Did you guys know that there was a time when "Heterosexuals" were oppressed?
The Early Victorian Era, the Ideal was "True Love" a type of male-female romances that LACKED the aspect of sexuality. Sex was seen as a bad thing in general, sexual pleasure was a forbidden sin, and sex's only purpose was to pro create. They were not allowed to have sex for any other reason, and men and women were punished for even masturbating !
This occured between years 1820-1860.
Think about it for a second: Men and Women could not have sex in PEACE, they had the constant fear that what they were doing was demonic and they were taught to feel guilty for enjoying orgasms and sexual pleasure in general.
Any sex that occured without the intention OR result of pro creation not only warranted a "bad reputation" among men and women, but could have also gotten them punished by Law !
In the LATE Victorian Era, sex started to become defined differently. Over time the body began to be seen as something to gain pleasure from, instead of just something to create the next generation. "The Pursuit of Happiness" became the acceptable justification for embarking on sexual pleasure.
There was a time, a short time, where the erotic industy emerged and ALL KINDS of sexual explosions occured: "normal" sexual stimuli as well as "abnormal" or "kinki" sexual stimuli, all in the name of pleasure. There was no "natural" or standard" sex in this tiny era, sex was seen for pleasure.
Then the rise of Medical Doctors and Aristocratic influence began to define sexuality into a dichomoty: The Heterosexual and the Homosexual.
At first the Heterosexual was used to define a person who had sexual impulses for both sexes, and the Homosexual was meant to define a person "with the mentality of the opposite sex"
THEN, as scientific and religious debate occurred, Heterosexual began to be defined as a person who only desired the opposite sex....while homosexual was RE defined as a person who craved the SAME SEX...any person who was attracted to both sexes was labeled "psycho-sexual hermaphrodite" only to be called Bisexual about a century later.
Finally, due to religious and personal scientific bias, the idea of a "MASTER SEX" began to emerge. This occured after the idea of a "MASTER RACE" was shunned from social acceptance. To create a "Master Sex" was an easier way to keep one class down and the other upward, because sex is universal among all races.
Around 1901, the HETEROSEXUAL became the MASTER SEX, the privelaged, the "Norm". Different from the Victorian ideal, the one time "PERVERT" archetype became the "Healthy" ideal, and the Homosexual became the NEW PERVERT.
Originally posted by badabing
I wouldn't mind a civil union between gays that would give them the same benefits and rights of marriage, I wouldn't want it to be called a marriage though.
Why does it matter so much to you though? It's not your life, marriage is not something YOU OWN...what does it have to do with you?
Not to mention that civil unions is a "Separate But Equal" policy which is unconstitutional !
Originally posted by Storm
Homosexual men and women also fall in love. And once they find the man or women of their dreams they also desire to enter into life-long unions. Love and commitment between same-sex couples is the same as heterosexual couples and therefore should reap the same benefits.
Exactly. Well said.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Why does it matter so much to you though? It's not your life, marriage is not something YOU OWN...what does it have to do with you?Not to mention that civil unions is a "Separate But Equal" policy which is unconstitutional !
Side note:
In the EArly Victorian Era, Heterosexuality was not a term that yet existed, but the idea of a heterosexual....a man and woman having sex for the sake of pleasure was seen as disgusting.
The ideal was to be a NON-SEXUAL being. Due to religious justification, men and women were supposed to become "TRUE MEN" and "TRUE WOMEN", men and women who loved eachother WITHOUT Sexual encounter.
The only goal for sex was to pro-create, and even still it was looked down upon. If you had sex without bearing a child, you would be seen as unclean, ungodly, and susceptible to some sort of social punishment by Law !
Just so you bigots know that your "ideal" sexual orientation is NOT historically eternal or as powerful as you'd imagine it to have been.
Originally posted by badabing
Take it easy, I'm not bashing. My perspective on marriage is that it involves procreation. Marriage isn't a Constitutional right but is a privilege. Please IM me if you would like me to explain further. 😎
Actually, the US supreme court said Marriage was a basic right. Loving v Virginia (1967).
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Did you guys know that there was a time when "Heterosexuals" were oppressed?[b]The Early Victorian Era
, the Ideal was "True Love" a type of male-female romances that LACKED the aspect of sexuality. Sex was seen as a bad thing in general, sexual pleasure was a forbidden sin, and sex's only purpose was to pro create. They were not allowed to have sex for any other reason, and men and women were punished for even masturbating !
yes but sex was never a sin. as long as you were married. it is even stated in the bible that sex is not a sin unless you have it before a proper marriage. and some even believed that when (sorry if you think this is a bit....erm....innapropriate) that when you had an orgasm...that was the closest man came to connection with god. as a mortal being. so how would it have ever been a sin?
as for the initial question-i think that gay marriages are ok.why, these people have every right to live in an equal society with equal rights.... why should they nt be allowed to love and be loved only because their sexual orientation differs from ours.... other than that, they do it all like us only, yeah!