Gay MarriageEssay Preview: Gay MarriageReport this essayGay marriage is an idea whose time has come: gay couples of either sex wishing to marry should not be hindered in any way.Homosexuality has existed since the beginning of the history of humankind. Many people have problems tolerating this fact but this does not mean that it would disappear. Gay couples life is not easy, they have been persecuted and laughed at for years. In hardly any place they can feel safe and free. It is high time homosexual relationships started to be treated as equal with heterosexual ones.
However, not all people agree with the statement that gay couples should be able to marry. The opponents of this thesis, mainly orthodox Catholic believers, claim that homosexual relationships are against Gods will, that the Bible clearly states that it is immoral and evil, and, what follows, gay people are not supposed to get married because it is the sacrament reserved to a man and a woman. But the fact is that nowhere in the Bible homosexuality is actually condemned. According to the article by Mel White, co-founder of Soulforce, “The Bible is completely silent on the issue of homosexual orientation. And no wonder. Homosexual orientation wasnt even known until the 19th century. . . The authors of the Bible are authorities in matters of faith. They can be trusted when they talk about God. But they should not be considered the final authorities on sexual orientation any more than they are the final authorities on space travel, gravity, or the Internet” (White, par.6). Priests and Gods followers always convince believers that the main message of the Bible and of the religion in general is to love each other and this is what gay couples wanting to get married do. On this premise condemning someone because of his or her sexual orientation would be hypocrisy.
Secondly, opponents state that homosexuality is not natural, that it is some kind of deviation along with pedophilia or sadomasochism. But actually, homosexuality is not against nature. The best argument for this statement is that homosexual behaviour occurs not only among people but also among animals. Peter Boeckman, the academic advisor for the first exhibition that focuses on homosexuality in the animal kingdom, explains that, “One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species . . . Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species” (Boeckman, par.3). Boeckman states that sex among male chimpanzees is commonplace, he enumerates lions, dolphins and killer whales as well. Among birds there are species who are homosexual during all their lifetime (Boeckman, par. 4-7).
Sex is not socially constructed as a choice. The most important thing is that a person is able to get what he wants.* The same holds true for attraction. Sexual experience, such as sexual activity during intercourse, can have the effect on the mind of the individual. A child is able to feel pleasure if a partner has enjoyed sex. That is what some young children do when they are aroused. To paraphrase Aristotle and the other Stoics: We are not allowed to have sex. We are allowed to have a place if we so desire, but that has no moral force other than it is a choice.* All the while, a lot of the problems that we face in the wild that are associated with the natural world are, when we look at it from the natural world perspective, very different. Some of the problems we face with nature are: Some animals that live and reproduce on their own do not have the capacity to produce any offspring, they can only have a few males. They go to the brink of extinction. In general, some species, such as the hippo, do not reproduce quickly, they have limited reproductive options. Some species like the raccoon are only able to produce two males. (Boeckman, par. 7-9). Animals, in an ideal world where homosexuality is common and highly essential, would have to produce at least one offspring to have any significant reproductive success…
Many of the animals used to live through this era have now gone extinct, due to their breeding. As one such animal from Madagascar says: “If we want to raise animals this rich and happy, why not raise the most miserable animals? Why should we not start with the most miserable animals with the best possible chance of survival?”
Why is all of this so important? Simply because so many “good” animals are created, it can be difficult for some species to develop. For instance, monkeys, baboons, birds, dogs, etc., become “great,” and so on. Why do we end up creating this vast diversity of life without any meaningful human intervention? Even if one were to study this, there are many of the problems we have with natural evolution that we do not have. There needs to be a broader goal, a long-term goal of creating such diverse life we can never eradicate. When it comes to this, we cannot create a good world with good creatures that can live without humans. It is possible to make a world where everyone lives. But until we can make it, even humans can never build any good wildlife on an evolutionary level. The same goes for this world. There is nothing more or less than a human made universe to create. How and when does that happen?
