Should Same Sex Marriage Be Allowed?

[Reborn Outcast]

As some of you may know (and for those of you who don't) my state of Massachusetts' Supreme Court has just voted to allowed same sex marriage. That makes us (If I'm correct) only the second state to allow that.

 

I don't approve of this. First off it goes against my religion (but ignore that for those of you who are going to get on me for that, because I have another reason.) Second, male and female anatomy were made specifically for the purpose of reproduction. Therefore, it is my belief that if two people are having sex, or committing sodomy (this includes anal sex between a man and a woman) in a way that cannot produce children, it is wrong.

 

Take note that these are MY beliefs, I do not expect anyone to agree with me.

 

Now, discuss (and please, no flaming).

[Gabez]

Okay. ;D

 

I can't help but make a little comment on religion. I happen to be a Christian myself, but I don't see homosexuality to be wrong in the least. Sure the Bible says that it's wrong, but the Bible says a lot of things - such as people who eat fish are sinners. I personally believe that Christianity should be regarded as relatavist, not absolutist. After all, when Jesus was asked what the most important law is, he said love thy neighbour (or words to that effect). Isn't tollerating same sex marriages loving your neighbour, then? Remember no-one's forcing you to marry a man. ;

 

You say that not using your male anatomy to fullfil it's natural purpose is morally wrong. This is a valid point (thought up by Aquinas in his theory of natural moral law no less!), but does this then mean that anything that doesn't live up to it's natural purpose is wrong? By this line of logic, contraception is morally wrong, because you're not using your penis to breed children which is what it was designed for. In addition masturbation is wrong for the same reasons. This, however is debatable - can you really condemn people for such acts? Surely if contraception keeps unwanted births down then it is morally good? If you make the move to say that it is only wrong in certain situations then it's not clear as to when it is morally acceptable and when it is not; thus your argument gets lost.

 

On Edit Furthermore, if you're talking about the natural thing being the most morally right, then surely going against being gay is going against what is natural for you? It's like telling you, a hetrosexul, to be gay. It goes against who you are and - if we're taking the religious aproach - who God set you out to be. You can't help the way you feel just as you can't help liking sex and breathing.

[SkinWalker]

First off, let me say that I think we can all agree that many of those influenced even moderately by their religions are going to see that "same-sex marriage" is counter to their beliefs. Suffice it to say this now, so we can all get past this point and move on to looking at the issue in a critical way rather than a theistic one.

 

In examining this concept critically, I challenge anyone to come up with a valid reason of why "same-sex marriage " should be prohibited.

• We've set aside religion, so let's skip that.
  
• The argument that marriage should be between those able to reproduce doesn't hold up: there are 6 billion people in the world; plenty of unwanted children; plenty of unfit parents; etc.
  
• Also, there are plenty of married people who cannot conceive already, so by disallowing marriage between those that "cannot conceive" they'll be included.
  
• There is no supporting evidence that homosexuality is any more likely to occur with children who are raised by homosexual parents; and
  
• even if it were, there is no logical reason to care whether someone's sexual preference includes those of one's own gender
  
• The argument that "same-sex marriages" are more likely to fail than sexually diverse marriages won't fly either. In fact, I'd bet my next pay check that, if anything, studies will demonstrate more stability among "same-sex marriages."
  

 

The way I see opposition to homosexuality is very simple: it's a form of racism. Homosexuality is as valid a characteristic of race as any other characteristic, in fact, I'd argue that it is more so than skin pigmentation.

[Gabez]

I couldn't agree more with that, and the fact remains that there is not one valid argument against it. If you think you have one then please fire it me and I bet I'll be able to disgard it. ;D

[ShockV1.89]

First off, on the religion thing: Don't make laws that force people to live according to your religion. Religion is a choice. If people choose not to make that choice, that is their right. It means nothing to God if they're being forced to live that way anyway.

 

Second, on anatomy being made "solely for reproduction purposes."... why is it so damn pleasurable? Heck, sex can be a whole lot of fun. It's also great excercise, and it relieves stress. It also is a great way to bring a couple together in a deeper way. Reproduction is the end result, yes. But why throw away all those other great benefits just because you don't want the end result.

