Marriage, a Biological Institution

So I wanted to add a little to my previous blog (see below) regarding marriage. Beyond the moral implications regarding gay marriage, I think it is simply unnatural, and purely indulgent to sexual appetites. Sex can be, and is a source of great pleasure. Pleasure aside, sex is also the only natural means of procreation. Biologically a man and a woman need each other to have children. Biologically men and women’s sexual organs fit together like two pieces of a puzzle. In other words, there is real biological need of copulation between a man and a woman. Biologically it makes sense for a man and a woman to marry, and mate for life; multiplying, and raising children together.

In a homosexual relationship, there is no biological function. Sex between two people of the same sex is purely physical and emotional, it fulfills no greater purpose, and leads to nothing but bonding between the two, and the release of sexual energy. Because there is no greater biological purpose, there is no need for marriage for a homosexual couple; besides perhaps insurance, and inheritance, which could be achieved through a legal contract, and wouldn’t really require marriage.

When marriage becomes solely about desire, passion, and lust, it loses it’s connection to it’s true purpose, creating future generations. This attack on marriage is just another way the liberals are trying to destroy the family, and redirect the emphasis from the family, to individual freedoms. This is no different than the debate on abortion, or divorce. I believe the family must be defended at all costs, as it is the single greatest strength a child can have, as it prepares to face the struggles of the future.

My previous post on marriage:

This subject is so controversial, that many people simply don’t talk about it. Well, this may come as a surprise, but I’m not afraid to talk about it, because I feel my beliefs are correct, and I shouldn’t be ashamed or afraid of the truth.

I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I don’t support gay marriage, because I believe it is morally wrong. When it comes to matters like this, I don’t look to what is socially acceptable, I look to what I believe is acceptable to God. I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.

Do I discriminate, or in anyway dislike homosexuals? No, I don’t. I believe people are free to choose the way they want to live, because we are, after all, a free land. But when people try to force me to accept their lifestyles and decisions, in encroaches on my freedom, and my freedom must be protected as well. The will of the few can not, and should not trump the will of the majority.

7 comments:

Chappy said...

The first arguments a person will make against your article is:

(1) What about a happily married heterosexual couple who are sterile, should they be allowed to marry?

Their sex amounts to nothing more than physical pleasure just as homosexual sex amounts to nothing more than physical pleasure.

(2) There are plenty of heterosexual marriages that are formed around lust with no greater goal in mind. Should they be allowed to marry?

These are not my views. I wrote a paper in my undergrad about why we should resist gay marriage in our society. Through my research and study I found these arguments to be the most prevalent against the argument of "biology" in heterosexual marriage.

I believe that nature is trying to make it very clear how and when sex should be enjoyed. Man has a penis, which when aroused becomes long and hard, and after sufficient stimulation excretes sperm. Woman has a vagina, which when aroused becomes lubicated, allowing injection of sperm right to an egg. After the sperm enters the egg a child is formed. The woman's breasts then produce milk in sufficient quantity for the baby to not only surive, but thrive.

The fact that some people's sexual organs don't function properly does not somehow mean that this biology between man and woman does not exist. It is absurd to take such an extreme leap of logic and say that because sex is purely physical with no greater goal due to the fact that some men/women are sterile, I should be allowed to stick my penis in another man's anus because it is inherently the same thing.

Nick said...

Ha, you said penis and vagina.

keightlynn said...

I just had a debate about this on a celebrity gossip site yesterday. As soon as I posted my opinion (I was the first comment) I was called fat, and that my gay friends obviously call me nasty names.
I personally have homosexual friends, but they know that I don't agree with them. Marriage is for a man and a woman ONLY, and you are right, it makes no sense for two people of the same sex to get married. They cannot have children. Though I have used this argument before and one of the most common responses I get is "The world is too over populated anyway, so they are really helping a major problem."

I find it so funny how they all basically say the same things over and over again.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps heterosexuals should exercise their inherent authority by creating an Institution of Mating? Same sex marriage advocates claim the Institution of Marriage is a human costruction, therefore, human beings can construct more than one Institution of Union.

Notoriously Conservative said...

Heterosexuals have no desire to mandate an institution of mating, because we don't care what you do in the privacy of your home. When it spills over into the sanctity of marriage is where we take offense.

A human construct it may be, but it is a construct for a reason. The reason is, it makes biological and for many, moral sense.

Anonymous said...

I didn't say mandate, I said create. The Institution of Marriage is NOT a human construction. It is a human acknowledgment of human physical relations, i.e., a man and a woman physically mating. Human beings can legally acknowledge a man and a woman physically mating as being rape, incest, prostitution, as being a sexual offense. The traditional Institution of Marriage legally acknowledges a man and a woman physically mating OTHER than being a sexual offense. A redefined Institution of Marriage would NOT legally acknowledge a man and a woman physically mating AT ALL. Which is why I suggest heterosexuals create an Institution of Mating to legally acknowledge a man and a woman physically mating other than being a sexual offense.

Anonymous said...

Can you imagine someone claiming the charge of, (i.e., legal acknowledgment) rape has absolutely nothing to do with human physical relations, absolutely nothing to do with human beings legally acknowledging the existence of human physical relations? Well, that is exactly and precisely what same sex marriage advocates claim the Institution of Marriage is. Therefore it is absolutely impossible for a man and a woman to be legally acknowledged physically mating with the Institution of Marriage. A man and a woman can only be legally acknowledged physically mating less with the Institution of Marriage.

Post a Comment

I reserve the right to delete profane, obscene, or otherwise insulting messages. So please, keep it clean.

While you're at it, visit our message boards!