Pretty in Pink Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Just doing some soul searching and looking for some input. TIA! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommy2be Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Just my 2 cents... Regardless of faith - it doesn't seem natural. Male and female fit together like a puzzle and are meant to work together... Now - I'm not saying I'm against it or that I have any kind of problem with it - that's their business and thier choice... That is all :001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st_claire Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Even faith based arguments don't hold water. What possible argument could be made against two people being happy and not hurting anyone else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tammy Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 What exactly do you mean by your statement: "Male and female fit together like a puzzle and are meant to work together... " . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony'sMom Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 There should be an icon for "opening a can of worms" :001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dangermom Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 You might like to read this: A really, really, really long post about gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Corin Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Just my 2 cents... Regardless of faith - it doesn't seem natural. Here. Laura Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scuff Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 What exactly do you mean by your statement: "Male and female fit together like a puzzle and are meant to work together... " . does that really need further explaination? ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tammy Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 I was actually wondering if she was only referring to 'sexually'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MamaMamaMama!! Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Okay this may totally seem niave.. I'll admit that I've only met a handful of homosexuals.. But my non faith based arguement is that the ones I've met have all had mental issues. Either bi-polar, sexually abused, physically abused or the like. So in my experience, as little as it may be, mental illness is not a good reason to have such a lifestyle. KWIM? Again, I've never met a mentally healthy homosexual so I cant say that this is the best arguement in the world but its mine against homosexual adoption as well. 2 people who have mental instability or unresolved issues (not saying that if you've been abused you shouldnt be able to adopt but if you've unresolved mental issues) shouldnt become adoptive parents (or natural parents for that matter but that is anther issue all together isnt it?). :lurk5:I hope to learn alot from this thread. Disclaimer.. My friends that are homosexual are not enemies BTW.. I can not agree with a lifestyle with out becoming a hater. :goodvibes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommy2be Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 (edited) Well, initially, yes. I did mean sexually. Male parts and male parts don't go together. The anus is also not intended to be a sexual organ in my opinion, to be blunt about it. Like magnets as an example. North and South poles attract, north and north don't. Male to female - like a plug into an electrical outlet. What goo are two plugs? Or two outlets? lol But yes, also in other ways they don't go together. As a woman - I feel like there are emotional and physical (and maybe something else) things that I can only get from a man... I don't know quite the best way to explain what I mean. I just feel like I wouldn't feel as fulfilled in various parts of my life if I was just with another woman... That's my opinion though. And yes - there are exceptions to almost any rule... So yeah, some animals may have sex with the same sex. Usually, however, most every being has sex with the opposite sex. Again - I'm not speaking harshly towards gays - just to *me* it doesn't make much sense... but whatever floats thier boat! Edited August 6, 2009 by mommy2be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfgivas Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 soul searching is a good thing :001_smile: in response to one of the responding posters: homosexuality is not a result of mental illness. full stop. folks come that way, about 2 in 20, and have, forever and ever, amen (near as we can figure). as part of my previous work life, i met many homosexuals, both male and female (about 2 in 20 of my clients). by and large, they had just about the same problems as most other folks... and the same joys. there were (and continue to be) a few added difficulties related to hospital access to their spouses, spousal benefits, etc. and they encounter orientation-based prejudice sometimes, too. i can't think of any non-faith based reasons for it to be a problem, and quite frankly, as a pastor, i can't think of any faith-based reasons, either. there are 8 kinds of marriage outlined in the bible, and i wouldn't want any one of them for myself or my daughters. (marriage by r$pe, marriage to your spouse's brother or uncle or father or or or if you become widowed (leverite marriage), marriage arranged at a price with a family your father selects, marriage as a 2nd or 3rd or 4th wife, marriage where your husband also has concubines, marriage as a spoil of war (the winner + the female slave), forced marriage between two slaves at the will of their owner, marriage where your husband also avails himself of his female slaves.) the best of the lot is the arranged marriage at a price. sigh..... conversely, there are many passages about justice, and about loving one another as we would want to be loved. so maybe the litmus test on this one is "what shows the greatest justice and love?" great can of worms ;) ann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erica in PA Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 (edited) Just my 2 cents... Regardless of faith - it doesn't seem natural. Male and