 |
| Texas Longhorns Women’s White Nordic Bubble Vest Jacket |
| $43.76 (Retail $46.39) |
| Texas Longhorns Women’s White Nordic Bubble Vest Jacket From the grandstands to the ski slopes show your loyalty and…[Read More] |
 |
A deep and widespread debate on the constitutionality and legality of gay marriages, has been greatly intensified, recently, in the light of certain political and legal developments. We are hearing arguments, from both sides, about, why gay marriages should and should not be legal. I am not impressed by this very superficial debate, at all. I ask a very different question. My argument is, why should government be involved in the business of marriage? Why do we even have licensing requirement for marriage? Isn’t it just another totally unnecessary government interference in our routine personal life? Just another opportunity for unconstitutionally big governments to impose another tax on us?
By all means marriage is a very personal, private, emotional, physical and financial issue. It’s implications are very broad and touch almost every aspect of our lives. Why should we allow government to interfere and control, such an important aspect of our lives? I have no clue, why many people want to? I would simply say, get out of my personal life and let me do, what I think is best for me and my loved ones.
Issues regarding sex, marriage, pleasure, procreation and relationships are not recent. They have been major issues, since the inception of humanity. Archaeological evidence suggest that humanity started with absolutely no restrictions on sexual activity. Men and women were free to have sex with anyone, anytime, anywhere. It didn’t matter, if the partner was same sex, opposite sex or even an animal. Then the fears started arising, if there is an off-spring as a result of relationship between human and animal relationship, it is going to be sub-human. So, gradually it became a stigma and sexual relationship with animals was virtually banned.
Then came up the idea that the purpose of sex is to procreate. So, the sex between same sex people became bad. After this came the idea of mine and thine, which ultimately prohibited the multiple sexual relationships, first for women and then for men, too. Soon evolved the idea of using sexual relationships, as a financial and economic tool. They realized that it could be used to unite the wealth of two different people or group of people, now known as family, and create the ownership of a even larger accumulation of wealth. Hence, the sexual relationship between immediate relatives was condemned, so that the relationship with a distant person can bring two sets of wealth, together. This did not prove to be very effective, since people still married the first relatives. So, the sexual relationship between first relatives was discouraged, too.
Lots of people were still violating those new norms. So, the institution of marriage was formed. You were not allowed to have a sexual relationship, without declaring it to religious and / or political authority. Instead of accumulating the wealth in fewer hands and making them richer and richer, marriage would still result in the division of wealth in larger number of people, with smaller proportions, when it was distributed among the children, after the demise of parents. So, the oldest son was made the legal owner of all the wealth inherited by parents.
It should be clear, now, that ruling, wealthy and powerful class has been doing everything possible to keep wealth in fewer and fewer hands, creating richer, more powerful and more influential people who can easily control the lives of everyone else.
What got totally lost, in this struggle, over the ages, for money, power and influence, was that sexual relationships and / or marriages are extremely personal, private, emotional and physical phenomena, which are all about personal pleasure, happiness and satisfaction. Some people still argue that marriages are about procreation. But, the rampant use of contraception and the fact that an overwhelmingly larger proportion of sexual encounters, is, now, conclusively for pleasure, only, as opposed to the limited sexual encounters for procreation, and without the use of some sort of contraception, have conclusively proven that we seek sexual activity, primarily, for fun and not for procreation. Procreation, in most cases, is just a consequence and resultant responsibility.
Another argument is that the marriage was created, and is all about raising kids in an ideal and secure environment. Statistically, this has been nullified, too, already. Most kids are now being raised in non-traditional environment like, by unmarried parents, single parents, divorced parents, adopted parents and legal guardians, to name just a few examples. Kids, that are being raised in a traditional, two married, biological parents, are in virtual minority, now.
Opponents, also, mention several studies, showing that kids raised in a biological, two parent families, do better. They argue that there is no experience or conclusive scientific evidence that the kids raised by gay parents can do at least equivalent to the kids raised in traditional families. The irony is that there is no conclusive scientific evidence that they will do otherwise, either. I mean, there is no study showing that they will do worse then the kids raised in traditional families. This is a work in progress, and preliminary evidence shows that they do just as well.
All this sex and marriage social, legal and government related mess is not about kids, parents, families, society or well-being of individuals. It is mainly about money, power influence and the resultant religious and government control and enforced ethics, messing up our every day lives.
Think about gays, their families and kids, as human beings, and Americans. They have feelings, sense of pride, self-respect, rights and equality issues, just like anyone else of us. Their families and kids, as Americans, deserve same rights and protections, as our families and kids do. Also think, why treating some Americans, their families and their kids different, is not discrimination?
As one black gay person put it together, very well. Sitting in audience, and watching and hearing, these gay rights debates, in which all the participants are heterosexual, is pretty much like a black person, in fifties and sixties, watching a debate about the rights of black people, in which all the participants were white. Don’t you think it is very mean for us to deny the rights of people who are not like us? Who may have a different lifestyle? Or different set of beliefs?
Conquer the web with ExcitingAds!
Browse our Blog
Read our articles CIA, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Working Together And Second Amendment, Tyranny, Gun Ownership
Gay Shop