Warning!! Don't bother opening if you're not of the Christian Faith:>)

Status
Not open for further replies.

RTRChick

Lovin' The Homestead
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
231
Reaction score
1
Points
79
Location
Bama!
I see it as we are denying people a basic human right. How can we be the nation we claim if we keep denying our citizens a basic human right? Because the love their own sex are they less human?

Were women less human?
Is a race different from your own less human?
We all deserve to have love.
 

enjoy the ride

Sufficient Life
Joined
Jul 12, 2008
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
4
Points
123
Location
Really Northern California
OK - here I go.
I don't have a particularly relgious basis for my opinion. It is based on on my belief that the creation and raising of children is the prime reason for marriage. What's love got to do with it......marriage originately was a contract between two neccessary disparate people to form a household in order so that children could be safely raised. There is a basic instinct for raising children- people who didn't have it didn't create the next generation. But insuring children survive to adulthood is a long, risky process.
First the woman risked her very life baring children- human offspring take a long time and are quite a drag on their parents, especially on one parent. The woman is vunerable during pregnancy and the child's infancy (look at who's starving in Dafur.) The man gets a promise that he will have sole access to the woman (I know humans are faulty but,) so that he can be assured that his sacrifice of providing for children gives him the reward of knowing that they are indeed his or at least as assured as he could be in a pretechnical society. Even today children are still protected in many places by the Lord Mansfield rule- a child can not be dis-acknowledged if born in a valid marriage. That will change because of paternity testing but it was devised as protection to the child so that when a husband wanted to get rid of a spouse, the child was not allowed to be abandoned too. It had the protection of its partents marriage.
There were other benefits to marriage in that each person gave their word to support the other, making a bond that would hold as well as society could make it. In order to have a safe polace for child.
Today I see that many people feel that those protects are not neccessary- women have more options for survival than they used to have and can raise children without a man to provide- that is not true in a lot of other places but here it is.
But I still believe that society is stablized and made safer when a man and a woman both do the best to provide a safe, moral education for their children. Two people who come together to make children and successfully raise them will help insure that their genes for this talent are preserved. Children get to see how a man and a woman interact in a marriage. If they are fortunate enough to see their parents respect each other, they are indeed blessed. Boys have a better idea that it is their obligation to provide for the children they create than to leave them to society to raise. I think boys and girls do best with a father and a mother to observe so that the wheel does not have to be reinvented each generation.
So I do believe that traditional marriage helps society more than any other relationship and it does have the right to encourage it.
The idea that whatever makes the many "me's" of this world feel good is what we should do is destructive. The destructive effect of this attitude is apparent- drug addiction is rampant (the "me's" looking to make themselves feel good and dragging many along with them,) acquiring material things now without regard to the future (something a parent needs to be much more thoughtful about). The care of a person's own children makes that person much more responsible.
My perfect world does not look like that- it would have safe parks for children to play in every few blocks in a city- a child molester would never be allowed out again, everyone would take an interest in protecting children so that a child alone is not at risk for anything, schools would provide free lunch for all children along with books, child care for those who need it would be good and inexpensive, a truant child would be taken back to school by the first adult in sight, training for a responsible adulthood would be done as best as possible, movies and TV would celebrate the loving family rather that the back biting, disfuctional ones that are considered so humorous, etc, etc, etc........
I don't think that adults demanding the same benefit from society while not meeting society's real needs is appropriate. There are darn few rewards these days for the people creating and raising children- the few they do get should be reserved for them. Our limited resources should go as far as is humane to that end.
Two adults have an easier time taking care of themselves than two adults with children added. They should have far less need for a benefit from society.
But in this world, the squeaky wheel gets the grease and there are a lot of squeaky wheels shouting "we want".
It will just be one more step to a society that will have too many burdens to survive. I can't think of one that has managed to pull itself back to be strong enough to survive contact with one who is more disciplined.
 

Quail_Antwerp

Cold is on the Right, Hot is on The Left
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
6,905
Reaction score
6
Points
262
Location
Ohio
Good post, etr!

And as for keeping it to themselves, you don't see heterosexual couples walking around with rainbow colored signs broadcasting which sex they choose to sleep with. When talking online they can say my SO or my spouse what have you and we would never so much as guess that they were homosexuals, now would we?

Homosexuals have the SAME civil rights that I have, and marrying someone with the same sex is no where near the same category as blacks wanting freedom! Shoot, I would want to be FREE! Homosexuals are free~ to live together, to marry the opposite sex, to adopt, etc.

And before someone says they can't adopt/foster or whatever, think about it, if they quit making such a big deal over their orientation no one would ask them when it came to important decisions like creating a family.

I think what irritates me is they wear their orientation on their sleeve so to speak like it is a badge of honor.

And since we brought up being PC, gay, used in it's correct terminology, means HAPPY. The only true African American I met was a WHITE man who was born and raised in South Africa by his born and raised white parents.

My brother is black. Know what he claims to be? American.

