Well, though it really doesnâ€™t support gay marriage, it is very possible to have children threw genetics. Should two lesbians want a child, the nucleus of one womanâ€™s cell can be implanted into the egg of another woman. Two men still cannot have a child of there own, but still, we are reaching a point in time that men are no longer needed for life. However daunting this idea is, I donâ€™t support it, Iâ€™m just saying.....well actually, I donâ€™t know what Iâ€™m saying.
Christians are falling in numbers more and more rapidly. A child thinks for themselves, and decides on there own that they donâ€™t wish to believe in religion. Iâ€™m not a Christian nor am I Jewish though most of my family is. I therefore donâ€™t see homosexuality as an abomination. And yes, sex is meant for reproduction, However, the female clitoris evolved only for sex. It does not help reproduction in anyway. Most sex in modern society is not for reproduction, but for pleasure. Even the most strict Christians, donâ€™t have sex only for reproduction. We need to face the facts that sex is no longer just for babies, its a connection between to people, weather they be male/male, female/female, or male/female.
Morality has long been an argument of why homosexuality is looked down upon. Many people see it as strictly for pleasure, therefore immoral. If all things that are pleasurable immoral then is the very computer you are on not immoral, the T.V. you vegetate for hours in front of, is it not immoral. What about sports, and kissing. These arenâ€™t mandatory acts for survival and reproduction. They are pleasurable and enjoyable things.
We are in a rapidly modernizing era of time. People are becoming more and more open to new things. No more are they closed minded to other peoples opinions. Though I donâ€™t speak for everyone when I say that. Many people are still oppressing other people because of there own moral views and practices. In the 60â€™s during the civil rights movement, interracial marriage was seen as a â€˜sinâ€™ by the church. in the 40â€™s women holding prominent positions in economic and political seats was â€˜immoralâ€™. Are you saying that threw those civil rights movements, we have still learned nothing? That we still oppress people because of there beliefs and practices?
If homosexuality was harmful to people, then I might understand reasons for restricting it. But its not, in fact, people have to tell you they are homosexual before you know the are. Two consenting adults, no matter of race, sex, sexuality, or morals, should not be denied the equal rights founded under the United States constitution. Let me show you in an example why this is so. If you were straight in a community with a majority of homosexuals, and they told you that because you were different you couldnâ€™t get married to your female counterpart, would you not protest, would you not say that all people are created equal, and that you should share the same freedoms as them? Of course you would, so donâ€™t be a hypocrite and deny them there rights as humans. Donâ€™t go against the fundamental rights of the constitution and tell them that they are lesser then you because of an emotion they cant control.
I want you to think about this threw the eyes of the persecuted not the persecutor. And tell me you wouldnâ€™t strive for the same things.
""The New Law of Righteousness," that there "shall be no buying or selling, no fairs nor markets, but the whole earth shall be a common treasury for every man," and "there shall be none Lord over others, but every one shall be a Lord of himself.""