female fit together like a puzzle and are meant to work together... Now - I'm not saying I'm against it or that I have any kind of problem with it - that's their business and thier choice... That is all :001_smile: I do think physiology is something that should be considered. I would not type out the specific details, but if people are aware of the various physical "complications" of the male physical homosexual act in particular, that is evidence to me that that is not the natural function of those parts. Especially when compared with how male and female fit together perfectly. And the fact that homosexual contact cannot contribute to reproduction. If there is any acknowledgement of a Creator at all, I would think it should be fairly obvious that there was a plan in our physiological design. But we have gotten so into the emotional aspects of homosexuality, and the protected rights of homosexuals as a minority, that I don't think many people are thinking about these sorts of things anymore. Edited August 6, 2009 by Erica in PA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pretty in Pink Posted August 6, 2009 Author Share Posted August 6, 2009 :lurk5: I really appreciate everyone taking the time to respond in this thread, given the nature of the topic. I just wanted to say thanks. I look forward to more replies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiff in TX Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 A non-faith based thought... Procreation? Continuation of the species? Are these valid ideas about why homesexuality is not what was intended for man kind? *probably going to regret posting in this thread* As a Christian who sees homosexuality as a sin, I often remind myself that we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. Hate the sin; love the sinner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sara R Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Why do two people need to change the institution of marriage in order to be happy together? One doesn't have to be married in order to visit at hospitals or to inherit property; lawyers can draw up documents to enable hospital visitation without changing the definition of a millenial-old social institution which virtually all of our ancestors practiced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sara R Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 (edited) You might like to read this: A really, really, really long post about gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the other. What a great article. Thanks for posting it. A summary: Changing a social institution has long-term unintended consequences that are invisible to the reformers. Examples: the income tax (those who instituted it were sure it was ridiculous to consider that the tax would ever go over 10%); allowing unwed mothers to use welfare (reformers were certain that it ridiculous to consider that it might encourage more unwed motherhood); changing no-fault divorce laws. Anyone acquainted with history should be humble about their ability to foresee the consequences of any wide-spread social change. Edited August 6, 2009 by Sara R Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pretty in Pink Posted August 6, 2009 Author Share Posted August 6, 2009 So homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry because they cannot reproduce? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 in response to one of the responding posters: homosexuality is not a result of mental illness. full stop. folks come that way, about 2 in 20, and have, forever and ever, amen (near as we can figure). A question, and I am not making any statement, but your logic does seem flawed. If "folks come that way" aren't people with mental illnesses also sometimes born that way too? If some people are born with mental illnesses then where is your argument WRT homosexuals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommy2be Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 I imagine it feels totally natural to a gay person. After thinking about this a little more - I would say that it might not feel totally natural to a gay person. From what I see from gay people (or portrayed) is that there is usually a lot of confusion, guilt, shame, at least at first. Once they get used to it then it might feel natural. But that could be said for almost anything. It might feel completely natural to cut yourself - if you've done it for a long time. If might feel completely natural to throw up your food - if you've done it for a long time. ... Get my gist? Not trying to be snarky, or disagreeable, or stir the pot, just my opinions... :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiff in TX Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Then anyone past child bearing age wouldn't be allowed to get married. Also, anyone who physically couldn't have children for whatever reason wouldn't be allowed to marry either. Good point, but nothing is perfect and miracles happen. The miracle that won't happen is a man getting another man pregnant or a woman getting another woman pregnant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pretty in Pink Posted August 6, 2009 Author Share Posted August 6, 2009 Why do two people need to change the institution of marriage in order to be happy together? One doesn't have to be married in order to visit at hospitals or to inherit property; lawyers can draw up documents to enable hospital visitation without changing the definition of a millenial-old social institution which virtually all of our ancestors practiced. The institution of marriage has evolved vastly across time and culture. Christians, including myself, do not practice marriage in the same ways that our biblical ancestors did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 The institution of marriage has evolved vastly across time and culture. Christians, including myself, do not practice marriage in the same ways that our biblical ancestors did. ...but you are not talking about "evolution" here. You are talking about redefining and completely changing the definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erica in PA Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 The institution of