And I am with Homesteadmom on this one, the Bible states it in black and white, it's an abomination. If man was to be with man or woman with woman, then Eve would have had the same parts as Adam. But that won't mean anything to anyone who doesn't believe in the Bible.

ScottyG, I was a member of the United Methodist Church. I left and now home church my children because they started to allow homosexual ministers. I cannot support, nor will I support, something I am so staunchly against, either with money or by attending services. That same church also had a heterosexual couple living together and serving in the church, which I felt was against God's word as well seeing as His Word is very black and white about who can and cannot serve in the ministry. Please do not be offended, I know we believe differently, I just wanted to explain things from my end.

hugs to all my friends! :)
 

VT-Chicklit

Lovin' The Homestead
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
302
Reaction score
0
Points
94
Location
Lake Champlain Islands
WOW! I Posted my Post last night regarding the gay rights group disrupting an evangelical church service in Michigan. I had concerns that civil debate regarding issues that polarize the left and right in this country was nonexistant these days. When these highly charged issues come up, many times intimidation and inflamitoy rhetoric are used instead of civil debate. After posting the post I was hopeing that the conversation would not get too hot and get the topic locked. Everyone has been good examples on how to have a spirited debate on a hot issue, without being intimidating or inflamitory. I am so glad that I found this forum, where people with diverse views can agree to civilly disagree. :coolsun
 

ScottyG

Lovin' The Homestead
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
226
Reaction score
1
Points
79
Location
South Central Michigan
enjoy the ride said:
I don't have a particularly relgious basis for my opinion. It is based on on my belief that the creation and raising of children is the prime reason for marriage. What's love got to do with it......marriage originately was a contract between two neccessary disparate people to form a household in order so that children could be safely raised.
Well, depending on how far back you go, marriage was actually originally mostly a ploy to get rich people and those in power as part of your family. As for the wife herself, well until the late 19th century, husbands had the right to imprison their wives if they didn't like what was said, and if a wife had dishonest tendencies, the man had a right to kill her without repercussion. Marriage gave husbands sole ownership over all property a wife brought to the marriage and any income she earned afterward. Children were of course part of it, but any idea that we should go back to "original" marriage is forgetting the part where wives were property, treated as objects, and able to be thrown away if no longer desired.

But more to my point. If the creation of children is the prime reason for marriage, then by that logic we should refuse old people the right to get married. We should refuse barren women and infertile men, too. Anyone who's had a hysterectomy, tubes tied, or a vasectomy shouldn't be able to get married either. Also, people who just don't like kids and would prefer not to have them... no marriage for them!

I know I'm being a little sarcastic. But I just mean to point out that plenty of people get married without children being in the mix. And even the church is fine with that. Catholic churches marry post-menopausal women all the time, despite their lack of child-rearing ability.
 

enjoy the ride

Sufficient Life
Joined
Jul 12, 2008
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
4
Points
123
Location
Really Northern California
The main point was of course that marriage gave some protection to women and children- made a strong unit of diverse talents and abilities in order that a safe haven is made as much as possible. Brought two extended families together to insure the continuation of their genes. Continuation of the kingdom, farm , even business. And yes, women were treated like livestock a lot of the time (not always.) Which is one reason for marriage in those times.

Even gay men usually had wives and made children inside a marriage to a woman- and did whatever they wanted outside of it privately. The point was to have an heir, to not let the line die out, to provide family members to get through rough times and to get society to recognize this child's rights.

Love and marriage only became really expected with the Victorians- thanks to Queen V and Prince Albert.

For a lot of women, being barren was cause for divorce - if the man was infertile, it was still her problem (Henry VIII.) And old people didn't usually live long enough to get remarried- and it was frowned on as silly by society and scandalous by her potential heirs (David Copperfield.)
 

Homesteadmom

Frugal Homesteader
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
1,065
Reaction score
0
Points
123
Location
Arizona
Marriage was orignally created by God between Adam & Eve & he referred to Eve as the "help meet". There is a saying that goes EVe was not made form Adam's foot to be walked on, his back to walk behind him, his head to walk in front of him, but his rib to walk beside him. Marriage originally was equal & over time the "evil & greedy" decided to use it to their benefit.
 

sweetcorn

Lovin' The Homestead
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
115
Reaction score
0
Points
79
Location
Northern Indiana
Marriage was orignally created by God between Adam & Eve & he referred to Eve as the "help meet". There is a saying that goes EVe was not made form Adam's foot to be walked on, his back to walk behind him, his head to walk in front of him, but his rib to walk beside him. Marriage originally was equal & over time the "evil & greedy" decided to use it to their benefit.
You go girl !
 

Homesteadmom

Frugal Homesteader
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
1,065
Reaction score
0
Points
123
Location
Arizona
sweetcorn said:
Marriage was orignally created by God between Adam & Eve & he referred to Eve as the "help meet". There is a saying that goes EVe was not made form Adam's foot to be walked on, his back to walk behind him, his head to walk in front of him, but his rib to walk beside him. Marriage originally was equal & over time the "evil & greedy" decided to use it to their benefit.
You go girl !
Thanks! :hugs
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top