I think the tendency on the part of people of a more conservative bent to nonetheless find gay marriage acceptable depends largely on their ability to see gay marriage as a mirror image of straight marriage, only with a same-sex as opposed to an opposite sex couple. Some, however, doubt that this kind of mirror image can exist in the gay community.
“Male homosexuals are very seldom monogamous,” Dr. Elizabeth Iskander asserts, “they overwhelmingly reject the type of relationship most heterosexuals think of when they think of marriage: a long-term relationship where sexual activity is strictly limited to one’s marriage partner.”
Here.
4 comments:
It's pretty stupid to say that because male homosexuals often have a greater variety of partners than male heterosexuals do before they get married, that means they can't be monogamous after marriage.
Further, the majority of straight marriages have incidents of infidelity, but I doubt Dr. Iskander would recognize that as an argument against straight marriage.
Finally, I'll note gay marriage between women doesn't enter into her article at all. How many think Dr. Iskander uses the relatively fewer initial partners among gay women as a reason to support lesbian marriages?
I think the bigger problem is that of "Born that way". The underlying claim is that homosexuals are born that way, and there is an attempt to frame the argument as "Just let me be who I am."
The problem is that there is a significant amount of research showing this is simply not the case. In one study, 70% of male homosexuals had changed to heterosexual only when they were interviewed 6 years later.
Beyond that, homosexual unions are fundamentally different from heterosexual union in that there is zero chance of producing children without going outside of the union. Even a female/female union would need a sperm donor to have children.
The problem is that we have fundamentally redefined the family, the basic building blocks of society, based on eros instead of agape. The infidelity and other problems with heterosexual unions that others have mentioned arise directly out of this redefinition. Homosexual unions suffer the same problems, and probably to a larger degree.
SomeRandomGuy said...
The problem is that there is a significant amount of research showing this is simply not the case. In one study, 70% of male homosexuals had changed to heterosexual only when they were interviewed 6 years later.
I suppose if you define "male homosexuals" as "had some sort of physical intimacy with a male at some point in their life", and "changed to heterosexual" as "were primarily attracted to women", then 70% might not be a huge exaggeration. Then again, since I've kissed my bothers on the cheek, by that definition I used to be a male homosexual.
So, I think whatever study study you are referencing is either on a very specific, select group or is just pure garbage.
Beyond that, homosexual unions are fundamentally different from heterosexual union in that there is zero chance of producing children without going outside of the union. Even a female/female union would need a sperm donor to have children.
Would you agree that if the male or female were infertile, then having a zero chance of producing children without going outside the union means that male or female can never enter into a union that is fundamentally like a heterosexual union? Or, were you just trying to rationalize your bigotry?
The problem is that we have fundamentally redefined the family, the basic building blocks of society, based on eros instead of agape. The infidelity and other problems with heterosexual unions that others have mentioned arise directly out of this redefinition. Homosexual unions suffer the same problems, and probably to a larger degree.
The problem here is that you are trying to redefine human history, where before marriage was based on eros, it was based on wealth and the opportunity to improve family connections. The infidelity and other problems of heterosexual unions have always been present, and there is no evidence that they are larger in homosexual unions.
SomeRandomGuy,
Good points. I'd be interested in a link to the study you cited.
Post a Comment