural. So in closing, once again, I believe there is no purpose, and therefore unnatural. I feel cheapens and diminished natural heterosexuality, marriage, and true love.
Disagree if you will, but this is how I see it, not from a biblical view, but from a real view.
ETA: I promise I didn't read sigmadivas post before this.
|
This is a good analysis from a non-religious point of view, so you are far ahead of most anti-gay marriage people in your degree of thought. In a thread on this site, and in a discussion that is generally irrational, let me please applaud you rational approach.
But here is the rebuttal- this is your point of view in a free society that purports to, within reason, respect the views of others.
I have my own personal strong feelings on gay marriage- including views on both the act in terms of the legal protections it offers and using the terminology "marriage". And how I look at either aspect of the argument does not necessarily lead to the same conclusion on the issue at large.
Ultimately, I consider what is truly an American viewpoint- and in that it is essential to consider Judeo-Christian morality since the two are inseparable.
And in doing so, I have to say I have no problem with same-sex "unions" (let's leave the word marriage out of it.)
As I get older and wiser and meet more people, I know and feel just as I know and believe Jesus is my Savior that homosexuals have just as deep and unavoidable a passion for sexual fulfillment and love as heterosexuals. It may not be a topic I want to discuss over dinner, but it is there. My life experience dictates it must be so- and ultimately we are all relying on life experience to inform our beliefs at any given point.
I appreciate your views on natural order- but that does not change how certain individuals feel and function.
And being part of a truly free and progressive society is accepting how individuals might feel.
I have little regard for bisexuality, transgender and other various practices down that road which are driven by polyamorous appetites or a desire to change one's self out of what I see as a lack of self esteem. Maybe that is me being limited.
But I absolutely believe that in monogamous relationships that healthy and stable people can be heterosexual or homosexual- and have no control over which side they fall on.
And such feelings so innate to our own sense of self-worth and happiness must be respected in a truly free society where legal protections are offered to those who chose to legally bind themselves to each other.
This I think is the core matter at hand- the legal protections offered by marriage.
And those protections can be separated from the act of marriage in a religious sense. After all, one can be married by a government official instead of a clergyman. And in some faiths, notably the Catholic Church, a legally annulled marriage is a completely separate matter from an annullment endorsed by the church.
There is absolutely no reason why, in the spirit of what America is all about, that homosexuals should not be able to form legal bonds and enjoy the same legal protections that heterosexuals do.
That is the real debate.
Bring religion into it- and we are no better than Nazis, the Taliban or any other fanatically religious group that seeks to abuse religious belief to enforce personal and political beliefs. And I would argue that "natural order", Darwinistic beliefs (the importance of reproduction of species) effectively constitute religion in these situations since they are an attempt to force a set of personal beliefs- no matter how intelligently or emotionally powerful- on people who might not share those beliefs.
And when "religion" is taken out of the equation- I really do not see where there is any debate.
Sure there are those who argue that society should not be burdened with the court costs of gay divorces- but if that is true then gays should not have to pay property taxes for schools since they will not have natural children of their own- nor should any of their tax dollars go to support societal expenses associated with marriage-related issues in general.
In the end, I think all roads- moral and mundane- point to allowing same sex unions, regardless of what any of us individually think about the issue.