Gay marriages. Are you in favor of a law redefining marriage to include gays?

I'm Christian, and I say, "Let God decide whether or not homosexuals are damned." When it comes to marriage though, homosexuals can't marry. While marriage requires love and dedication to function well, the marriage itself is not centered on love itself - it's centered on a certain kind of child bearing and child rearing that benefits society and warrants public recognition.

The definition of marriage (as defined by science) is the joining together of two or more differing elements to create a new one. While the actual marriage happens when the couple (man and woman) physically joins together to create a new human life, churches, the government, and society as a whole officially recognize a relationship as a marriage when a man and woman state that they both agree to join together as a husband and wife. You may also want to look up the definition of "husband" (as in animal husbandry) - and while you're at it, "consummation" as both a common and a legal term.

While sodomy laws nationwide have been largely nullified by the Lawrence-v-Texas case to allow mutually consenting men to use their sexual organs in pleasurable relations with one another, the term "sex" in these activities is being used very loosely, and not in the true sense of "sexual intercourse". Sexual intercourse, in its most accurate definition, requires a vagina. Two men have the ability to pleasure one another through sexual means; however, they don't have the necessary elements present to have sexual intercourse, consummation or a marriage. It would be complete ignorance for any government or religion to recognize/reverence/support/ protect a marriage that so blatantly can never be a marriage.

Sometimes relationships, while recognized by both church and state, don't result in babies (or a true physical marriage) - even when the initial qualifications for an officially recognized marriage are met. If your wife is unable to produce, you may obviously still adopt children and provide them with a proper example of a procreative relationship - including all of the nurturing, provisioning, and teaching of children through word and deed the responsibilities and relationships required to create and rear children of their own when they're grown.

After conception of a new life, sexual relations can continue to strengthen the emotional bonds between husband and wife to promote the desire to stay together, and greater dedication in assisting each other while rearing children. One of the biggest follies of our time was the sexual revolution (or the shift in focus in sexual activities). Sex used to be primarily understood as a procreative act with often very pleasurable and bonding fringe benefits. The sexual revolution is responsible for the confusion that some people have about sex - that it's primarily a pleasurable and bonding experience with an occasional fringe benefit of procreation. If you have mutually pleasurable relations, love, and dedication toward one another - if you experience that powerful bonding through sex - what purpose does it serve outside of providing some addictive, self-produced, natural drug releases into your system? If you have a strong relationship with your spouse, allow that relationship to function as a means for something greater - a true marriage.

If every man and woman coupled-up and had one child per couple, the next generation would be half as numerous (population would shrink from generation 1 to generation 2 by 50 percent). Even if every one of those children grew up, were able to produce, and each produced two children per couple, the overall population (consisting of all generations) would still be 50 percent of its original size within about 75 years. Believe it or not, our society needs children in order to ensure the longevity of our old people, and to sustain society in the future. Married couples serve a vitally important role for society - they're creating tomorrow's population, and are caring for them until they're old enough to care for all of us.

If you can't produce even one child in your heterosexual marriage relationship, at least consider adoption, and serve as much of the purpose that your societally (governmentally and religiously) recognized marriage was intended for as possible. It's still a vital role that no homosexual relationship can fulfill.

Marriage isn't about pleasure, emotional bonding, governmental and religious protection/sustenance, combining of assets or even till-death-do-us-part vows - marriage is about the higher purpose that all those things serve: creating, nourishing, teaching, protecting, and otherwise sustaining a resulting life from a dedicated procreative relationship.

Marriage is literally the commitment of one's love to another person through a mutual bond. Nothing more; nothing less. And this is a legal matter, not a scientific one. Although I can empathize with your views, homosexuals (and all other LGBT people) are just as equal, if not more so, than everyone else. And just to clarify...

marriage (noun) - [a] the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. [b] a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.

sexual intercourse (noun) - genital contact, especially the insertion of the penis into the vagina followed by orgasm; coitus; copulation.

(NOTE: Notice that it uses the word "especially." That means that other possible aspects of sexual intercourse can occur.)

husband (noun) - a married man, especially when considered in relation to his wife.

(NOTE: Again, notice the word "especially" used in the definition.)

consummation (noun) - [1] the act of consummating; completion.
[2] the state of being consummated; perfection; fulfillment.

(This doesn't even apply.)

As for the sexual revolution, that was merely a time of expression and reformation. It wasn't the sexual revolution that corrupted and "confused" people, however; it was the people and everyone even remotely related to what occurred - including you and/or your family. And the flaw in your logic is that many women have multiple children, in which can therefore be adopted off to another, infertile couple (or the like) - homosexual or otherwise. So, that really isn't an issue.

Along with that, what of the "couples" that create, but do not care for the children? What of those children? That is where infertile couples/couples unable to procreate - whether they are homosexual or not - come in. It doesn't matter so much as whether or not the child is conceived, but more so if it is cared for and raised. And what do you mean homosexuals cannot fulfill those roles? As I just stated above, they OBVIOUSLY can. They are just as capable of being parents as any other couple, especially infertile ones.

Marriage literally is about pleasure, love, and joy, as well as bonding and commitment. Did you get with your partner because it was arranged, or you felt it was your "social and human obligation to do so"? NO. It's because you love(d) her and you WANTED to be with her. Likewise for homosexuals.

Now, although I may not fully condone homosexuality, that doesn't mean they should have any less rights. And if you believe these views because your religion states so, then I highly suggest you do a bit more research. Remember that the New Testament is SUPERIOR over the Old Testament, therefore any alleged contradictions and inconsistencies will be deemed non-existent, for the New Testament always "trumps" the Old, so to speak. And it even states in the Bible that homosexuality IS NOT BAD:

"[7] The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? [8] Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. [9] Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men [10] nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." - 1 Corinthians 6:7-10 (NIV)

These verses are known very well and is used to argue AGAINST homosexuality quite often. But unfortunately, many people just stop on verse 10, and don't read the next verse - the very verse that shows that homosexuality is acceptable:

"And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

Clearly, even IF homosexuality is a Sin, it is still forgiven by Jesus Christ. Anyway, homosexuality was listed as just as bad as drunkards, swindlers, thieves, idolaters, etc., and yet we don't bring those up so much? How hypocritical is that?

Please consider what I've said, Joey.

Thank you for your time,
David Greene

Apologetic Christian

Sites:
Definitions from http://www.dictionary.com/
Verses from http://www.biblegateway.com/