Originally posted by: *Woh Ajnabee*
I still think that two men in a relationship was not nature's intention (replacing God with nature just so we can all relate, people usually get a lot more worked up when religion is brought into anything).
Oh, I see. Would two women be okay😛
@Gauri di, I think God is a major part of this, or more so religion. The differences in our beliefs come from our faiths, and that's why I disagree with gay marriages --- not because I'm disgusted, but because I really do think that its wrong, if that's me being ignorant so be it.
I don't think it's due to the difference in our faiths. Currently, pretty much all religions oppose gays with equal vehmenance (sp?). I see gay-ism (not sure whether it's a word or not) more as a social issue than a religious one. People are hell bent on giving it a religious twist because, generally speaking, it is easier to force certain beliefs down people's throats in the name of religion. Most people have this tendency to accept religious teachings/preachings without question. That is why people opposing gay unions are so hell bent on using religion as their crutches.
However, people keep missing one important point - religions have evolved with time as well. Lot of things religions used to be rigid upon are acceptable or common practice now a days. Gay unioins will also be accepted widely after some time. It's all just a matter of time - kind of like a black getting elected as America's president years after our nation's sordid past of racial discrimination. Someone here narrated this line during the [residential race debate:
"Rosa sat so that Martin can walk. Marting walked so that Obama can run. Obama ran so that future generations can fly. "
So, you see, even racialism faded over a long period of time. I am pretty sure people will get used to gay marriages in future as well.
The point of my argument really is that if its not nature's intention, we should not go against nature. Stubborn, aren't I? 😆
Well, if you are now going to use nature as your savior here then let me point out that unicellular creatures like bacteria or amoeba or virus exist in the very same nature jis ki duhaee tum dey rahee ho and these creatures are capable of reproducing without any external factor. Don't remember the name of the process now but if I am not mistaken, it's binary fusion. It has been ages since I took biology. Plants have also known to reproduce using budding. Therefore, it was never nature's intent that union should be or can only be between two heterosexual beings. And even if the sole intent of man-woman union is procreation then isn't it high time we start going against this particular will of nature like we have so many times with helping barren women conceive with donated sperms or folks having test tube babies? Since science has beaten the very purpose nature put hetrosexuality in place for majority of species, per you, then what's the point of hanging on to something that may not be as relevant today as it was in past centuries?
Peace out.