In our discussion regarding the Marriage Amendment, it became pretty clear that some folks believe that homosexual relationships are better left in the closet. It seems that their rationale is that God made Man and Woman in their form so they could make children and live in a happy marriage. This is how God meant things to be, therefore who are we as a society to challenge this? It is just nature, and anything else is a incorrect.
Now since this is God we are talking about, how could there have been an error in this grand design? I mean we are all created based on a Adam and Eve, so the variation should be minimal. Right?
Now this where I probably fumble this whole post and end up with everyone frustrated with me. The unfortunate reality is that our all powerful God is apparently not too good with Standard Work and Quality Control. Here is a list of variations that can occur within us humans. Unfortunately it is in Wiki as Genetic Disorders. I prefer to think of it as Genetic variation.
I put this out there as proof that God's creation are not all the same. Therefore variation is what is natural, and thinking that we are all hard wired the same way is incorrect.
All it takes is one little genetic, chemical or hormonal change in your body to trigger all kinds of good or bad responses. I have no doubt that sexual attraction and bonding are the same. So embrace all of God's children and treat them with the respect and compassion you would expect if your chemicals varied from template. Thoughts ?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Men are stronger than women, physically. Women are stronger than men, physiologically. Women are better with language and men are better at numbers. Men are attracted to women and vice versa. All of these statements are true on average, yet there is enough difference that the opposites are true at the extremes of the variations. But why must the extremes of variation nullify the fact that the averages are also true? Can we not respect individual differences while acknowledging the truth of the norm?
J. Ewing
According to the gene mapping done in 2003, there is NO homosexual gene in the basic human make up. Therefore, the attraction is something other than genetic.
Treating people as individuals with respect should always be done. However, humans are not PERFECT, therefore a % of the population will be JERKS.
The traditional family of a husband & wife raising children is the best proven group for the success of society over thousands of years of experimentation.
J,
I was thinking we should only allow marriage between tall and short people, or average height people. Then we could continue to minimize variation within the model. Everyone should be closer to average height after a 1000 years or so.
Anon,
Since open gay relationships with kids involved have only been in style for a few decades, I would say the experiment is incomplete. We have only really tested Male / Female parenting so far. Only time will tell if same sex Parenting is better or worse.
As for genetics and what makes homosexual people homosexual, that science is in it's infancy. 20 years ago we knew nothing in any detail. I am certain we will continue to learn more. Also, that is why I included chemicals and hormones in reasons for variation. It may not be genetic per se.
I don't think God obsesses on sexual matters nearly as much as we do.
--Hiram
"According to the gene mapping done in 2003, there is NO homosexual gene in the basic human make up."
What does this mean? That they couldn't find a gene with a fondness for show tunes?
--Hiram
Now that is funny !!!! Or maybe skill for dressing well.
Another thought: If it is hormones and chemicals, maybe the aging process may explain some folks coming out of the closet later in life.
As many people look to the Bible to understand God here is a link to better understand Bible based traditional marriage
I am thinking us Christians probably should have shredded the Old Testament. Expectations were certainly different back then.
"The traditional family of a husband & wife raising children is the best proven group for the success of society over thousands of years of experimentation."
a)I think you don't know the meaning of "proven".
b) The amendment is about marriage, not parenting. They're not synonomous.
c) If you truly believe this to be true, we'd be having a conversation about an amendment prohibiting single parenthood or outlawing divorce. Children growing up in those circumstances far outnumber those with gay parents.
--Annie
At lunch we were discussing this. We could think of multiple cases of 2 lesbians raising kids and none of 2 gays raising kids, except on Parenthood...
And one coworker thought 2 women may do a better job. It was an interesting consideration.
It is well known fact that among the variations in human males is one relating to brain structure, in that some men have more connections between the two hemispheres, similar to the brains of women, who naturally have far more. It turns out that this variation is far more common in gay men than straight men, accounting for their disproportionate presence in the arts, interior design and style. They aren't "born gay" genetically, but they may be predisposed to such an "orientation."
HOWEVER, these men are born as males and can function perfectly well as males sexually. Something in their mental apparatus, other than this brain structure, makes them behave the way they do. Their behavior is not and cannot be genetically predetermined because if that were true we would simply kill all the criminals at birth, as Hitler wanted to do. Obviously, nature intended for men and women to get together and create families. The word "abomination" is sometimes used; "aberration" is milder, but the facts are what they are. Government should not be encouraging behavior that is counter-survival.
Here's another fact: If this amendment passes, absolutely NOTHING in the law regarding marriage will change. Why should it be opposed unless someone is planning to go to court and have it imposed by a judge, against the will of the people?
J. Ewing
"counter-survival", "criminal", "aberration"... C'mon man, this is 2012...
Modern medicine and adoption rights for Gays & Lesbians take care of the propogation / survival issue.
As for the others. Are you really trying to compare a same sex couple in this way? You must not have any homosexual friends. The folks I have met seem to be some of the most stable and responsible citizens I know. Maybe there is less testerone involved?
The reason the religious Conservatives want the amendment is because they know marriage legal rights will be applied to homosexual couples sooner or later. They just want to postpone it as long as possible and make it as difficult as possible.
"You must not have any homosexual friends."
You have no idea to whom you're talking, so let's put that line of argument aside and talk about this scientifically.
Sexual reproduction evolved because of the advantage it gave to evolutionary speed and stability. Homo Sapiens is the product of it. So we know that the "gay gene" likely didn't exist then, and doesn't exist now because humans long ago gave up instinctual behavior in favor of intelligence. Hitler thought criminality was genetic and thought we could just kill them at birth, but most of us believe he was wrong. So if it isn't genetic, is it something in the hormonal bath in the womb? Quite possibly so, because scientists can produce gay male rats at will that way. But then how do you explain a lesbian? Either way and even at that, behavior in humans is not predestined at birth, it is a choice and remains a choice. Nobody wants to notice the number of gays that have been "cured" or the number who function perfectly well as husbands and fathers only to "decide" they are gay later in life. I don't care for strong words like "aberration," but surely they apply to behavior that is not only outside the norm but "not as nature intended"?
You don't have to be a religious conservative to believe that a fundamental change to the organization of society should NOT be made by a single judge's ruling? And right now, an amendment is the only way to insure that does not happen. Yes, someday society may degrade to the point that we don't care anymore, but what's wrong with putting that off as far as possible? Would you really encourage homosexual marriage as if it were just another fashion statement, and a matter of personal preference with no societal implications?
J. Ewing
I guess I simply don't see the negative social implications... The same sex couples I have met seem just fine. That was why I made the loaded statement. You definitely have a different opinion of these couples and their impact on society than I do.
Post a Comment