 

Third: What's the big deal? What's it to you if two gay guys wanna get hitched? Are you somehow being hurt by it? Does it cheapen your marriage or the marriages of any other straight people? Do you think that suddenly your son is going to want to be gay and homosexuality is going to become the "in" thing, like bell bottoms and Britney Speares?

 

Hardly. It's pretty clear at this point, despite what the conservative right and religious elite would have you believe, that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, but rather biological. You can't help who you are, so why should you be given the shaft by society for it? Like Skinwalker said, it's the same as racism.

 

Feet were made specifically for walking/running/standing. Therefore, using them to drive cars is wrong.

Ears were made for hearing. Therefore, piercing them is wrong.

Tongues were made for tasting. Therefore, french kissing someone is wrong.

 

See? None of those make sense, do they?

 

Face it. This all comes down to religion. People dislike homosexuality on the basis of religion, and then try to come up with reasons beyond the Bible to justify it to non-religious people.

[Tyrion]

Righto. Let's create more bastard children in a world full of 'em. Righto.

 

I hate all this "must reproduce, must spread my chiiiildren!" talk. Why dont we just have sex with different women every day? After all, drinking beer and watching tv wont get you children..

 

Even so, which is really better for the world..for a gay couple to have a child(via adoption or surrogate mother), which means that the child WILL be wanted. Or the gays to be "split" apart, thus being unhappy in thier new marriages, all so that they create more children.

 

Do you really think that simply forcing the gays to reproduce will give us a better world?

 

The only negativity with gay sex is the possible organ damage(after all, two male bodies werent made to have sex with each other), but that's probably an accepted risk.

[El Sitherino]

What about men that marry women who are incapable of giving birth? Does this mean you don't think they should be married just because no children can be produced? ( I'm asking this to see your personal feelings not what your religion says)

 

Also, how is it that people always gang up on the sodomy when the bible also says oral sex is not allowed nor is porn of any manner, but that also brings to mind that in the 1500's and 1600's porn was distributed inside of bibles on the pages.

[Lathain Valtiel]

I will say this. I challenge the homosexual community then to thus support the rights of transexuals in the same breath. I cannot honestly support same sex marriage unless at the same time polygamy, transexuals, etc are also made legal.

 

I don't care about same sex marriages. HOWEVER, I oppose those who do not in the same breath go to legalize every alternative lifestyle. It smells to me of hypocrisy. (A LOT of gay supporters I've seen on TV do this. They try to argue that somehow homosexual issues should be given credence over transexuals. this is bigotry and hypocrisy.)

 

On a side note, I will refuse to support it as well if it is obtained by underhanded means. Namely, imposed by a judge in the case of the United States. Judges should not and do not have the power to make laws. Hell, in the Massachusetts ruling a lesbian judge said her our court did not have the power to force the legislature to make a law.

[toms]

agree with almost everything that has been said. I can't see any reasons NOT to allow it, except those based on religious grounds.

 

Those religious grounds are applied so unevenly (with people ignoring a lot of other things it says in the bible) that i don't think they can be used as a justification, and are usually just used to disguise people's own prejudices.

 

Most of the african anglican church that is threatening to break away from the COE on the issue of homosexuality either condones or turns a blind eye to widespread polygamy, for example.

 

Even if people do believe in the bible i would hope they have enough self belief and responsibility to read it as somethng that was written by men a long time ago and has most of their beliefs and prejudices built into it as much as the words of jesus.

[NileQueen]

Interesting thoughts.

 

I don't care about same sex marriages. HOWEVER, I oppose those who do not in the same breath go to legalize every alternative lifestyle. It smells to me of hypocrisy. (A LOT of gay supporters I've seen on TV do this. They try to argue that somehow homosexual issues should be given credence over transexuals. this is bigotry and hypocrisy.)

 

I guess gays can be "racists" too.

 

I think SW is betting his paycheck because there is a high rate of heterosexual divorce. But are there statistics on tracking long term gay couple relationships and then breakups? Of what I know of the gay community, there seem to be more short term and shallow relationships than otherwise, but I don't know how representative that opinion is.

 

If the laws are changed to accommodate same-sex marriages, what other parameters of marriage might also be challenged? There might be an outcry for polygamy next....

