Posted: 02 December 2011 at 3:12pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by pinkfreud
Originally posted by TheUltimate
I am not against gays. Gay marriages is very debatable. I am ok them calling their union a marriage as long as it is not affecting the "traditional" marriage definition.
And how will two homosexuals, bisexuals, trannys, or hermies getting married affect the 'traditional' marriage definition? In fact, I believe this will only expand
the marriage definition and make it more dynamic and fluid. Is this something to do with the fear of unions between men and women becoming quote unquote, 'extinct'?
Actually, scratch that- what is
the traditional marriage definition anyway?
My views here may be inflammatory to some, but here goes. Marriage in itself is a man-made construct. They are not made in heaven, unlike what fairytale spinners who live in a candy floss world where unicorns play kabaddi and peacocks serve you tea would have you believe.
I am strictly talking about marriage here, not about relationships. In fact, I am a firm believer in the soul predetermining who its romantic partner/s may be in a certain lifetime. I am a die-hard lover of love and am not against the idea of getting married myself. What I am against, is the notion that marriage is the be-all and end-all of one's love life; like a stamp of approval of a relationship.
Marriage is actually a legally binding agreement between two individuals mainly for (1) protecting their gene pools, and (2) handling properties and assets. Ancient Talmudic/Hebrew law even went to the extent of stating that a man must marry his brother's widow in order to provide the resources required for her to live her life and secure the well-being of her offspring.
However, that is not to say that a marriage is supposed to be completely devoid of love; of course not, I'd be brutally cynical to believe otherwise. What I am saying here, is that marriage, being a legally binding agreement between two adults, should be permitted for people of all orientations
If two gay/bi/transgender people in love would like to manage or share their respective assets with one another, I do not see why it should be disallowed. In fact, preventing queers from getting married is a violation of the fundamental human right to be recognized everywhere you go as a person before the law. Not to mention a violation of free will, but hey, free will is being stomped on everywhere you look.
And as for the OP's point about letting queers be- I don't get the hoo-haa queerphobia either. What two consenting people (or more, heh) do in their bedroom is nobody's business. They have a right to privacy.
I think what shocks most folks is the thought of gay/bi men and women or the in-betweens getting it on more than anything else
People are too accustomed to the thought of plugging the wires in the traditional sockets.
And who said it would affect the traditional marriages? Not me.
The basic premise of a marriage between a man and a woman is the reproduction - having kids. Gay couples cannot have that. Since the purpose of the marriage is having kids and management of heirdom, it is going to require heck lot of spinning on the gay community's part to redefine the marriage. Again - why must it be called a marriage is the question.
Thanks - because you seem to have a basic concept of marriage and logical reason behind it.