Can two people of the same sex be married?

In light of President Barack Obama’s change in his position on same-sex marriage it is entirely appropriate to ask the question, with sensitivity and respect, whether or not two people of the same sex can be married. While yes, two people of the same sex can be legally married in several states, the question that ought to be raised by the President’s endorsement of same-sex marriage is whether or not such a relationship actually constitutes a marriage. It should be noted that a law that makes something legal does not necessarily make it right or make it true.

This is not about homosexuality as the homosexual deserves the same respect and the same rights as does any other citizen. Nor is this about committed homosexual relationships as such relationships deserve respect and should be encouraged. It should be acknowledged that same sex committed relationships, whether or not the term marriage is employed, have proven to work out fine for most of those who have chosen to participate in them. The main argument for legal recognition of same-sex relationships as marriage has been that the partners involved deserve the same access to public services as do married couples. It should be acknowledged that this is a real issue that should be legally addressed. Yet clearly such questions as access to services for gay couples are resolvable without necessarily passing a law that declares gay relationships as marriages.

Let’s be blunt with no offense intended. Two people of the same sex cannot be married because two people of the same sex cannot physically consummate a marriage. This does not mean that two men or two women are not perfectly capable of assuming the various responsibilities and trappings of a marriage. Such couples have proven to be capable of engaging in a committed and loving relationship, cohabitation, the rearing of children, and other aspects of a conventional marriage. It should also be noted that two men or two women can also love each other in every way possible without attempting to have sex with each other.

The term marriage has traditionally been defined as the coming together of opposite but complementary parts. Obviously the man and the women were physically built by the creator, or for the atheist, by nature to fit together. The act of sexual intercourse is, therefore, natural and unique. Indeed, in the literal sense, sexual intercourse, or sex, is only possible between a man and women. Sexual activity other than intercourse between a man and a women falls into two categories and those are foreplay before intercourse or masturbation mutual or otherwise. My purpose in raising this is not to offend, nor do I cast judgment, but only do I seek to define terms. I sincerely apologize if I have in any way offended the reader as this is not my intention.

The Bible defines marriage as occurring when the man has intercourse with the women. The sexual act, from a Biblical perspective, is a re-enactment of God’s creation of life because the results of the sexual act hold the potential for a new life. This is why the Bible specifically holds that the sexual act is holy matrimony and the act therefore is accompanied by a ritualized religious ceremony. In this regard, on the issue of marriage, the Bible is obviously in sync with science.

The purpose here is not to question the validity of anyone’s personal conception of a marriage but rather to examine exactly what constitutes marriage. Indeed, the development of marital relationships between homosexuals is a development that should be applauded especially in these times of promiscuity and the spread of dangerous sexual diseases. The gay commitment to live in a condition of marriage is indeed a conservative development, one that deserves respect and support. But when it comes to public policy, laws should be based upon what is true and, in the literal sense, the gay committed relationship, regardless of the honest sincerity of the participants, should not be called a marriage because it is not a marriage.

I have to be candid and say that much of what you write in the second paragraph is less than accurate. For example:

‘Nor is this about committed homosexual relationships as such relationships deserve respect and should be encouraged’

Not that a person should be abused or discriminated against if they choose to engage in Homosexual activities, but they should certainly not be encouraged. Homosexual activity is inherently dangerous. It is fraught with potential physical injury and potential infection. Active homosexuals are much more likely to commit suicide, engage in unprotected sex, and die at a much younger age than heterosexuals or celibate Gays or straights.

‘It should be acknowledged that same sex committed relationships, whether or not the term marriage is employed, have proved to work out fine for most of those who have chosen to participate in them.’

It can be acknowledged but it would be entirely false to say that these types of unions work out fine for most who engage in them. The instance of sexual action OUTSIDE of the relationship is significantly higher in same sex couplings than in heterosexual marriages. The commitments are often significantly shorter and fraught with greater disturbances than family units headed by a married man and woman and the children of same sex couples have greater incidences of social problems than those of intact hetero marriages.

‘The main argument for legal recognition of same sex relationships as marriage has been that the partners involved deserve the same access to public services as do married couples. It should be acknowledged that this is a real issue that should be legally addressed.’

Why? Just because somebody WANTYS something doesn't make it a right and doesn't make it in societies interests to provide it for them.

‘Yet clearly such questions as access to services for gay couples are resolvable without necessarily passing a law that declares gay relationships as marriages.’

This is a demonstrably true statement. Yet, unless marriage is stripped of it's historical and logical meaning, the sodomites remain unsatisfied.

The entire argument for Gay Marriage is a straw man. There are no rights granted to heterosexuals that are not identical to homosexuals.

Anybody that says that Heterosexuals get to marry someone they love has never been married. Marriage only works BECAUSE of the differences that are inherent in the opposite sexes. It was only historically established to protect women and children.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.