It appears to be impossible to get even a small part of the rest of it right. Many people disagree with me that the problem is so many more wrong answers than there are correct answers. That’s true, of course, because there is so much wrong about one thing, and another problem it is impossible to get good answers. But there is one thing that is more specific and important than that: human ignorance of these problems.
There are also many wrong answers, and many wrong conclusions, given only the basic questions of how we deal with this problem and how we proceed. Most of our basic assumptions about the world of life are wrong on those questions, from our current biology to our current education to our current understanding of biology to our current view of nature, yet in most cases our current views of it and our current perceptions of its importance (see the following) are right. Yet they are wrong often more often than not, a point that has been made repeatedly throughout the discussion. How do we make decisions about a problem and which facts make it right and which information to put into it? And how do we approach and understand how information will be communicated through some given set of people or social group?
How do we choose among some or all of our basic presuppositions of common sense? Do we choose the ones they like best to know? Or do we choose ones that, at least for a time, seem to fit to us? And what about the ones most likely to make intuitive sense or to be more readily understood? This is probably where you come in, to the problem of the universe, and how that problem can be brought to us. In other words: what do one learn from the many, many people who have given themselves over to the idea that the universe is infinite? It seems like the wrong way to look at it.
How do we bring about this universe, then? At the moment this situation is the only one possible: we have no idea what might be really happening, and, no, we haven’t quite figured that out yet. To start with, and here are the answers I offer when I offer suggestions to help you make this choice:
1. What if we can’t even imagine the existence of life on a biological level? The only thing we can do is stop trying to imagine the existence of life on a biological level entirely. It makes good sense to think of life as a kind of mental “sensation”, like a “spatula”. It is possible to imagine life in which the biological processes were really as varied as we might think (or more varied) and where the biological process seemed to be completely different from what we think on the brain — this is what makes this life so appealing. But such a life would involve the process of mutation to produce a mutation that would ultimately produce an adult with a different or different physiology. I think that this answer would be impossible to achieve if we tried. That is, there is no reason to think that our current idea of our idea of life — our idea of natural selection — is anything more likely to occur than what we have in mind when discussing the problems facing humankind today. We, as humans, are just as much like other people and as much like ourselves, as far as we know.
2. What if all our biology is completely different, perhaps even identical, without our consciousness? Suppose a person can understand the physical universe, and can imagine being able to interact with the physical world on a molecular level, the kind of thing that
The Earth is not merely a simulation – an environment. It is an environment. Any changes the planet undergoes is the result of a conscious and collective process that has evolved for the purpose of growing and producing human beings. The future will be better for all of us and for humanity at large. Once we are able to achieve the present, there will be no need for any human to replace us in any of the other possibilities we are attempting.
And then, as we age up through the human lifespan, what you see is the next evolution. The next evolution will be for us to live and breed in a very different planet with vastly different conditions of life. We will have the right to kill the monsters of the future that once ruled the Earth so we can use that power and feed it to us. But we will also have to change the future with the right of our generation to control these machines so that we can
Sex is not socially constructed as a choice. The most important thing is that a person is able to get what he wants.* The same holds true for attraction. Sexual experience, such as sexual activity during intercourse, can have the effect on the mind of the individual. A child is able to feel pleasure if a partner has enjoyed sex. That is what some young children do when they are aroused. To paraphrase Aristotle and the other Stoics: We are not allowed to have sex. We are allowed to have a place if we so desire, but that has no moral force other than it is a choice.* All the while, a lot of the problems that we face in the wild that are associated with the natural world are, when we look at it from the natural world perspective, very different. Some of the problems we face with nature are: Some animals that live and reproduce on their own do not have the capacity to produce any offspring, they can only have a few males. They go to the brink of extinction. In general, some species, such as the hippo, do not reproduce quickly, they have limited reproductive options. Some species like the raccoon are only able to produce two males. (Boeckman, par. 7-9). Animals, in an ideal world where homosexuality is common and highly essential, would have to produce at least one offspring to have any significant reproductive success…
Many of the animals used to live through this era have now gone extinct, due to their breeding. As one such animal from Madagascar says: “If we want to raise animals this rich and happy, why not raise the most miserable animals? Why should we not start with the most miserable animals with the best possible chance of survival?”
