Posted on 05/16/2012 2:46:11 PM PDT by kathsua
That, and the whole point of the lifestyle is to be free from commitment to just one person, to be able to have anonymous sex with as many different people they want, whenever they want, anywhere they want. That is why so few want to get married, it is anathema to the intrinsic lifestyle of gays.
It seems to be a rejection of the opposite sex.
What a great analogy!
Before getting into the moral benefits of gay marriage, or some other legal union that makes homosexual relationships equal to the institution of marriage, it’s reasonable to ask what is the source of morality, and what determines a “higher moral purpose.” Apparently we can both agree that promiscuity creates an immoral, or lesser moral position than monogamy. I come to that conclusion through scripture, Christianity, and an understanding of loving relationships, honor, trust and the stability strong family bonds lend to society and posterity. ...Of course, promiscuity isn’t the only alternative to marriage, and probably isn’t a good reason for entering into marriage, despite its obvious personal and cultural consequences. Marriage is no guarantee of monogamy. Whatever the complications of promiscuity out of marriage, they are greatly multiplied in marriage. That leads us to abstinence, a moral position that isn’t inferior to marriage and monogamous relationships, and a superior position for beginning a monogamous marriage. There are many reasons for abstinence, but the best belongs to those who practice it from love for others and themselves, to avoid the consequences of wrong relationships and promiscuity. It is, in fact, the better solution to the problems you propose marriage might solve. Still, I don’t throw out your reasoning entirely, there have been many promiscuous scoundrels tamed by a good marriage. ...On a Christian note, when Paul admonished Christian homosexuals to continue following Christ and not return to their previous homosexual lives, it was most likely abstinence and not heterosexual marriage he was advising. He was also saying they should have a better love for others, one that didn’t do harm.
Now for a sleight change of direction, much of the debate over the legitimacy of homosexuality stems from the proposition that it is natural, either genetically or environmentally caused, and beyond the scope of choice, decision or discipline. For the purpose of this discussion I will accept that proposition, though I don’t believe it. Given their own premise, homosexuality is at least as natural for homosexuals as promiscuity is for heterosexuals. We agree that monogamous marriage serves a higher moral purpose than promiscuity, and yet monogamy isn’t the nature of all men and women. A case could be made that we are not a monogamous species, making the higher moral purpose of monogamous marriage something other, or higher, than a natural act. Marriage then is an extra natural institution, even for those who don’t think of it as a spiritual contract made before God. It is something that shouldn’t be taken lightly or altered in meaning by a mindless cultural revolution, or an agenda as rooted in the baser nature of man as is the gay agenda.
Posting history:
2 posts in 2012, 2 in 2011, 1 in 2010, and before that, nothing until you go back to 2003.
And promoting gay marriage, and claiming that the "rules of marriage established by organized religion are arbitrary."
There are only two answers to this.
And...
IBTZ.
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.