Is there any REASON gay marriage is wrong?

[Ashcrexl]

no reason, really. just two things. normalcy and brainwashing. more like anti-reasons actually.

1) society perceives the most common way of doing something to be "normal" and everything else to be "abnormal." gay couples are in the minority and therefore not normal and therefore to be rejected. peer pressure.

2)most anti-gays have been brought up from childhood by people who have also been brought up from childhood to believe gay marriage is wrong. it's a part of their mental system now. anything that goes against this is blocked out by a high-pitched whining noise. it is difficult to fight.

it's ok. things will improve. in the meantime, there is only waiting.

 

[meryatathagres]

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one does with a woman, to do so is an abomination." Im a conservative republican christian, you cant get much more biased than that.

Except you're not a christian. Or at least not a follower of Christ and his new covenant. Please study your leviticus harder, especially before you next time eat leavened bread (thats most bread).

 

[GodofCider]

...in the meantime, there is only waiting.

No, no. There is no waiting.

Go be the change you want to see in the world.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

I'm more against the evils of marriage itself, not who gets married.

You look like an elvish version of Edward Elric.

No, I don't.

 

[Giantpanda602]

"Marriage" shouldn't be even be up to the government in my opinion. Its something that is, at its core, religious. If religious institutions see gay marriage as wrong, then they shouldn't marry gays in that institution. They would need to find somewhere else to get married. That sounds callous, but if this is how it is run, there would be MANY places willing to marry gay couples.

Either way, the government should regard all unions are equal, regardless of were they were married or to whom.

 

[GodofCider]

I'm more against the evils of marriage itself, not who gets married.

You look like an elvish version of Edward Elric.

No, I don't.

Allow me to rephrase that.

Your avatar makes me think of an elvish version of Edward Elric.

 

[ChieftainStag]

Since this thread derailed somewhere around post #1, allow me to play a role:

"Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. "

-Adam Kolasinski

It's a reason, and a secular, non homophobic one at that.

edit: to give credit.

sorry I thought we had at least enough people to maintain society without constantly breeding. I guess that we actually did have a secret apocalypse and that is why all old game franchise reboots have the same name as the first. also dosn't the bride's parents pay for the wedding? just split it 50/50 for Gays or Lesbians and dosn't the government have to do waht simply amounts to marking them as married to each other? of course it's more complicated but arn't we having a problem with to many people?

alright rant over. my theory is (in simple) that the church (the homophobic ones) still have some small control over politicians. okay now I don't hate the church I'm a christian but I have another smaller theory that since the bible was written (if I'm correct) when the church had all the power and when let it go to their heads it's because the writers of the bible altered the words of god to fit what they wanted.

 

[Knight Templar]

"Marriage" shouldn't be even be up to the government in my opinion. Its something that is, at its core, religious.

No, no it isn't.
It was around before and apart from the religious concept of marriage, and all the legal benefits of marriage have nothing to do with religion.

The religious aspect is secondary, even today.

 

[meryatathagres]

As a christian it is wrong. The bible says in multiple places that men who give into lust for each other deserve the same fate as men who give into lust for a woman, and that no homosexuals will inherit the kingdom of god.

You're not a christian either, you're following judaism. See above.
The following phrase you said doesn't make sense: "men who give into lust for each other deserve the same fate as men who give into lust for a woman". That speaks about promiscuity. It compares men who lust after women to men who lust after men. In logical adaption we can shorten the phrase thusly: "men who give into lust for x".

As for: "and that no homosexuals will inherit the kingdom of god", there is no such verse in the bible and you should check the last page of revelations as to what happens to people who add or remove from the bible. Have fun with your plagues.

 

[Freeze_L]

With Catholics it comes down to the use of the word "Marriage". I have heard several times; from Apologizers and Priests and an Archbishop and a quote from Pope John Paul the Great; that if the name of marriage was not used than there would be no real objection. "Civil Unions" would be less of a big deal to them.
Catholics have some fucked up views on it, many are contradictory and in the end the advice goes down to "Follow the golden rule dumb ass, it does not matter if you do not agree treat them equally." AS far as i can tell most Christan say fuck it to everything they believe anyway, the world would be a nicer place if they did not do that shit.

As for fundamentalists, unlike catholics they often believe it can be cured. Big fucking issue right here, as that is a load of crap.

It is a matter of religion. Essentially call it something else and they will be happy. Rational pepole would then be fine and the irrational are just crazy.

Off-Topic: The pepole i would describe as true Christians (as in like Christ)are an Atheist, a Wiccan, and one Catholic.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

I'm more against the evils of marriage itself, not who gets married.

You look like an elvish version of Edward Elric.

No, I don't.

Allow me to rephrase that.

Your avatar makes me think of an elvish version of Edward Elric.

As you can see, I don't. I don't even have elvish ears. It must be the lighting.

 

[archvile93]

Because god says so. That's the best reason the objectors can come up with.

