<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/platform.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d9492188\x26blogName\x3dA+Moral+Story\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLACK\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://moral-story.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_GB\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://moral-story.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-1456105818952396461', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Friday, April 22, 2005

Gay?

Today I was reading this article on BBC News. It quite sickened me. To think that in a world where we are supposed to be learning to accept each other and our differences, there are still people that hold these ancient views. And these people are effectively World Leaders. I found a list of reasons why people are against gay marriages and came up with the following thoughts...

* homosexual acts are immoral
How are they?? People can't help who they fall in love with, or feel sexual desires towards.

* marriage is a fundamental and unchangeable institution
Since when? You telling me that the Pope's role has not changed a single bit to adapt to the modern world that we're living in today? Probably has. And just as someone like the Pope's role can change, so should the role of a legal marriage.

* marriage is traditionally between persons of opposite sex
As I say above... Is the Pope traditionally German?

* if same-sex marriages are recognised then bigamous, polygamous, incestuous marriages and marriages with animals must be recognised
How are any of these moral? Marriage is about a committment to one sole person. So that rules out bigamy and polygamy. Incest doesn't exactly produce the "best" offspring, and as the Catholics seem to harp on about marriage being to rear children amongst other things, why is incest any good? And as for animals, they don't have a say in the marriage so it would be unfair.

* same-sex couples can't have children
Your point? Does this imply that infertile people should be prohibited from marrying?

* society has an interest in promoting marriage as the environment for procreation and child-rearing
Society also has an interest in promoting equal rights.

* same-sex parenting is less good for children than the parenting found in traditional family units
Can anyone back this up?

* same-sex parenting may bias children towards a homosexual life-style
Is that in the same way that heterosexual parenting may bias children towards a heterosexual lifestyle? As all my gay friends are from heterosexual parents!!

* same-sex relationships are less stable and less faithful than opposite-sex relationships
I know more straight people who've been unfaithful that I know gay people who've done the same.

* same-sex relationships are open to greater health risks
Are we living in the stone age? Stick yer dick in someone with HIV and you'll stand a chance of catching it! Don't matter which end it is!!

* allowing same-sex marriages will damage the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage
Sounds like someone's locked in the 18th Century here... grow up!!!

3 Comments:

Blogger TP said...

Great deconstruction of the double standards and downright nonsense religious leaders and governments peddle to prevent same sex marriage. You're been favourited.

5:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You don't seem to understand the concepts involved in your throwing off of the "shackles" of tradition.

If it's ok to question the idea of man being between one man and one woman for life, then by what authority do you limit the exploration of marriage between groups of individuals larger than two? Why must all of of the participants be human?

You see, you're adding in arbitrary limitations yourself, and not even realizing it.

6:26 pm  
Blogger R said...

You raise a good point, anon.

Although I disagree on the non-human aspect - a person has an opportunity to disagree with something that's placed upon them, whereas an animal does not.

R

9:18 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home