 

I think it all comes down to treating your partner with respect and consideration. I am undecided about the legality of same sex marriages. The reason heterosexuals marry is that traditional society (and religion) expects it, the legal system (and society) can put them into a category, and it gives structure to society. If same sex couples marry, then they would also have the ability to have same sex divorce....$$$

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Most of what I would have said has been said already (in more than one thread, by the way:p), so I'll only add my view: If you do something by choice to someone else who by choice wants you to do it, and it is not to attack anyone or anything, and it hurts nothing and no one*, it's not right.

 

Thus, being a homosexual is as right as being a pedophile or an animal fetishist**. But having sex with a child or a doggie is a violation of the child's and doggie's boundaries and causes mental and possibly physical injuries.

 

Excersisng homosexuality by mutual choice, however, by means of anal or oral sex, masterbation, oral contact with private parts and so on, is not harmful*** and thus not morally wrong.

 

Footnotes

*I know homosexuality may offend homophobes and others who do not support homosexuality, but I exclude these people because homosexuality, as long as it's practiced in an appropriate way, is not meant to be harmful.

**This because pedophilia and other conditions are not chosen.

***As long as no diceases or unwanted results are produced by unsafe and irresponsible behaviour.

 

Dagobahn Eagle

[Reborn Outcast]

Two things.

 

Of course it is everyone's personal opinion. It is my personal opinion that homosexual marriage should not be allowed. To me, (I am not homophobic, I have friends who are gay) the idea of one man or woman sharing that special feeling and emotion with another man or woman is just not right. This is my personal opinion. I may not even have any reasons to back it up (not including religion).

 

Also, a female who is not able to give birth or a man whos sperm is not correct is different from homosexuality. These are physical defects that could occur through time, violence, or an accident. The links below (after the next paragraph) suggest that homosexuality could be with a person from birth. (I hope everyone sees what I mean, I did not write that to clearly.)

 

However, it is true that the left (or right side, I can't remember which) of the male or female brain in a homosexual is different than that of a heterosexual person. In a male it is formed more like a female's brain, leading to the attraction to men, and vise versa with females.

 

Second Paragraph

Here

Here

 

This is not my excuse for believing that homosexaulity is wrong, I'm just pointing out that there could actually be something that affects the brains of those who are homosexual.

 

And Lathain Valtiel, those are some nice points there.

 

Originally posted by InsaneSith

Also, how is it that people always gang up on the sodomy when the bible also says oral sex is not allowed nor is porn of any manner, but that also brings to mind that in the 1500's and 1600's porn was distributed inside of bibles on the pages.

 

You have to remember that in that time period, the church was doing all sorts of immoral things that led to Luther's Reformation and Cavinism and the Wars of Religion. The Catholic church in that time was a VERY messed up thing; they were selling "tickets" that would take away sin, selling away positions away in the church, all to get more money. This was why Luther nailed his 95 Thesis to the church door. There were misguided people leading the church then.

 

Just one more thing. What type of pornography are you talking about? Was it "actual, harmful, meant to give men self-pleasure porn" or was it art, paintings of famous Bible scenes.

 

Anyway, back to the topic.

[griff38]

Oh yes, why not?

They already do everything they want anyway.

We all know it would be wrong to pass laws making these relationships ilegal. That would be immoral.

 

Personally I believe diversity is a key to human survival and non hetro sexual interest is simply an expression of diversity.

 

I love you all. Stay out of my way or I will kill you.

[ShockV1.89]

This is my personal opinion. I may not even have any reasons to back it up

 

Really, why post it then? You know someone is going to dispute it, especially in the Senate. So what happens when someone does that (which they have) and you don't have anything to back up your opinion? You end up looking stubborn and thick-skulled.

 

Not to say you do. You provided reasons, however much I might disagree with them. And now I will proceed to say why:

 

First of all... you say that it "doesn't seem right" to you. Fair enough. Lots of things dont seem right to lots of people. But does that mean that it should be illegal? Golf seems stupid to me. Dressing up in funny clothes to whack a ball around a big open field in the hot sun doesn't seem right to me at all. But it's not hurting me, so why make it illegal?

 

Secondly...So what if homosexuality is biological? From what I'm reading in those articles and your post, that's what you're saying, right? That's what we're saying too!