 

[LikeDustInTheWind]

I think "because it's not natural" was one of the biggest fails I've ever seen - as an excuse..

"It's not natural"
"Mate, where are you from"
"England"
"How did you get here?" (Northern Ireland..)
"I flew"
"That's not natural"

I win ^-^

I always go with "What car do you drive? Oh, a (insert car name here)? That's not very natural."

OT: Absolutely nothing. Close-mindedness is really the only cause of all the hate. And maybe some latent homosexuality mixed in too.

 

[ReservoirAngel]

It's against nature and through that, God.

1. It occurs in many species of animal all throughout nature
2. If God is against it, why did he ever create the concept in the first place?

I'm sorry, are you thinking of the animals that go through a sex change? Because I have never heard of gay animals other than the whole gay penguin bullshit.
He created the concept of heterosexual sex, and some idiots got skullfucked in the womb and decided that they liked it from the same sex. Ok I know it's never said in the Bible that it's wrong, but fuck it, it's FUBAR and gays should go burn on a ****** (that is technically a burning stick, I'm guessing it came to mean gays as they were burned at the stake (?)).

I wasn't aware animals (beyond Clown Fish[footnote]I think it's Clown Fish at least. Definately some kind of fish. If a male's partner dies, it changes its gender to become the 'mother', which makes 'Finding Nemo' wildly innacurate in that regard.[/footnote]) could change their sex. That's awesome! But no, I'm thinking of animals that display acts of affection or of a sexual nature with members of the same sex. There's a big list of the damn things but I can't be bothered to find it. Look it up somewhere, a simply Google will get ya there.
By the way "some idiots got skullfucked in the womb" is probably the most hilarious and equally nonsensical explanation for homosexuality I've ever heard. The idea of it happening in the womb bear some logic though.

Allow me to be boring and explain as best I can: when pregnant, a woman's body naturally recognises a male fetus as a 'foreign object', so to speak. You know, something that shouldn't be there. So her body releases antibodies to counteract this object and they, in a word, "feminise" the fetus, making the boy gay when he's born. This also ties into the theory that as a woman has more sons, her body gets more efficient at doing this, increasing the chances of her NEXT son being gay. IF that theory is correct (personally I like to think it is, since nothing else makes much sense to me) then "God" created the female's body with this function built into it. So it seems like weird reasoning for him: "You're body is going to do this when you carry out my primary directive for you, but if your body succeeds, so help me that child will be evil!" From a non-Christian standpoint, that sounds pretty damn stupid for an all-knowing deity.

And a note on the 'faggots' definition...I honestly don't know. At some point (and still today) a '******' is also a weird kind of meatball-esque food here in England. So really, who the fuck knows what went on with that stupid word?

And I thought a '******' in the MOST traditional sense was a bundle of sticks, not one big one that's lit on fire? Also, I don't think homosexuals were ever burned at the stake...unless one was suspected of witchcraft. Then that particular one might have been. But as a general practise, I don't think it ever happened widely.

 

[Enuvrackna]

But what about the fact that people can't just move to a nicer place due to money or job availability of certain professions? They would be stuck in a society where they are forced to be subjected to laws that make their lives less privileged then others. Unless transportation to more suitable states is federally provided, I don't think that level of state freedom is fair.

 

[NocturnalMajesty]

The National Government should have its hand in marriage (unlike a slew of other things) otherwise gay couples would not be able to move to states where their license would be invalid

 

[GodofCider]

Snip.

Regardless, your avatar 'still' reminds me of an elvish version of Edward.

Just happens to be the right position and angles; the hair covers up the top part of the ear, presenting the illusion of a short and pointy design. The face, like much anime, is more or less genderless, and the hair color is similar. Also the red clothing is a key feature.(obviously)

Of course...it's not like it matters either way.

Hmm...I never really liked that manga/anime much. Simply never took to the story.

Ah well.

So ya...kind of an odd topic. I wonder if the original poster happened to be having a conversation about it earlier that sparked the creation of the post.

 

[meryatathagres]

I also believe in Hell, and then eternal punishment in the Lake of Fire(from Revelation 20), however I just looked up the passage about it, and it struck me that it calls it a "second death" all my sleep deprived brain can think of is that could very well mean the death of a soul, but I have to wait until tomorrow to look into that, I must go to bed. Thanks [sub]it's 3.30 why am I still up?[/sub]

You struck the motherload. Grats for your enlightenment. Burning lake of fire is where the immortal soul is destroyed, like letters or photos burned in a fireplace. Hell originally meant separation from God. It means you cease to exist in God's creation. What fate could be worse? Even in hell in eternal torment, or any other conscious state, you could still hope. Those who are not saved, are destroyed for all eternity. (Then comes the philosophical question whether the memories of those destroyed souls are also wiped from the memories of the saved?)

 

[Dr. wonderful]

Okay, let me explain why the church don't allow for Gay marriage:


You can't procreate and there is no way to consumate the marriage. Other then that, it's cool.