Return to main page
A Rational Advocate
"The most formidable weapon against errors of any kind is reason"
A Dialog on Homosexuality and Same Sex Marriage
A visitor to this website recently had comments to make about the essay "Homosexuality Is Not Normal" written by “A Rational Advocate“. As a result, the following dialog developed between the visitor, who is given the name Mr. Y, and A Rational Advocate (ARA).
Mr. Y; 2/28/2004
Why do you obsess about procreation vs. homosexuality? Artificial insemination, surrogate mothers, and adoption make procreation in the homosexuality a moot point.  This resembles the previous debate about children of one ethic being raised by parents of another. You would think that society would take advantage of the normalization of gay culture due wide spread acceptance, and encourage gay couples to share in the adoption of so many parentless children. Right now there are 1 million children being raised in homosexual households and 8 million children who have one homosexual parent. That's 9 million children that will be affirmed by the blessing homosexual's cry for equal justice. (The word can be found in 144 verses in the bible)
ARA; 2/29/2004
Thank you for your comments.   My response follows:
There would be no new human births unless male semen met female ovum.  Whether this is accomplished through sexual intercourse between a man and a woman or through some other scientific means, the result is the same. From the advent of civilization offspring have been reared in an environment that included the male and female even in societies were polygamy has been allowed because of economic necessity or religious teaching.  The nuclear family has proved to be a stable and beneficial influence on society despite the social problems created by divorce.
It would seem to me that responsible people, whether heterosexual or homosexual, would attempt to look at this issue in light of what is best for those that will be entering this world in future years.  Should children be taught that male/female sexual relationships are the same as male/male or female/female?  Honesty requires that the children be taught the truth.  The obvious truth is that they are not.  That being the case then what is normal?  The obvious truth here is male/female because their complementary sex organs are there to be used to procreate.  The case for Government to provide a legal definition and provisions for a male/female union is clear.  To minimize the affect that improperly cared for offspring might have on all of society, marriage laws were enacted.  These laws evolved to deal with what society has considered a normal sexual relationship between a man and woman.
Regardless on one's views concerning homosexual parenting, the fact is that it exists.  To the degree that there
are instances where children are better off than they would be without that parenting it may not be faulted.  Society should have a grave concern for other instances where pedophiles gain a foothold in acquiring children to fulfill their deviated desires.  One would think that the homosexual community would be satisfied with Civil Unions, which can provide the other legal benefits accruing to marriage without the title.  The thought comes to mind that they are only thinking to benefit themselves rather than looking objectively at what's best for our evolving society.
I am attaching an essay Do We Want This New World I wrote a few years ago that relates to this issue. 
Mr. Y; 2/29/2004
I am very appreciative of you response. You express yourself well. My interest is in dialogue. Each of us is given a piece of the truth. And my intent is to express mine and hear yours............. you seem to put a lot of emphasis on normality or standard. Then let me ask do you believe the concept of normality of 1900 is the same as the normality as 1950 is the same as 2000, and what truth did that normality embrace. At the turn of the century women were expected to stay at home and raise children.  Laws gave them rights subservient to the rights of men. In 1950 normality was that blacks were considered inferior to whites, denied the vote and forced to live in an apartheid state, which made their rights subservient to whites. In 2000 homosexuality and homosexual marriage is considered a threat to a healthy society. All this normality had existed for two thousand years. Yet in the name of justice everyone except one of one of these conditions was overturned. And now the Massachusetts supreme court has demanded and the anti marriage side has been unable, to show compelling evidence why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry. Is there compelling evidence to show that children raised by homosexual parents are more disadvantaged that those under heterosexual parents to compel society to outlaw homosexual marriage. My understanding it is important that children be raised in an affirming loving environment, regardless if the caregivers are either two or one relatives, grandparents, or parents.  The main concern is that the environment be healthy so that it supports and enhances a bonding between parent and child. I am sure we both know people who received more affirmation and love from a one-parent environment than others who came from a two-parent environment. If this two gender parental environment is so important then why has there been little or no challenge to women who chose to raise children either without a husband or raise many children from multiple husbands alone. And now you have homosexual couples who have the money, the dedication, and the love to raise children in the same affirming environment that they were raised with a supportive extended family. They are doing a great job and in the name of normality they are not allowed to marry. Did you know that lesbian couples without the institution of marriage have an average of longer sustained relationships than heterosexual married couples?  What is your paradigm of stable family? Is it based on gender or love, affirmation, and nurturing. I was raised by two parents. The fact that I had two gender parents did not overcome my rageaholic father, my less than adequate nurturing, and my overwhelming damage from acute abandonment. Are you trying to tell me that two genders would have been a good trade off for two homosexual parents that were nurturing, affirming, and constantly there for me............................................................. Look forward to your response
ARA; 3/01/2004
I think you are attempting to compare what is normal that is self evident in the makeup of the human body, to customs that change over time due to the advent of new technologies, changes in demographics and legal enforcement of human rights as expressed in our Constitution.  It is impossible, in my mind, to deny that the two sexes were put on this earth to procreate and that is normal.  As I said in my previous email the rest follows from that.