 

So why not let these people live normal lives? Shall we say to them "You cannot get married, even though you deeply love this man." One might make the argument that homosexuals are handicapped, in that they do not have the capability, should they choose to marry a member of the same sex, to reproduce.

 

But this isn't the same thing as telling a handicapped person "You can't run in the Olympics because you can't walk!" Homosexuals getting married is something that is perfectly feasible and realistic, and their "handicap" is not what's holding them back from it. Society is.

 

In response to Valtiel: I agree. When people push for the rights of homosexuals, they should also be pushing the rights of any (harmless) alternative lifestyle. You can't pick and choose which one is ok, because they're all ok. So yes, I would push for legalization of all harmless alternative lifestyles, as long as they don't impose on anyone else.

[Master_Keralys]

Homosexuality is not natural. It's not. Regardless of what the left says, it is mostly behavioral. If it wasn't, people couldn't be "cured", so to speak. In other words, though people may struggle occasionally with homosexuality after turning away from it, they overall are capable of moving on and having normal, loving, heterosexual relationships.

 

It's an excellent point about the length of relationships. Actually, studies have shown that most gays/lesbians don't stay together very long at all. Actually, the maximum most homosexual couples stay together is two years; many are together much less.

 

And most don't want marriage. Why bother, when you can get all that and not have to deal with the legal issues? It is the extreme left that is pushing for legalization of gay marriage, because it suits their agenda. Now, I'm not saying it's a conspiracy or anything, just as the conservatives don't have a conspiracy against homosexuals. I don't even hate homosexuals. Though I am a strong Christian, I can deal with them. I don't have to like it though, nor do I have to "tolerate" it in the modern sense of the word. That is, I can condemn their behavior as morally wrong without saying that they are bad people - from a Christian perspective they are no better or worse than anyone else, though their actions are horrible.

 

The thing is, though, that the extreme left doesn't like the traditional family, because the traditional family represents traditional values and ideas, which are in direct opposition to the leftist agenda. Like it or not, when it's clear that the homosexuals themselves don't want marriage but leftist judges are setting it up and the ACLU is claiming that all gays want to be married (even though statistics show they don't), something begins to seem a little fishy.

 

All religious issues aside, homosexual relationships are not marriage, unless we completely redefine the word.

 

Marriage: the mutal relation of husband and wife; the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependece for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.

 

That's out of Websters. Also, in a more practical sense - who are we to think that we can overturn what every civilization has said?!!! No major civilization has approved of homosexuality except in its decadence. Rather, all societies spurn it for the simple reason that it is not natural.

 

It's not really biological either. The studies showing that it's "in the family" do not take into account other factors - namely, the family itself, whether other family members are gay/lesbian (and can thereby influence the person being studied), etc. Rather, they are careful manipulations of numbers to show what is wanted to be shown. They also ignore the fact that while genetics may have some influence, they are obviously not all-controlling since people have turned away from homosexuality.

 

I happen to be a Christian myself, but I don't see homosexuality to be wrong in the least. Sure the Bible says that it's wrong, but the Bible says a lot of things - such as people who eat fish are sinners. I personally believe that Christianity should be regarded as relatavist, not absolutist. After all, when Jesus was asked what the most important law is, he said love thy neighbour (or words to that effect). Isn't tollerating same sex marriages loving your neighbour, then? Remember no-one's forcing you to marry a man.

 

I'm not sure where you're coming from here. If you think that Christianity is capable of being interpreted relativistically, then you're not reading the same Bible I am. It's either true or it's not; to deny that denies the fundamental tenets of Christianity - but that's a whole nother can of worms that we can talk about in one of the Christianity threads; it really doesn't belong here. As far as eating fish goes: those commands were given for health reasons, not moral reasons. Finally, loving your neighbor does not mean letting them get away with something defined as wrong. From a Christian perspective, you love the person, hate the sin. (Mind this is a response, so no one flame me or even argue with me on this: I'm not making an argument to the overall case, but to the argument he presented and nothing else. Thanks ) Actually, we should in love correct them. That's what Christ himself did (the occasion where he cleared out the temple which had filled with money-lenders and whatnot comes to mind. They weren't bad, but their actions were and he dealt with them). Just as loving parents discipline their children to teach them how things should be done, so does a Christian explain the Biblical perspective on homosexuality - not in condemnation, but in love. I can't abide those who say, "You're going to hell b/c you're a homo, no choice and no redemption." It should be "Your sin is deadly, turn away from it and to Christ."

