Skip to comments.Homosexual Marriage Is Absurd
Posted on 04/04/2011 10:38:37 AM PDT by kathsua
Regardless of how government may artificially define marriage in legal terms, marriage is really the union of the two different types of human beings -- males and females. Two members of the same sex cannot have a marriage relationship regardless of what some politicians might say.
Marriage unites members of the different sexes to form a unit that has all the human characteristics. Two men or two women cannot form such a unit. They are like two left shoes or two right shoes. A man and a woman fit together like two puzzle pieces. Two people of the same sex are just mirror images.
Males and females not only have anatomical differences, they have different biochemistries, including different skin PH, and their brains function differently.
Males produce chemicals called pheromones that are beneficial to females. The research on how males benefit from pheromones women might produce is less clear because most research on female pheromones deals with how they attract men. Research does indicate that men benefit from marriage and the benefits may involve biochemistry.
The fact that men's and women's brains function differently complicates relationships, but provides the couple with the benefit of viewing the problems faced from two different perspectives. This difference stimulates the relationship and makes the opposite sex more intriguing. A member of the opposite sex is more likely to respond "unexpectedly" to a situation than a member of one's own sex.
Having sex with a member of the opposite sex allows an individual to experience the physical sexuality of the opposite sex. Having sex with a member of one's own sex provides no such benefit.
To women, men are strength. To men, women are energy.
CBers have long referred to a man's wife as his "better half" and a woman's husband as her "other half". A husband or a wife is half of a unit. Both together are a complete unit.
Homosexuals who want to have a marriage relationship like heterosexuals, possibly including having children, are implying they really want to be heterosexuals.
When a man calls his partner a wife he is indicating she is his female half. For a woman, a husband is her male half.
A woman who calls her partner a "wife" is implying the partner, rather than her, is the female part of the unit making her the "male". A woman who calls her partner a "wife" and expects her partner to have any children is acting like a man and may really subconsciously be a transsexual rather than a homosexual. She may call herself a lesbian because she misunderstands the reason for her behavior.
Some male homosexuals claim that they look at other men the same way men look at women. However, scientific research indicates that in their brains, homosexual men "look at" other men the way women look at men. This tendency could indicate that at least some homosexual men might actually be transsexuals. They call their partners "husbands" because subconsciously they really want to be women.
Heterosexuals desire a marriage relationship to gain a feeling of completeness by being part of a unit that contains a member of each sex. Homosexuals cannot become complete by having a relationship with a member of their own sex, even though they may think that calling a relationship a marriage gives them what heterosexuals have in a marriage.
As long as they keep to themselves...No problem, but I don’t want to see them make out in public. I think that would be the next step.
It is being done,Folsom Street fair, up your alley is worse.
Response: Absolutely correct. However, the perverts are winning gains in state after state. Sodomy is like abortion as an issue; everybody is against it but it is constantly happening.
Homosexuality as well as everything that falls under the umbrella of what is sexual liberalism is absurd and it also has dire implications for a ‘free’ society.
The number one core problem of homosexuality is that it interferes with the heritability of an organism and from a scientific standpoint this makes any behavior like homosexuality which interferes with normal mating as defined as mating which can produce offspring inherently flawed and from a strict logical standpoint damaging to that human organism.
This is without even considering the very narrow homocentric activism which promotes ideas that are philosophical and logically abhorrent. ‘Love’ contrary to the homosexual and liberal assertion doesn’t not make any conceived sexual behavior between adults acceptable or good no more than hunger makes eating whatever you like good or acceptable. It is an idiotic assertion and represents a devolution of human intellect and reasoning towards a reactive baseline which if carried to its ultimate conclusion results in human beings behaving like uncivilized animals.
Even after you look at those two absurdities you are faced with a string of others which have grave implications for freedom and ideas of freewill. One core assertion of the sexual activist is that they do not have free will to direct their sexual activities. They are “born that way” as if to say because you are born with hands you must steal. So because you are born with a brain capable of entertaining homosexual desires that you must conduct yourself as a homosexual. It is a horrible reductive assertion which can and has been used to attack ‘freewill’. The same ‘scientists’ that wish to use this as an blanket license for all forms of sexual deviancy see no problem putting children on medication to alter their natural hyperactivity nor does society have any problem establishing laws and codes of conduct for all forms of human behavior even now schools are causing children who have no reason to think about homosexuality that it is absolutely essential that they think of being gay as no different than not being gay which is a boldfaced lie even when looking at it from a purely mechanical standpoint.
It doesn’t matter how much confusion or how many outright lies are told to accomplish the activist goal. It doesn’t matter how many freedoms are abridged or how much speech is silenced and that is at the core of why sexual liberalism in reference to homosexuality and other liberal sexual novelties is such a problem. It isn’t that they say “we are adults and wish to conduct ourselves in our private lives with our imperfections which we have decided to live with as is and this is our right”. No the danger is they are not happy with that, they must force everyone to accept their ego gratifying foolishness and lies, where as one can not be forced to indulge a state religion these same individuals have no problem forcing through law others to indulge their sexual fictions.
I have a friend whose daughter, in adulthood, decided she was a lesbian. She calls her "Other" wife, and she gave herself a military style "butch" haircut. Now her "wife" is pregnant. (When they announced it, I very nearly said, "How did that happen?")
