Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

        This article is not a “gay-bashing” article. I am attempting to present a defense of the male and female, husband and wife concept of the institution of marriage from a biological point of view.
        Whether you agree or disagree with what I say here, please do not write me. There is nothing I can do to retain or change the laws of this country.
        Instead, write to the lawmakers in your city, county, state and federal government. They are the ones who are influenced by public opinion and have the power to make changes in the laws of states and the country.

Marriage is a family social institution for a man and woman

        To provide a safe lifestyle and environment for the perpetuation of the human race, the institution of marriage was created by various societies based upon an agreement by a man and woman to become husband and wife.
        Within this system of dealing with responsibilities and safeguards of property rights and family lines, the family unit of husband, wife and children born to them, establish, preserve and maintain morals. They also cultivate, improve and perpetuate our civilization, legal, social and ethical codes both explicitly and implicitly.
        Among these codes is consideration for the sex drive of men and women. (Statistics today tell us that males think about sex every 57 seconds and women about every 2 or 3 days.) It is understood that marriage provides a place of private sexual activity between husband and wife. That same environment also provides a place of family activity when children are born of this husband and wife’s sexual activity.
        Societies throughout history, as a whole, have upheld and maintained the concept that marriage is a powerful commitment between a man and a woman to become husband and wife. That commitment has peripheral legal and personal responsibility factors.
        While the actual dynamics of marriage functions have changed throughout the centuries, as have perceived public needs, opinions and practices, the concept of a man and a woman as husband and wife bonding together in love, forming a family unit, with the potential of having children born of the marriage, has not changed.
        The beginning of marriage as a necessary social institution was first recognized from a religious point of view. This view has gradually shifted to that of a civil point of view, while still retaining the original religious influences.
        During this time of shifting from religious to include civil influences, there has been a period of attempts to redefine marriage as an individual’s right to happiness and as a contract between two persons of same community standing.
        The “make me happy” concept of marriage has resulted in an approximate 50 per cent divorce rate, with the typical marriage lasting about seven years. In addition to that there have been tremendous shifts of concepts of sexual activities outside of marriage, child custody rights and the psychology of properly raising children in today’s society.
        The “same community standing” mentality fostered by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people attempted to eliminate the historically unequal difference between the sexes which was felt to contribute to an unhealthy and unbalanced relationship in marriage.This resulted in trying to reduce marriage to a mutual contractual obligation to be observed by both parties to the marriage.
        The response from the religious community, and many in the civil community, has been to continue to defend the traditional man and woman, husband and wife sexual relationship in the institution of marriage, with all the responsibilities and safeguards as the norm for humanity.
        In addition, a veritable volley of historical, legal, biblical, religious, political, social, economic, traditional and cultural arguments, accompanied by statistical reports, have been presented to influence lawmakers and public opinion. The purpose of this barrage of alleged “information” are attempts to “prove” that changing the definition and function of marriage will result in positive or negative social values, that same-sex “marriages” are, or are not, simply a natural evolutionary phase of society, that same-sex parenting of children is, or is not, psychologically unhealthy for them, that divorce rates have stabilized, or risen spectacularly in those places where same-sex marriages are sanctioned by government. Also, that recognition of same-sex unions as “marriages” eliminates, or does not eliminate, a perceived social inequality. The list goes on and on, but will, in most cases, turn out to be a variation of one of the above issues.
        There are also strong attempts to equate racial discrimination and discrimination against same-sex marriages. The purpose is to then categorize the homosexual and lesbian “marriage” discrimination as a civil rights issue.
        Arguments are advanced that homosexual and lesbian lovers have been among us for many, many years and have not been an adverse effect upon society. The opposite could also be noted, namely that there is no particular benefit associated with the sexual activities of homosexual and lesbian lovers.
        Other arguments are that bisexual persons can marry persons of the opposite sex. The point of this logic remains undefined.
        How this gender issue is attempting to become a civil rights issue is illogical. Persons of any and every sexual orientation are as free as everybody else to marry anyone of the opposite sex, which is the essence of traditional marriages.
        After all the fireworks-oriented semantical arguments and carefully contrived statistical (mis)representations have grown cold, hopefully also the emotions will become less heated. On both sides.
        What has to be determined is a basic value analysis: what’s this thing for, really. And what does it cost? Then, what else will do the same job, and what does it cost?
        Heterosexual marriage between a man and a woman makes them husband and wife. As stated before heterosexual marriage provides a safe lifestyle and environment for the perpetuation of the human race. Marriage was created by various societies as a system of dealing with responsibilities and safeguards of property rights and family lines, and the family unit, including children born to them. Moral, civilization, legal, social and ethical codes are preserved and maintained by the institution of marriage.
        Specifically, marriage has and will continue to include penetration of a woman’s vagina with a male penis, which among other things has the potential of causing pregnancy and babies, which brings new life upon this earth.
        To stipulate that a plastic or rubber device shaped like a penis, or that mutual oral stimulation or anal intercourse to achieve an orgasm is the basis of marriage is preposterous. This is, at best, usage of sex toys and indulgence in sexual foreplay, a “pretend” kind of substitute for sex organs, which in heterosexual marriage sexual activity will culminate in “penetration of a woman’s vagina with a male penis, which among other things has the potential of causing pregnancy and babies, which brings new life upon this earth.”
        A man engaging in sexual activity with another man, or a woman engaging in sexual activity with another woman has no potential for bringing a baby, a new life, into this world. There is no family environment: only two people of the same sex doing sexual things with each other. If that’s what they want to do to feel sexually fulfilled, that’s their choice. As long as they do so in privacy, just as all sexual activity should be in a private place. It’s not a matter of condoning or condemning their sexual behavior. It has to do with accepting the fact that it happens as a part of real life.
        People have been doing that for years and years and years and will no doubt continue. But to attempt to redefine “marriage” as including two homosexual males, or two lesbian women indulging in this “pretend” kind of substitute for sex organs using sex toys and foreplay, whose sole object is to induce a pleasurable orgasm—totally devoid of the potential of bringing new life upon this earth—is outrageously ridiculous.
        To those who think it’s logical to redefine marriage in that manner, you have to question your very own motivation to do so. High on that motivation list are political agenda’s, followed by misguided and prejudiced reformers, rebellers and rejects of every known category and then some that aren’t yet known.
        To accord the status of “marriage” to any two men or any two women desiring to be stimulated by the other to orgasm will raise the cost of social and health-care benefits for the American people to a staggering amount of money, which should be better spent in other areas of our society.
        As American citizens, do we really concern ourselves with how other countries make decisions about what marriage really is? Do you really want to redefine marriage as a “make me happy” feel-good social game? Do you really want a “same community standing” contractual obligation between any two human beings? Consider the high cost of so redefining marriage. Are you really prepared to pay the cost to do so? Think about it. There is no viable option for the institution of marriage in this country.
        If America's citizens allow lawmakers to so redefine marriage it will serve only to create two differing societal values. It will, in effect, polarize Americans into two different camps, which gives further cause for each side to increase attacks on the other side. Think about it: a very small minority of persons further divided against an overwhelming majority who believe in the traditional concept of marriage. In such an environment, the only thing that will thrive is further persecution of this small minority by the overwhelming majority.
        This is your front yard, America. This is where you and your children and grandchidren will have to live.
        And yes, I understand that there may be strong emotional attachments that many think should not be trivialized. However, not trivializing the institution of a true husband and wife heterosexual marriage has a far greater priority.
        Homosexuals and lesbians have been engaging in their sexual activities for a very long time now. But why should American society accord the status of “marriage” to give them a feel-good experience? They will continue their activities regardless of what society does or does not do.
        Why no same-sex marriage? It’s the anatomy, stupid!

