the fundamental characters that differentiate living from non living are procreation and death.the living world started with a unicell and procreation by simple division.evolution brought differentian both functionally(separate organs for each function) and sexually( no sex to combined sex to separate sexes)all the colours tastes and appearences are created for the purpose of procreation only.since plants are sedentary they depended on other agents for sexual reproduction .the smell of jasmi ,the colour of aster and the taste of mango are meant for that .in the animal kingdom there is a direct sexual contact for fertilisation .man is an animal with some rational thinking .in the beginning of human civilisation there was no SELF.food shelter women men and children are common property.survival of the fittestwas the order of that day.but as people became more civilised there came OWN.this institution of marrige came into fore to PROTECT the weak .then came this property earning it and passing it on to progeny.to establish the identity and right the institution of marrige sanctifying it and protecting it by authority came into effect.marriga the norms and the stipulations are alwaya dynamic and they are changing from time to time and from place to place and from people to people .so marriage is a coexistence of two people in order to protect their rights .if a man and woman marry and donot have any physical relation ship can it be called a marrige ?but we are living in society and according to the present social stipulations marriage is beteen a man and woman .since it is the order of the day marrige between the same sex cacnot be called a marriage .marriage has nothing to do with physical relation ship or procreation .it is just like any other social stipulation like dont steal,dont kill anther man or dontgrab other's things
Depends on which way you look at it! Family more important or self??? A society cannot accept it. It is not necessary to get married for people to be companions. If companionship is desired, Thatis found in a family, with all kinds of relationships. A marriage always implied a sexual contract and the begetting of progeny for the continuation of the race. Pervert marriages cannot do that and hence should not be called marriages.
Why argue the obvious? No one in thier right mind would ever consider this as anything but a perversion. But what the gay lobby has cleverly done is to sentimentalize the issue. Create a few sob stories of unrequited love in Hollywood and other public media, twist peoples emotions and hence achieve a Pavlovian social reaction: criticize gay relationships=>bad, narrow minded person. It is a classic case of propaganda creating an artificial social ethic, suspending all logic. Just check the stereotypes that existed earlier and now on gays. Earlier, the pansy and the gay were the same, and they were villainous, reflecting society's distrust of such relationships. Now, the gay is super sensitive and a better human than the straight, reflecting the powerful brainwash that Hollywood is attempting!
Tomorrow, some other, even more perverse relationship, can also be sentimentalized through similar means and hence legitimized. See it in that light, and it becomes obvious that this is also no different.
3 comments:
the fundamental characters that differentiate living from non living are procreation and death.the living world started with a unicell and procreation by simple division.evolution brought differentian both functionally(separate organs for each function) and sexually( no sex to combined sex to separate sexes)all the colours tastes and appearences are created for the purpose of procreation only.since plants are sedentary they depended on other agents for sexual reproduction .the smell of jasmi ,the colour of aster and the taste of mango are meant for that .in the animal kingdom there is a direct sexual contact for fertilisation .man is an animal with some rational thinking .in the beginning of human civilisation there was no SELF.food shelter women men and children are common property.survival of the fittestwas the order of that day.but as people became more civilised there came OWN.this institution of marrige came into fore to PROTECT the weak .then came this property earning it and passing it on to progeny.to establish the identity and right the institution of marrige sanctifying it and protecting it by authority came into effect.marriga the norms and the stipulations are alwaya dynamic and they are changing from time to time and from place to place and from people to people .so marriage is a coexistence of two people in order to protect their rights .if a man and woman marry and donot have any physical relation ship can it be called a marrige ?but we are living in society and according to the present social stipulations marriage is beteen a man and woman .since it is the order of the day marrige between the same sex cacnot be called a marriage .marriage has nothing to do with physical relation ship or procreation .it is just like any other social stipulation like dont steal,dont kill anther man or dontgrab other's things
Depends on which way you look at it! Family more important or self???
A society cannot accept it. It is not necessary to get married for people to be companions. If companionship is desired, That is found in a family, with all kinds of relationships. A marriage always implied a sexual contract and the begetting of progeny for the continuation of the race. Pervert marriages cannot do that and hence should not be called marriages.
Why argue the obvious? No one in thier right mind would ever consider this as anything but a perversion. But what the gay lobby has cleverly done is to sentimentalize the issue. Create a few sob stories of unrequited love in Hollywood and other public media, twist peoples emotions and hence achieve a Pavlovian social reaction: criticize gay relationships=>bad, narrow minded person. It is a classic case of propaganda creating an artificial social ethic, suspending all logic. Just check the stereotypes that existed earlier and now on gays. Earlier, the pansy and the gay were the same, and they were villainous, reflecting society's distrust of such relationships. Now, the gay is super sensitive and a better human than the straight, reflecting the powerful brainwash that Hollywood is attempting!
Tomorrow, some other, even more perverse relationship, can also be sentimentalized through similar means and hence legitimized. See it in that light, and it becomes obvious that this is also no different.
Post a Comment