marriage has evolved vastly across time and culture. Christians, including myself, do not practice marriage in the same ways that our biblical ancestors did. That's true, but it has *always* involved a man and a woman. That part has been consistent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melinda in VT Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 A non-faith based thought... Procreation? Continuation of the species? Are these valid ideas about why homesexuality is not what was intended for man kind? *probably going to regret posting in this thread* As a Christian who sees homosexuality as a sin, I often remind myself that we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. Hate the sin; love the sinner. I agree that some people need to reproduce for the species to continue, but there's no reason why everyone needs to reproduce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommy2be Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Thank you Wendy, for taking what I said the right way, haha. I sometimes feel like I can't express what I'm trying to say very well. Yes, I agree, there has to be something about it that we do not understand. I wonder what that is... We don't know... It's emotional, physical, mental, who knows... *I* just don't think I could bring myself to be with another woman. There are many woman I love, and admire, and think are attractive. But I couldn't... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 I agree that some people need to reproduce for the species to continue, but there's no reason why everyone needs to reproduce. If that is your argument one might say...and there is no reason why homosexuals need to be married. The issue is redefining a term for the benefit of a small minority and in doing so engaging in social engineering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXMary2 Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 The only one I can think of is that in the natural order of things there seems to be no purpose for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erica in PA Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 So then why bother getting married at all? What exactly is the "institution of marriage"? Anyone can have a relationship and be together without being married. It must mean something more than just "being together". I guess gay people want that extra meaning for their relationship. I think society puts its stamp of approval on marriage by legalizing it, because it was agreed upon at one time that having a man and a woman committed to each other for life was beneficial for society (and yes, largely because they were most likely going to create biological children that would benefit from having a mother and father in that home.) That is much different, imo, from a group of people to whom those definitions don't apply, seeking the same position mainly *for* that societal stamp of approval. Imo, that is not a good reason to change the very definition of what it means to be married. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sara R Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 "Extra meaning"? Why should society's definition of marriage have to change so some people can have extra meaning in a relationship? Also, it's good to know what kind of extra meaning there is. According to these sources and others I've read over the years, male homosexual couples often do not view "sexual fidelity" as a crucial part of their relationship. That is a big difference in meaning between traditional marriage and same-sex marriage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erica in PA Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Not really since gay marriage is legal in some places. But only as part of the recent trend, correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommy2be Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 I often think a woman would make a good partner. I'm just not physically attracted to women at all. Yeah, I think sometimes that I would get along better with a woman and that we would agree on more things - but that's why I have my Momma and girlfriends for - for my female bonding, hehe. No, I'm not attracted to women, though I can appreciate a good looking one! I'm not going to lie - I have said "If I was a lezbian..." about a few actresses or whatever... HAHA! But that's a BIG IF!!! I love women, just not sexually... and the thought of two men together just seems like an awful waste to me... especially since there are so many good looking gay men!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melinda in VT Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 If that is your argument one might say...and there is no reason why homosexuals need to be married. :confused: This makes no sense. The previous poster said (as I understand it) that because homosexual partners can't procreate and continue the species, that's an indication that homosexuality isn't what was intended for humans. I merely pointed out that the continuation of the species doesn't require everyone to reproduce, so that's not an argument against homosexual marriage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Well what is the reason anyone "needs" to be married if marriage doesn't matter in some way? It does matter because the traditional family is a building block of society, even if there are no children. A husband and wife make up that building block. Proponents of homosexual marriage are attempting social engineering. They attempt to make society accept something that many find objectionable, they are attempting to redefine a term (marriage) that has lasted for thousands of years in the interests of a small minority. Where do we stop? If homosexual marriage is accepted how about polygamy, incestuous relationships? Why are we even going down this path? What benefit is there? If homosexuals wish a relationship they are free to have one, but do not attempt to re-engineer society and redefine a term and a system that has served so well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs. Frankweiler Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 But my non faith based arguement is that the ones I've met have all had mental