        Related articles:
•“Homosexual community, gay marriage, sexual and family values” Homosexual community, gay marriage, sexual and family values are different in values from heterosexual couples in society and lifestyle relationships.
•“God Created Man ... Male And Female Created He Them” God created man ... male and female created he them. Man and woman are sexual and a husband and wife are to enjoy sex and intercourse in marriage.
•“Divorce-husband and wife marriage covenant broken by adultery” Divorce-husband and wife marriage covenant broken by adultery-law of God, Jesus, Paul give other legal biblical reasons spouse put away by divorcement
•“Women Keep Silence, or Don't Lose Your Head, Please!” God says women and men are equal in the Lord, but the spiritual headship principle of a husband is the biblical basis for family authority in the home and ekklesia for husband and wife. Just as God and Christ are equal, but God is the head of Christ:
   1 Corinthians 11:3: “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”
   This is better interpreted as “the head of the wife is the husband.” This article discusses biblical types and antitypes, examples and clear scriptural instructions for scriptural spiritual headship of a husband, why Paul the apostle insisted upon it, and the dangers of irresponsibility by the husbands of the ekklesia.
   This spiritual headship must follow the biblical pattern of sacrifice for equality, surrender for uniting and servanthood for anointing. Paul reprimands Corinthian husbands in their ekklesias for their lack of understanding and practice of the male spiritual headship principle. This has historically been misunderstood and those verses pertaining to husbands and wives have been incorrectly interpreted as Paul admonishing the wives of their assemblies. This article attempts to demonstrate how the priorities of the biblical spiritual headship principle affect every area of the kingdom of God and His Christ.