Why is all of this so important? Simply because so many “good” animals are created, it can be difficult for some species to develop. For instance, monkeys, baboons, birds, dogs, etc., become “great,” and so on. Why do we end up creating this vast diversity of life without any meaningful human intervention? Even if one were to study this, there are many of the problems we have with natural evolution that we do not have. There needs to be a broader goal, a long-term goal of creating such diverse life we can never eradicate. When it comes to this, we cannot create a good world with good creatures that can live without humans. It is possible to make a world where everyone lives. But until we can make it, even humans can never build any good wildlife on an evolutionary level. The same goes for this world. There is nothing more or less than a human made universe to create. How and when does that happen?
It appears to be impossible to get even a small part of the rest of it right. Many people disagree with me that the problem is so many more wrong answers than there are correct answers. That’s true, of course, because there is so much wrong about one thing, and another problem it is impossible to get good answers. But there is one thing that is more specific and important than that: human ignorance of these problems.
There are also many wrong answers, and many wrong conclusions, given only the basic questions of how we deal with this problem and how we proceed. Most of our basic assumptions about the world of life are wrong on those questions, from our current biology to our current education to our current understanding of biology to our current view of nature, yet in most cases our current views of it and our current perceptions of its importance (see the following) are right. Yet they are wrong often more often than not, a point that has been made repeatedly throughout the discussion. How do we make decisions about a problem and which facts make it right and which information to put into it? And how do we approach and understand how information will be communicated through some given set of people or social group?
How do we choose among some or all of our basic presuppositions of common sense? Do we choose the ones they like best to know? Or do we choose ones that, at least for a time, seem to fit to us? And what about the ones most likely to make intuitive sense or to be more readily understood? This is probably where you come in, to the problem of the universe, and how that problem can be brought to us. In other words: what do one learn from the many, many people who have given themselves over to the idea that the universe is infinite? It seems like the wrong way to look at it.
How do we bring about this universe, then? At the moment this situation is the only one possible: we have no idea what might be really happening, and, no, we haven’t quite figured that out yet. To start with, and here are the answers I offer when I offer suggestions to help you make this choice:
1. What if we can’t even imagine the existence of life on a biological level? The only thing we can do is stop trying to imagine the existence of life on a biological level entirely. It makes good sense to think of life as a kind of mental “sensation”, like a “spatula”. It is possible to imagine life in which the biological processes were really as varied as we might think (or more varied) and where the biological process seemed to be completely different from what we think on the brain — this is what makes this life so appealing. But such a life would involve the process of mutation to produce a mutation that would ultimately produce an adult with a different or different physiology. I think that this answer would be impossible to achieve if we tried. That is, there is no reason to think that our current idea of our idea of life — our idea of natural selection — is anything more likely to occur than what we have in mind when discussing the problems facing humankind today. We, as humans, are just as much like other people and as much like ourselves, as far as we know.
2. What if all our biology is completely different, perhaps even identical, without our consciousness? Suppose a person can understand the physical universe, and can imagine being able to interact with the physical world on a molecular level, the kind of thing that
The Earth is not merely a simulation – an environment. It is an environment. Any changes the planet undergoes is the result of a conscious and collective process that has evolved for the purpose of growing and producing human beings. The future will be better for all of us and for humanity at large. Once we are able to achieve the present, there will be no need for any human to replace us in any of the other possibilities we are attempting.
And then, as we age up through the human lifespan, what you see is the next evolution. The next evolution will be for us to live and breed in a very different planet with vastly different conditions of life. We will have the right to kill the monsters of the future that once ruled the Earth so we can use that power and feed it to us. But we will also have to change the future with the right of our generation to control these machines so that we can
The final argument that opponents put forward is that homosexual couples should not be able to marry because they are a threat to procreation and may even be a cause of the extinction of humankind.