issues. Either bi-polar, sexually abused, physically abused or the like. So in my experience, as little as it may be, mental illness is not a good reason to have such a lifestyle. KWIM? Again, I've never met a mentally healthy homosexual so I cant say that this is the best arguement in the world but its mine against homosexual adoption as well. :lurk5:I hope to learn alot from this thread. Not to hijack the thread, but this might be one of those chicken or the egg situations... which came first--the mental issues or the sexual orientation? Maybe they have mental issues because of internal turmoil that comes before accepting their sexual orientation and officially "coming out." In other words, maybe they felt this pull towards others of the same sex, and the stress of this caused the mental issues. (rather than a mental problem making them gay.) Maybe I'm misunderstanding? I'm guessing you're looking for a more scientific argument against gay marriage? (nothing about morals or ethics) I agree with others on this thread...a man and a woman are meant to "fit together like a puzzle." If I'm remembering things correctly from a physiology class that I took a LONG time ago....virtually everything in the human body comes down to structure and function. Even down to the cellular level, eye/heart/muscle cells are all shaped different in order to fulfill a certain function to maintain the body. A homosexual pairing doesn't fulfill anything. There's no reproductive incentive. The body gets no gain from that type of a pairing. It goes against that theory of structure/function. I'm NOT saying that homosexuality is "all in their head." I don't think anyone wakes up one day and says, "I think I'll try being gay today"--there is a physiological difference. How do I say this....I'm sure homosexuals enjoy their "pairings" but the enjoyment is the only benefit...and I think from a scientific standpoint that argument wouldn't hold any water. That's my best shot for a non-religious argument against gay marriage (well...not so much marriage, but maybe the normalization of homosexuality) FTR, a have gay "married" family members and I love them dearly. They've been together longer than the officially married folks. You don't wake up next to the same person for twenty years unless you really love them. It may just be semantics...after seeing this couple together year after year, I do think they should have all the legal rights and benefits of marriage. Although their relationship is very real, it is still not the norm, nor will it ever be. To call their relationship an official marriage implies that it is normal. (sneaking away while I dodge tomatoes!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Rat Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Agreed. I'm just looking forward to science finding the "gay gene". Then all the arguing might be put aside and it will be looked at as a quirk of nature vs. a abomination. FWIW, my gay friends are NOT damaged, abused, neglected, raped, mentally ill. The hold high paying jobs, are in loving relationships, travel the world, read wonderful books and enrich the lives of those who are lucky enough to be called friends, myself included. How can love between to consenting adults be wrong? How can a relationship which nutures and fulfills be classified as against nature? As for parts fitting, well, our bodies aren't jigsaw puzzles with only one right way to fit together. Many hetro couples have found other ways to "fit together". 'Nuf said. Just my 2 pennies for what they are worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommy2be Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 I have to admit (though I was hesitant to, as to not push any buttons or stir anything up) that I have felt like gay marriage was almost a mockery of the traditional marriage... I think *some* gay people want to be married just because they couldn't before - Like you always want what you can't have type of thing *Some* probably want it for financial or insurance reasons or what have you. Benefits. *Some* probably just like to piss people off in rub it in the faces of people who are ademently opposed. I don't know... I think one key though, is not to always lump people together. Gays, straight, women, men, Christians, pagans, teens, old people, etc. Whatever lable... there are always exceptions to peoples stereotypes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KidsHappen Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 The only one I can think of is that in the natural order of things there seems to be no purpose for it. Actually, I can think of several purposes: 1) population control - not every person capable of resproducing would do so, 2) the benefits of marriage would apply to a wider range of people (they would reap the same benefits as heterosexual people, 3) it would provide a larger ratio of care providing (adults willing and able to provide care - aunts, uncles, grandparents, parents, etc.) adults than a strictly heterosexual arrangement allows. That's just off the top of my head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 How can love between to consenting adults be wrong? How can a relationship which nutures and fulfills be classified as against nature? . How about a 75 year old man and his 50 year old daughter? Is that wrong? I say yes (it is wrong) though it may fulfill your criteria for being consenting and loving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erica in PA Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 I don't know for sure. I wonder if marriage started off as a religious thing. What it has turned into is not strictly religious though. That's true. And it is complex. One other thought I had, and I know, everybody hates the slippery slope argument, but I think there is a logical principle involved here...if our society changes the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples, where does that end? Basically wouldn't we be saying that if a group of people want to be considered legally married, then as long as they aren't hurting anyone else, they should be allowed to? Because there is no real societal benefit to homosexual marriage-- it's just extending approval and acceptance and financial/legal benefits to those relationships. So is there anything special about a marriage between a man and a woman, or is every relationship between consenting adults equally important in our society? Why would we allow homosexuals, but not groups of three or four who want to be married? What if there is a brother and sister who want to marry? Or a grown daughter and her father? What if they can't reproduce, and there would be no threat of birth defects? Then do those relationships deserve legal recognition? This is why I personally feel that changing the definition of marriage will eventually weaken the institution of marriage. Not because the two guys up the street getting married is going to weaken my marriage, but because it dramatically alters what marriage *is.