[El Sitherino]

Actually most other cultures accept homosexuality. Hell look at the greeks, the roman's, etc.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Damn Insane Sith beat me to it...Yes, The ancient greeks are one of the major civilization who accepted homosexuality. If you think the ancient greeks are not a major western civilization you got a problem...

 

It's obvious people condemn the "act". Why should you care about the "act"?

 

Is there anything to care about?

 

I'm a leftist and I want a wife and some kids, a normal family, yet I support homosexual marriage.

 

As was said before, for pete's sakes separate religion from this! They never asked any religion to accept same-sex marriage! Most arguments against this are religious. Yet we live in democratic countries, not religious republics. We've learned to separate state bussiness and religion adn I suggest we keep it this way. We don't want a new Iran.

[Reborn Outcast]

Yes, religion seems to be the only arguement against homosexaulity... however, when it is told to jump off a cliff in every discussion that takes away one more arguement from that person.

 

And, homosexuality is abnormal. For whatever reason, humans evolved/were created in two distinct genders, along with most other animals. One can infer that a being from one gender would, naturally, mate with the being from the other gender. However, why bother with genders at all if we're going to have men with men, and women with women. Why don't we reproduce asexually with an ability for that immense pleasure and emotion as common as a cold, and able to be turned on and off. That is one of my qualms.

 

(And I would like to apoligize in advance if someone who is reading this is a homosexual and is offended by what I am writing. I am not trying to offend, I am just stating my opinion.)

[lukeiamyourdad]

It is not abnormal. It existed thousands of years ago and still exists today.

Heck even some animals have homosexual tendencies and yet they are physically normal as every homosexual man or woman.

Like I said, the act is no one's bussiness but the persons involved in it.

It's like in the 1800's. Black people, asian people, latin american people were called inferior adn physically abnormal. It seems hate has transported itself from nationality issues to sexual orientation issues.

[Tyrion]

I suppose you could say homosexuality is "abnormal". But it's still natural, since it happens in NATURE with animals. Dogs, cats, monkeys, ect.. But answer this.

 

Would you rather have two gay parents raising up a child who else would be in a shoddy orphanage, or two still gay(no matter what..they will be gay. Just like you cant turn gay, they cant turn hetero) people in a marriage with people they dont truly love, and thusly have big arguments with each other, affecting the children's psyche, creating even more screwed up children in a world full of them.

 

Besides, the homosexuals can always get a surrogate mother. Thus getting a child if they wanted to.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

Homosexuality is not natural.

 

It occurs with relative frequency in nature, i.e. primates & dolphins (and these are advanced mammals compared to other animals).

 

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

It's not.

 

Based on what evidence? My evidence says it is.

 

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

Regardless of what the left says, it is mostly behavioral.

 

The left of what? To let this settle into a left versus right dichotomy is inaccurate and ignores critical thought processes.

 

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

If it wasn't, people couldn't be "cured", so to speak.

 

Show some evidence of a "cure," and I'll start listening to what you have to say on this... until then, you're only stating an opinion or hope.

 

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

In other words, though people may struggle occasionally with homosexuality after turning away from it, they overall are capable of moving on and having normal, loving, heterosexual relationships.

 

How do you know? What empirical evidence do you base that assumption on.

 

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

It's an excellent point about the length of relationships. Actually, studies have shown that most gays/lesbians don't stay together very long at all. Actually, the maximum most homosexual couples stay together is two years; many are together much less.

 

I'm interested in reading this study, can you cite a referance?

 

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

And most don't want marriage. Why bother, when you can get all that and not have to deal with the legal issues?

 

Because there are certain rights that are missing, which include the right to make decisions regarding children and inherit estates as well as simply file taxes. Among many, many others that legal marriage entails.

 

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

It is the extreme left that is pushing for legalization of gay marriage, because it suits their agenda.

 

That's a cop out explanation. Why does it suit their agenda? Human rights? Shouldn't that be on the agenda?

 

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

Now, I'm not saying it's a conspiracy or anything, just as the conservatives don't have a conspiracy against homosexuals.