I don't believe you can equate the equal rights that have been provided to blacks and women, under the law, to marriage between two persons of the same gender.  Individuals of either physical sex have the same rights whether they have homosexual tendencies or not.  The right to marry under the law simply recognizes the fact they have complementary sex organs and subsequent procreation carries mutual responsibilities.  It's that simple.  Heterosexuals also have rights and the right to have their children educated to understand what is obvious in viewing the human body is one of them
In regard to offspring, there is no doubt that there are some homosexual households that may be able to offer a better environment than some heterosexual households.  However, there is also no doubt that all those carrying homosexual tendencies are not the same and that many have ulterior motives in their interest in children.  I find few, if any, homosexuals who will separate themselves from bi-sexual, or transgender oriented people.  They appear to have thrown themselves into the same pot.
Frankly, I just cannot understand why homosexuals want to have their unions called marriage when they can have the same legal rights with laws governing Civil Unions.  Why do they want to be so spiteful to those heterosexuals who simply want to pursue what they believe is best for themselves and their children?  As long as it doesn't infringe upon those in the homosexual community wanting to pursue their way of life where's the problem?
Mr. Y; 3/01/2004
Two reasons (1) because they came from a heterosexual family that is now their extended family and the want the same validation for their commitment to their partner as the married couples of their extended family. (2) They want the same validation given to heterosexuals, which cannot exist in separate but equal. I can remember during my days of growing up how anybody who gave the appearance of same sex orientation was persecuted. In not one incidence did a teacher or parent or peer ever stand up for the victim. We 're talking about persecution that followed the person through elementary, high school, and even college. (Studies have now come out about this denigrating, anti-social behavior. it has been able to measure how permanently damaging it was to the victim.) I also remember how controlled I was about my own behavior (I've always been a heterosexual) that I too did not want to exhibit any behavior that might warrant the same attack. It was the oppressive fifties. Getting the legal freedom to marry lays the groundwork for validation that would once and for all make sexual orientation a non-issue. It would be a win win situation for everybody. Imagine a world that had the same intolerance for denigrating same sex orientation as it now has for racial prejudice..........understand your anatomical approach. I think you speak for a lot of people.
ARA; 3/03/2004
The reason you give for the feelings of gay couples doesn't make sense to me.  Firstly, if their extended family will not accept their union now it doesn't follow that any marriage title will change that.   Secondly, aren't they really being selfish in wanting to force their desires on all of society and not really seeming to care about the desires and feelings of heterosexuals.  Homosexual couples are obviously not heterosexual couples, both by definition and biologically, and to validate them with the same title for that which is different makes common sense uncommon.
Persecution of one child by another has been going on for a long long time.  Effeminate behavior is just one of many characteristics that have been made fun of by other youngsters of grade school age.  I was bullied for a number of things including the fact I was smaller in physical size of others, at that time, and I wore eyeglasses.  In some instances the bullying resulted in physical abuse as well.  Others were denigrated for their speech, freckles, weight and other physical features.  It is part of the growing up process in learning how to deal with adversity.  Life is not a bowl of cherries.
It makes no sense whatsoever to blame any feelings you, or anyone else may have, about intolerance of sexual orientation by others in our society on the inability of homosexuals to marry.  If you think the views of people like me, of which there are many, are going to change regardless of the outcome of the present battle on this issue, you are mistaken.  That includes future generations simply because you, or any other person in this world, cannot deny the fact that males and females have complementary sex organs and males/males, females/females do not.  Plain and simple.