* And it opens the door, logically speaking, to *anyone* who wants it, as long as they aren't hurting someone else. And at that point, imo, marriage will mean very little in our society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erica in PA Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 How about a 75 year old man and his 50 year old daughter? Is that wrong? I say yes (it is wrong) though it may fulfill your criteria for being consenting and loving. LOL, you and I are thinking along the same lines, pqr. See my post above! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KidsHappen Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 "Extra meaning"? Why should society's definition of marriage have to change so some people can have extra meaning in a relationship? Also, it's good to know what kind of extra meaning there is. According to these sources and others I've read over the years, male homosexual couples often do not view "sexual fidelity" as a crucial part of their relationship. That is a big difference in meaning between traditional marriage and same-sex marriage. Historically speaking, that has applied to most males. Males have almost always had additional wives, concubines, slaves, mistresses, etc. regardless of religion, culture or society. The expectation of male fidelity is a relatively recent thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KidsHappen Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 As for parts fitting, well, our bodies aren't jigsaw puzzles with only one right way to fit together. Many hetro couples have found other ways to "fit together". 'Nuf said.Just my 2 pennies for what they are worth. And most of the others do not lead to reproduction and I have yet to hear of a man opposed to them. :tongue_smilie: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 I don't know for sure. I wonder if marriage started off as a religious thing. What it has turned into is not strictly religious though. I think it probably started out as more of a practical thing. :) A way to mark out family ties for political, property and cultural reasons. For the Ancient Romans it was a civil matter. Even in the OT there's not a clear sense it's a religious matter rather then cultural. Even early Christianity didn't mark out marriage as some kind of Christian territory or special Christian ceremony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KidsHappen Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 There should be an icon for "opening a can of worms" :001_smile: :iagree: I vote aye on a "opening a can of worms" icon. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sara R Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Marriage is how a father is tied to his children. Mothers are tied to their children naturally. When the child is born, the mother is there. The father is not necessarily there. There needs to be a strong social institution to encourage fathers to be connected to their children. Children need fathers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Rat Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Well, according to my definition, I suppose it wouldn't be wrong. Gross? Yes. The reason I used those words "two consenting adults" is because I wanted to clarify that in no way do I condone sexual acts with minors. I see your point, however. I just don't understand the need to nitpick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Rat Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Too funny, Kidshappen, and too true! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathy in MD Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Why do two people need to change the institution of marriage in order to be happy together? One doesn't have to be married in order to visit at hospitals or to inherit property; lawyers can draw up documents to enable hospital visitation without changing the definition of a millenial-old social institution which virtually all of our ancestors practiced. But lawyers can't draw up documents permitting/requiring health insurance coverage that's subsidized by the employer. Also a lawyer can't draw up documents that permit a "stay at home" partner to get social security benifits or the tax benifits of filing taxes jointly. Nor will the will allow the partner to inherit the property free of taxes. There are some tricks that can be used to reduce the taxes, though. So our society has structured many things available to heterosexual couples that a lawyer can't get around for homosexual couples. Marriage is the standard way to gain these benifits. A civil union would be an alternative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erica in PA Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Well, according to my definition, I suppose it wouldn't be wrong. Gross? Yes. The reason I used those words "two consenting adults" is because I wanted to clarify that in no way do I condone sexual acts with minors. I see your point, however. I just don't understand the need to nitpick. But then, from your viewpoint, should anyone who wants to be called married, as long as it doesn't involved minors, be considered married? That would involve many more groups (and much more unusual activities) than merely homosexual couples. If society has no rules about marriage at all, other than restricting it to adults, couldn't that lead to some problems in society? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.