Wednesday, December 22, 2004

Marriage is biologically defined

Today a judge heard arguments by lawyers representing the City of San Francisco and gay advocacy group who seek to have California's one-man, one-woman matrimony law declared unconstitutional. Well this is complete folly and if I lived in SF I would be pretty ticked off that the city was spending money on this. Make no mistake, I'm completely against changing the definition of marriage, which by the way has its roots in religious doctrine pre-dating our laws by thousands of years. Personally I don't even care what our federal or state laws are based on, I don't want the definition of marriage to be changed from one-man and one-women on the grounds that biology doesn't work in a same sex definition.

But before I go into biology this is of course also rooted in religion and the bible. What bible you ask....well I use Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary which is available online on numerous websites. The online database provides definitions from the most comprehensive source of biblical data. Just a brief sample; Authorized, King James, Darby, Martin Luther 1545, Louis Segond, Riveduta Luzzi, Alexandrian, etc., and so on and...... So, the common thread from these is that this is a union between a man and a women, and there is also the element that procreation was something that was to only happen within the marriage.

Ok, now to while I'm not a bible thumper I like the existing definition because of a combination of the religious definition and how it relates to procreation of the human species. You can call me what you like, but I believe to be homosexual is to not be normal. I don't care if someone is born that way. I don't hate you if you are. You don't scare me. You don't have a better or less of a chance of being my friend. However, members of a species that either can't procreate, or won't, are not normal. So its a defect to the species. If defective members of species do procreate the question is do they increase the defect in the population. At some point either the species dies out or procreation becomes purely a survival exercise. And one could argue if it's the later it may also die since without the absolute bond of the family unit taking the offspring from birth to procreating the lineage is weakened. Ok, I'm waxing like we are talking about and ampeba but I believe this relates to human existence.

I could go on and on...digging a hole in some areas and a bridge in others...but just for a minute convert the idea of same sex relations to a non human species and what would it mean to the survival of that species.

Back to these legal action...I always love when someone uses completely illogical jumps to argue their case....take for example: "The assertion that marriage is inherently heterosexual can no longer be maintained now that there are a number of jurisdictions that allow same-sex couples to marry," Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said in a packed courtroom. That's almost funny considering how many judgments by a jurisdiction right here in my backyard, the 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court, which is the most reversed court in the nation. Ms. Minter also thinks her argument was strengthened by mentioning that guy marriage is legal in Massachusetts, Canada, Belgium and South Africa. Oh, gee...enough said!

It's interesting that the plaintiffs admit that same sex unions are getting the same rights (for the most part) as those of a married couple...but they want the label as well! WHY? You might ask...because they want to slowly but surely be considered normal and not a defect. They don't use these words but that's the end goal.


merrick said...

The whole idea of there being legal wrangles over whther gay marriage sort of makes a nonsense of what you've said elsewhere;

'I don't hate someone because they're gay. They have every right and privilege I do....we need to special laws for them....equal treatment under the law already exists.'The whole point of this thread is that the law does deny gay people rights accorded to others, and whilst hatred is a strong term you clearly don't approve of such 'defective' behaviour.

There certainly is a common thread throughout the bible that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. So anyone who wants to act differently should be reprimanded and probably excommunicated from their Christian church.

That's not really a matter for legisaltion though.

Those who do not believe in the Bible shouldn't be bound by its norms and customs any more than those of us who are not Muslims, Hindus or Odinists should obey the dictates of those religions.

On the biology of it, you are against gay marriage because they cannot procreate. If this is your only reason, I take it you are just as fervently against marriage for people who are infertile, and marriage that consistently uses contraception.

Are you hoping for legislation on thse issues so that there can be consistency here?

The procreation issue is not a real worry as the species is not threatened with extinction from underbreeding. Which just now, we're not. If anything, the opposite is true.

Homosexual acts and multiple pairings are well known in many species. If, say, sheep, swans and those dogs I saw in the alleyway behind my house this morning can do it and not kill off their species, I'm sure humans can manage too.

erotic phone sex said...

If we could sell our experiences for what they cost us, we'd all be millionaires.
I have a Phone Sex site/blog. It pretty much covers Phone Sex and Adult related talk.

Come and check it out if you get time :-)
Here is our number 1-900-336-8777