Posted on 05/16/2012 2:46:11 PM PDT by kathsua
Marriage is a biological function, not something created by government to discriminate against homosexuals.
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 ignorant politicians like President Barack Obama 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. Men's and women's brains function differently.
Males produce chemicals called pheromones that are beneficial to females. The research on how males might benefit from pheromones women 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.
The brain differences can potentially allow an opposite sex partner to provide a type of support that someone with the same type of brain cannot. However, some people may be psychologically unable to provide or accept support from others.
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.
In many cultures a man will refer to his wife as his "better half". A woman may call her husband her "other half". A husband or a wife is half of a unit. Both together are a complete unit.
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 is very likely a transsexual rather than a homosexual. She may call herself a lesbian because she fails to understand that she is attracted to other women because she has the brain of a man.
Some male homosexuals claim that they look at other men the same way men look at women. However, scientific research by Dr. Ivanka Savic of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, indicates that in their brains, homosexual men "look at" other men the way women look at men. This tendency could indicate that these homosexual men have female brains and are thus transsexuals. They call their partners "husbands" because subconsciously they think of themselves as women.
A study by of lesbians by Dr. Savic indicates their brains responded to certain chemicals that might be pheromones in the same way as the brains of heterosexual men rather than in the way that heterosexual women's brains responded.
Homosexuals don't understand that the characteristics of the human body only determine how the body can engage in sexual activity. Human sexuality is determined by the sexual identity of the brain. A female brain is attracted to a male body. A male brain is attracted to a female body. A person attracted to someone with the same type of body most likely has a brain of the other sex.
A study of brain structure by Dr. Ivanka Savic and Per Lindström, of the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, indicates that homosexual men and heterosexual women have similar brains and that homosexual women and heterosexual men have similar brains.
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. Homosexuals who want to call their relationship a "marriage" are implying they are dissatisfied with being homosexuals and want what they believe heterosexuals have by being married.
Homosexuals don't understand sex. They don't understand marriage. They don't understand their own medical condition.
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.