My friend always favored her one son over the three girls in the family. The youngest (the lesbian) was always fauned over when she displayed any type of male characteristic (i.e. doing carpentry work instead of working in the house). I have also found out that the girl was sexually abused by a neighbor and her brother.
She has all the life experiences that one would expect a "lesbian" to have had. Instead of encouraging her to get therapy for her problems, society (and her mom) encourage her to "embrace" her lesbianism.
I’ve heard of reports that lesbians are two or three times more likely to be abused in homosexual relationship. and men are about four times as likely to be abused by their “partner” What I have seen from my son and his several “committed relationships “ is they don’t last very long and they do involve a lot of promiscuity—and a lot more verbal abuse-and threats of violence than I would every put up with form my wife.And I do not believe the LIE of “consensual”sex.NOBODY I ever knew woke up one day and said they felt like having some stranger shove things up their exit.
Lots of people like some really weird sexual things so I wouldn’t guess on the enjoyability of anal sex.
However since childhood abuse is a contributing factor to adult depression & lots of other mental illnesses; It is also a huge factor that the abuse behavior modeled for the child will create an abusive adult.
So is it surprising that Gay relationships struggle with domestic abuse and violence?
In my opinion there are lots of different reasons for people to be Gay, some more legitimate than others.
In Colorado a few years back we the people rejected Civil Unions(Ref I ) the same year we elevated DOMA to Constitutional status. Then the queers in Congress tried an end run around the expressed voice of the people -and the already “captured” press (see Warning to the Homophobes- Steve Warren of ACT UP ,the Sept. issue of the Advocate 1987 when they demanded same sex marriage — and the “surrender” of Orthodox Jews and Christians.) Well both the GJ Sentinel— and the Denver Post ran stories touting Civil Unions prior to the vote.And stories about how the idea was advancing in the Senate. And the Post even did an editorial saying the republicans were on the wrong side of history and a guest editorial by the queer Tim Gill who bought a lot of elections for Democrats with his queer money.And it is still unnatural and a licentious lifestyle choice.
I have always thought to understand this whole “gay marriage” movement — follow the money. I believe the better part is about medical benefits for gays with HIV-AIDS. The idea is to get the “partner” covered under the medical plan of the other that has a good medical plan. I don’t believe most medical plans want to provide coverage to gays who exhibit risky behaviors except at premium prices, if such coverage is available. However, as a spouse, the individual with risky behavior would be covered by his partner’s health plan.
One can sympathize with people who for any reason are dysfunctional--all the more so, if that functional failure relates to the multi-generational continuum of human life. But none of that can justify ignoring the importance of actual sexuality--what flows from the division of the species into two sexes.
Marriage is a celebration not of ill defined urges, but of the procreational relationship. Traditionally, in most Western countries, at least, a marriage is subject to annulment, if it is never consummated by a procreational act. Since people of the same sex, engaging in muscular exercises intended to simulate the sensations of men & women, interacting procreationally, can never actually engage in a procreational act with one another, such a purported marriage would be void from the start. Using the term "marriage," for such a simulation says a great deal about the user, but nothing about actual marriage.
How do you confront the people that say... Well my sister had a hysterectomy, since she cannot conceive is her marriage as invalid as a gay marriage. Or the State allows my neighbor’s gay brother to adopt so doesn’t that “family” deserve some kind of protection for the children’s welfare?
Personally - for the life of me, I don’t understand why someone with no intention of creating a family would ever want or need to get married in the first place.
And everything you have said contributes as reason WHY NO State ought pretend that what they do is in anyway equal to”marriage” or warrants State recogniiton and support.
Society has never excluded those who may be sterile from marrying--and from Biblical times, the idea of being beyond the age of hope, roughly analogous to the surgery you describe--has never been a problem. Consider Sarah in Genesis, for one major reason why. The normal male/female attraction is itself procreational--that is nature's purpose. There is quite a difference to some muscular simulation, which to qualify for "marriage" makes a mockery of what marriage is intended to sanctify and protect.
For a wealth of analogous reasons, the idea of the State allowing those who reject traditional sex roles to adopt is fundamentally flawed. Very few of us do any thing in our lives that is more important than being male or female, and a parent needs to be able to properly guide the developing child in a healthy direction. This is not about hurting or not hurting anyone's feelings. (Though I would urge people not to be cruel, just determined to put first things first; and homosexual adoption does not reflect proper priorities, anymore than allowing homosexual role models for the Boy Scouts. (See our old article on that: Boy Scouts of America & Leftwing Agenda.)
Special cases, most involving illness, is one thing.
Fundamental impossibility is something else entirely.
The real issue is not just procreation, it’s also about gender role models for future generations as well. My granfather and his second wife both had their remarriage when they were both pretty much too old to have children, but they did it for the sake of being exemplary of what a mother and a father, grandfather and grandmother should be to their respective parents and grandparents to my own mother as well as myself. That’s the part that is far more important than procreation, be exemplary of what paternal roles should be.
In a same-sex relationship, who is supposed to play the man? Who is supposed to play the woman? DO both people simply play either role, depending on what time it is? Who is supposed to exemplify what being a man or woman is about?
That’s the point that I feel plenty of people leave out of arguments for traditional marriage, how well can the traditional marriage provide role models for parenting and for gender, even if whether due to age or natural infertility, they can’t procreate?