 

 

Some might disagree. There is a proportionally large number of conservative right that is comprised of the so-called "moral majority" or "christian right." These extremists seek to oppress homosexual behavior in remarkably similar ways as they once did blacks in this country.

 

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

The thing is, though, that the extreme left doesn't like the traditional family, because the traditional family represents traditional values and ideas, which are in direct opposition to the leftist agenda.

 

More political bull**** about a dichotomy... this kind of thinking from both the so-called left and the so-called right is ruining our country. People don't think for themselves any more, but trade their critical thinking for the views of those that are like them. They create an other to unify their group. Like the old man said... "the thing about that little purple thing in chicken crap is... it's chicken crap too."

 

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

All religious issues aside, homosexual relationships are not marriage, unless we completely redefine the word.

 

Things change all the time in dictionaries. The English language is influanced by the society.

 

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

Also, in a more practical sense - who are we to think that we can overturn what every civilization has said?!!! No major civilization has approved of homosexuality except in its decadence. Rather, all societies spurn it for the simple reason that it is not natural.

 

We covered the "natural" part. Most major civilizations also approved of slavery at some point in their histories... people used to be stoned to death for adultery... castes and classes once precluded many from education or employment opportunities...

 

It's called progress.

 

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

It's not really biological either. The studies showing ...

 

What studies. Cite some references, please.

 

What amazes me is that in the year 2003, there are still those that think homosexuals choose their "lifestyles." A look at history will show that homosexuality has been in existance for as long as history has been recorded and, based on primate studies, probably before we had culture. It also amazes me that there are those who are willing to make a dichotomy out of this issue: Left versus Right.

 

The bottom line is, there is no legitimate reason to prohibit the marriage of two people of the same gender. Tradition isn't a good enough reason, that it's not natural fails as an explanation, that the world might not continue to be populated fails, that god is against it doesn't even deserve consideration in a modern secular society, and that the traditional family will break down doesn't work either. That happened in the 1970's.

 

For a supposedly advanced society like ours, we certainly can be barbaric and savage when it comes to human rights.

[Reborn Outcast]

Animals have gay sex to show family love, or they are just plain ol' horny. (Excuse the crude language.) We have no idea whether animals can actually have gay relationships, such as two "married" male animals.

[ShockV1.89]

I still pose the question: How does it harm you? How does two guys wanting to get married hurt you?

 

Keralys, you claim the "left" (and I hate it when people start talking like Rush Limbaugh) doesn't like the "traditional" family, because it stands against what they believe.

 

This is wrong, I think. The so called "left" is simply pushing for the rights of people who may not want to live in a traditional family. It's not saying that those who want to stay that way can't. It's not like homosexuals are pushing for a law that says men can only marry men.

 

Rush Limbaugh sucks. (sorry, just had to throw it in)

[El Sitherino]

I'm glad gay marriages are being supported, even though I'm not gay. This makes me glad because it means people are starting to open their f*cking eyes. I want a wife and kids and a happy stable marriage, so does this mean that I should be against gay marriages because they'll somehow cheapen mine?

Keralys, your assumptions make me sick and extremely confused.

 

PS: Rush Limbaugh does suck.

[cekaikay]

Keralys, do you live an a little tiny box? Have you ever met a functional gay family? I have met several, and I don't find them to be any different from my "normal" family.

 

I am, in fact, an extremely devout Christian. In my (note the stress on my) opinion, homosexuality is a sin and is morally wrong. However, I am not against gay marriage in the slightest. Our country was founded on the basis of religious freedom, and everyone in this country has the undeniable right to practice religion as he or she chooses. So, then, who are we to try to dictate them in what they may or may not do based on OUR beliefs? By shoving my beliefs down someone else's throat, what am I achieving other than making them think that all Christians are close-minded bigots?

 

I also beg to differ with your point that homosexuality has been shunned by every culture since the beginning of time. In the days of the ancient Romans and Greeks, women were seen only for reproductive purposes and men were sought out for "pleasure." I realise that this was not true for every Greek and Roman man, but it was a huge part of their culture at that time. Also, I feel that if it was not for the fact that men need women to reproduce and vice versa, it would not be considered morally wrong to be homosexual. The only reason that a man chooses to be with a woman is because he needs to have the ability to reproduce and that's how he gets it.