Gay Marriage

31 January 2014
1 Comment


Q: Esteemed Committee, we turn to a well publicized, popular subject with controversial opinions,
marriage between humans of the same gender.
C: We do say, to understand the convention is to understand marriage.

Q: Many people say they do and the opinions differ, controversy right on its tail.
C: Humans have created marriage and it is no different than any social grouping, that it exists
because the participants and sometimes observers choose that. You are free to ignore this system, this
society you have.

Q: Homo- and heterosexuals alike say it's inside and within them from birth.
C: Yes, often pairings and preferences by gender are planned for a life.

Q: What about the idea homosexuals have switched physical genders but retain the preferences of the
other gender from a previous incarnation?
C: This occurs yet we say, such notion also derives from a human Earth understanding, and assumes
a preference for a current life must be attributed to a combination preferred or more desirable from the
view of the current life as applied to a prior life. The lesbian today retains the role of male from a prior
life, and to this a preference is attributed, that it is more normal or typical the male & fe-male bond. More
common we say, yet not more normal. Homosexuality is as typical as heterosexuality; the difference is
lower incidence or rate of occurrence.

Q: Are there homosexual arrangements in other physical beings on Earth? The more complex
beings?
C: Yes, however not to the same degree. The occurrence is more rare yet quite different as courtship
and interchange socially, living arrangements, domiciles, abodes, residence and location all operate
differently. The emotional interchange is far less and expressed in different ways, among animals of
Earth. We say, romantic bonds and sexuality are not always connected in humans, yet strong is this view
on Earth.

Q: Makes sense, cats and dogs hook up pretty much to make babies.
C: Yes, the reproductive function predominates, it prevails among animals. This your anthropology
understands well.

Q: So what about the reproductive function in humans?
C: Human fertility requires no document or agreement a social compact might produce; copulation
serves the function in the same way for humans as with other complex life forms, animals as you say.

Q: So human sexual behavior and reproduction, long connected and now unhooked through
understanding of biology, means what?
C: It means what humanity chooses. Beyond conception then birth, all of you understand the role of
human intimate behavior. The pleasures, pains, the benefits and otherwise.

Q: I always understood marriage as a good way, and for much of human history, nearly the only
way, to be intimate with a girl.
C: For you are male thus many females willing to couple with a male include you in the possible
range or group for that arrangement. These behaviors, like language, family roles, education, diet and
many others are chosen, learned and developed behaviors. This you know well.

Q: The intimacy issue is pregnancy; the dilemma at ending a life before its opportunity or being
compelled into a long term arrangement because of the pregnancy. These don't affect same gender
relations, they don't imperil, affect, create or force it. I always understood marriage protected against
abandonment, of a child and a mother needing protection.
C: Yes, it is a social convention created to achieve commitments from the creators of a human body.

Q: So without marriage, would women and babies be abandoned?
C: Marriages can be broken and the spouses and offspring abandoned, this has always happened and
will continue.

Q: The effect on society would be so bad.
C: We suggest not so much; the notion a parent should be involved with a child is a social creation.

Q: If there are no fathers around, the children, male and female alike, suffer consequences not too
positive.
C: In your social conventions. These can be changed.

Q: OK, let's look at relationships, intimate, between people of the same gender. What's the
difference?
C: No difference, the range of preferences, approaches, interactions and behaviors follow similar
patterns, without regard to gender.

Q: I see marriages between people of the same gender as fundamentally different than marriages of
opposite genders, because of child bearing. The same sex arrangements connect for gratification; the
opposite sex for reproduction, although lots of gratification is possible.
C: We understand this view, yet heterosexual couplings which occur for gratification only are more
common than the homosexual variety, more limited to gratification. Social acceptance plays the large role
in recent development.

Q: Sure, criticism of homosexuality is common.
C: Yes, and we ask, to what end? What purpose is served?

Q: The common view is homosexual marriage will change society and many will not like it the way it
becomes.
C: To answer this, we wish to introduce bisexuality.

Q: Never thought of that; youre right, it's a gratification behavior not a social convention.
C: Why or why not? Can you not compel, through social arrangement, obligations for cohabitation,
sharing and access to assets and so forth, an agreement between three or four? Polygamy is still known in
many human societies. Do the several female spouses of the one male in such arrangement have no
homosexual tendency or behavior? We do say, this occurs.

Q: OK, how about polygamy of one female and several males?
C: Less common and not sanctioned by social convention or arrangement yet entirely possible.
Reproductive drive lessens this, as the virile male would prefer sole access to the female, by social
convention.

Q: Why do you say, "by social convention"? Many large animals have dominant males who fight off
other males seeking to copulate with their chosen mate.
C: In human societies, a female can more easily conceal her copulation with several males, if she so
chooses. Common this is, as you know. Animal life has not this aspect.

Q: Could there be homosexual behavior among the several male spouses of a single female if such
living arrangement were to become practice?
C: Of course; sexual attraction operates independently of social agreement. Behavior is expected to
fit practice; ideas and thoughts concealed if so chosen.

Q: What effect will homosexual marriage have on societies as they exist?
C: By the numbers, little. Rates of homosexuality, of the desire and preference for intimate emotional
bonding are three to five percent of the specimens of any group of humans. Less might choose the marital
arrangement, as has always been the case with the convention of marriage. The ninety five to ninety seven
percent will not marry, divorce, reproduce, copulate or otherwise alter behavior because of the three to
five.

Q: The push for acceptance of homosexual marriage sounds like a push to force acceptance, or a
push to claim acceptance or a desire to reward or punish ideas.
C: This stance is not limited to social arrangements, as you know well. Humans have always sought
to castigate or reward ideas and opinions, in general.

Q: Why would a homosexual person choose a lifetime with this preference and feeling?
C: To understand oneself better; we shall venture to say, the many of you have lived lives as both
genders and both intimate preferences. Hetero- and homosexuality are well known to nearly all of you.

Q: Why do some people find the idea of homosexuality revolting?
C: For similar reasons some of you, nearly all of you, would find the idea of consuming animal food
in the same way. There can be an element of social training, pre-life planning or a combination.

Q: I don't believe most homosexuals find heterosexual contact revolting, even if avoiding it.
C: Social training and convention. When examining attributes, qualities and traits, physical and of
personality both, that one finds attractive, humanity accepts that some people are deemed more appealing
and others less so, independent of gender. There are many, often complex combinations.

Q: Will marriages between adults of the same gender become more common?
C: Acceptance will become this way; the percentages among a population will not be material.

Q: Do interracial, or as is often said, biracial couplings follow many of these patterns?
C: Yes, another example of social training. Religious affiliation and belief, nationality by political
division, physical traits and appearance all matter more or less, in many circumstances. These will
continue to be regarded as less important.

Q: The rejection of homosexual marriage, criticism of it originates in what?
C: Self rejection can be a component for some critics; just as infidelity can cause strong reaction and
emotion.

Q: That's a topic for another day.
C: We agree, we sign off and wish you all well.
Comment
Ahmed 02/02/2014 8:00am
Well explained by The Committee, thank you.