Mr. Y; 3/03/2004
Were you beaten, sent to the hospital because you were small and wore glasses? Did someone waylay you and attempt to take your life.  Were you abandoned by your family, fired from your job, were rounded up and put in concentration camps and executed, courtmartialed, raped and beaten senseless.  For two thousand years civilization has instituted three pillars of oppression against homosexuals: the govt.............. you are illegal, the institution of are sick, the are immoral, comparing yourself to homosexuals is like comparing yourself to being black.  When I reached puberty the one thing changed automatically.  All of sudden I began having mental visions of seeing all girlfriends naked. It was obsessive, but because I was a heterosexual I receive affirmation about my feelings and I progressed on with my life it was no big deal. Now imagine if as teenager instead mental images of the opposite sex you have mental visions of people being naked of your same sex. When you subtly attempt to share them you receive inferences that anyone who has these feelings is sick, told that if you attempt to express them, there is a possibility that you are put in jail, and if you continue to pursue those feelings you will assuredly go to hell, and be damned for eternity. What do you wonder gay teenage suicide is three times higher than any other sector. In truth because of the consistent oppression of homosexuals they should be entitled to receive a whole hell of a lot more than just marriage. You are right when you say that if families wont accept them before marriage they wont after. However, being allowed to marry will give validation and actively come against the oppression of the past and make the abandonment no longer socially and legally acceptable, which provides for the equal protection under the constitution. Upholding the constitution is a win, win situation for everyone. The Supreme Court has declared that the anti marriage side has been unable to show compelling evidence why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry. My understanding about marriage is that it has little to do with sex organs but a lot to with wanting to be committed to one individual forsaking all others until death do you part, in other words marriage is about commitment. Did you know that the average length of lesbian relationships is longer than the average length of a heterosexual marriage?
ARA; 3/04/2004
What makes you think that the intolerance you speak of is going to change simply by providing the title of marriage to the union of homosexual couples?  Perhaps you should look at the intolerance that exists, and has existed in this world since the beginning, that has no relation to sexual orientation but to the evils that exist in the souls of mankind.  You are looking for perfection in a human world where it will never exist.  If it did there would be no homosexuals.  In my mind, each person is confronted with their own respective challenges that mankind presents to him/her and the manner in which they are confronted and dealt with is a measure of their mettle.  Else why where we put on this earth?
Mr. Y; 3/04/2004
After two thousand years of civilization, it wasn't until the seventies that the world of psychiatry proclaimed that sex was a good thing, would you believe that up to that time people really weren't sure. It is only in this century that women and children were freed of the designation of property and given full rights as human beings; that the murderers of black men are prosecuted; that rights are no longer based on ethic; that the death of the inhabitants of one ethic are as important as the death of another. It has only been this decade that there has been full awareness of racism, and that emotional and psychological abuse can be much more devastating than physical abuse, and that homosexuals should not be imprisoned for expressing their orientation. It is interesting ............did these changes have come about because the world economic system has changed, the economic system of the past required that women and children be property and that there be slavery, or was it  evil that created those injustices. Why we are on this earth is a good question..................I have avoided bringing up religious views, but to that question I will say that in the book of Micah 6:8 in scripture it says that god requires his people to love mercy, seek justice, and walk humbly with him.
ARA; 3/03/2004
What does all of this you state have to do with providing the title of marriage to the union of a homosexual couple?  In my view, nothing positive.  It will simply make more youngsters who would not ordinarily have thought of it to experiment with homosexual sex.  Many, because of the supposed social license provided them, who decide to enter into that lifestyle will find themselves confronted with psychological problems that have developed because of this activity.  So that much more work created for psychiatrists.
Unfortunately sex seems to be what predominates the minds of people these days.  You know there are other things of importance in this world besides the pleasures of sex.  The call by responsible people in our society to both sexes for self control of their sexual urges and the redirection of their energies to the betterment of society in other areas of social importance would seem to be in order.
It is too bad you interjected religion regarding this issue because it has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Mr. Y; 3/04/2004
You asked why we were put on this planet, sounds like a religious question to me. Who were you assuming was doing the putting.................when you make the statement that homosexual parents will make youngsters who
wouldn't ordinarily consider homosexual sex consider it. I find it interesting that you have made the decision that this problem is not acceptable when you previously said life is full of problems, deal with it. If this becomes a problem, cant we assume problems can be overcome. I mean if we’ve been able to cope with a serial monogamy, working mothers etc what makes this any different.
ARA; 3/05/2004  
Being put on this earth means different things to different people.  A non-religious evolutionist could say it, as well as a most devout religious person.  "Being put on earth" simply has no religious overtones whatsoever unless one wants to make it to fit into their own pattern of thought.  Regarding the rest of your email I can't make any sense out of it and thus cannot understand your point so as to even start to respond to it.
I can't see any purpose in pursuing this dialog any further.  Good luck in your life and pursuits.
Mr. Y; 3/06/2004
Thank you for the dialogue, I very much appreciated the interchange
In Association with
Enter friend's e-mail address:

  back to top
return to index page
to book shelf   to music shelf
Send your comments to