Is there any REASON gay marriage is wrong?

[Dags90]

Civil union rights vary from state to state.

But none of them give you the federal benefits from civil marriage because of DOMA.

 

[GenericPCUser]

Because their religion says so.

They usually conveniently overlook the fact that I am not of their religion when making these sorts of statements.

I can only speak for moderate Christians but there is nothing in the new testament that is against gay marriage. The fundies get all of their ant-gay talking points from the old testament, which is an interesting read and important to know where we come from but is for the most part rendered moot by the new testament.

the fundies also get it from Paul
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#Christian_natural_law
summed up as any sex where a kid can not be conceived is hated by god and therefor is bad(also relates to masterbation,anal,oral,condoms, ecd)

this is where the "its unnatural" argument is from(despite it mostly being used for homophobia sake and people asuming no outher anamal on earth has homosexual relationships
)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

I believe that is what you're referring to.

 

[Tdc2182]

The weakest argument I've heard is actually the one that makes any sense at all, the fact that a man and a man can't get married because "marriage" isn't the correct term for it.

I'm still of the, "this in no way affects me at all, and even if it did I would find it in myself to not really care" category

 

[Eldarion]

(Before reading, please note that I AM in favor of gay marriage, in case you're very thick and don't get that right away)

You might hear people go on about how "Gay marriage is wrong", and "How it shoud be illegal" and so on. But I've yet to hear an objective reason for the case. They sometimes try to justify their position with "It would hurt regular marriage", but this is far fetched at best and a flat out lie at worst.

Fortunately these forums tend to be pretty open-minded on the matter, but if you happen to disagree with me, I'd very much like to hear a good, solid, factual reason to support your position.

EDIT: Lol, I finaly caught on to the error in the title X). I originally wanted it to say "would be" instead of "is" but forgot to delete the "be".

Personally I fond only one thing wrong with gay marriage.

The bible says that homo-sexuality is a sin, right? SO if we force a priest to perform a same-sex wedding, we force him/her to bless sin, and I don't think that's fair to the priest.

No one would be forcing priests to marry anyone. That doesn't make any sense.

 

[Dags90]

No one would be forcing priests to marry anyone. That doesn't make any sense.

I wouldn't quite say that. Remember, people are batshit crazy. I'm surprised there hasn't been an instance of armed forced-nuptials yet. Still, wouldn't be as crazy as microwaving a baby.

 

[Tdc2182]

If you don't think gay marriage is great, you get flamed.

No thanks, I'll pass on this one.

Oh wait, too late. Well, a reason many would think it's wrong.....

'Leviticus 18:22 (King James Version)
22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.'

There ya go. Keep your flame to yourself please. I only quoted the good book.

Cute.

I'll take your word for it that this guy a couple thousand years ago is a very trustworthy source.

 

[Twilight_guy]

This should be under religion and politics.

Also, here's a reason: The church is against it and wants the people who belong to the church to be against it. I'm part of that church and therefore follow what the church says.

Before you all go flying off the handle: no, no amount of flaming will change my mind and, yes, I know its a dumb rule. I don't care. No internet punk is going to change my mind and I don't want to get into another internet slap fight over this.

This is an objective reason against it. Its based on values rather then hard scientific study and facts, but by the same token you could never create an argument for it without values.

 

[WanderingFool]

Having been raised Catholic... I have no problem with it. Really, though, my attitude comes from the disillusioning and basi... know what, never mind... discussion for another day, and not for the middle of the night...

 

[GenericPCUser]

I find that any time anyone brings religion into a debate that is easily solved by reason they are only trying to complicate things.

Let's define religion. "A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny" is the first thing that popped up for me.

Now let's dissect that. "A strong belief"- a belief being a personally held sentiment that one specific person holds to be true regardless of whether it's right or wrong.

Off to a great start already. "In a supernatural power or powers"- supernatural means beyond what is natural, natural being what is true, so this meaning beyond the truth, or more simply 'not true.'

Now let's see just how this ends. "That control human destiny"- Now isn't that another way of absolving yourself of responsibility? If you aren't in control then it can't be your fault, right?

Hopefully you can see why I find religion to be a pathetic cop-out to a debate that has grown too difficult.

 

[meryatathagres]

This world would be such a nicer place if christians realized that the old covenant is indeed old. And that for example leviticus is an ancient jewish lawbook. It's about as holy as the Italian lawbook on taxation, or less so.
Just because it's in the bible doesn't mean it's word of God. Smart biblescholars can easily distinguish which writings are word of God thru Jesus or a prophet, and which are clearly just writings of the then in power establishment. (Jewish, then Roman.)

ps. Paul was one of those not inspired by holy spirit. He was a politician pure and simple. His letters twist and turn and interpret Jesus teachings towards an agenda. That's not holy, that's very human.

 

[GenericPCUser]

If you don't think gay marriage is great, you get flamed.

No thanks, I'll pass on this one.

Oh wait, too late. Well, a reason many would think it's wrong.....

'Leviticus 18:22 (King James Version)
22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.'

There ya go. Keep your flame to yourself please. I only quoted the good book.

Cute.

I'll take your word for it that this guy a couple thousand years ago is a very trustworthy source.

It doesn't matter if it was written by a guy 50 years ago. It's still a reason, and many MANY people look to this book for answers.

This isn't a debate on the Bible, it's what reasons do/could people have to be against Gay marriage.

You didn't try to insult my intelligence, or call me a bigot. Thanks for that. I wasn't sure if anyone like you would quote me.

For the record, I could care less if anyone receives the title of marriage ever again.
I see it as a tax dodge, or a religious ceremony.

In Japan, the Art of War by Sun Tsu is required reading if you plan to go into business. People may look to an old book for answers, but I have yet to see a Japanese businessman try to start a meeting by cutting off the head of the chairman.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

They sometimes try to justify their position with "It would hurt regular marriage", but this is far fetched at best and a flat out lie at worst.

The "it would hurt regular marriage" or "it would hurt children" arguments are, in fact, empirically wrong. Claiming either is also empirically damaging, especially to children.

But in general, this thread seems pointless. Most people have long since stopped pretending that they have an empirical, rational reason for rejecting gay marriage and the illegitimacy of all of the related claims has been established for some time now.

The reason gay marriage is "wrong" is because a lot of religions and cultures say so. You might be able to cook up some reason why it was a rational thing to avoid in the past, but at present the only reason you can give is force of tradition. As for why we don't override this tradition, the US in particular has a big, big prohibition against stepping on religious toes.

Also, the "because gay sex is gross" argument is pretty hard to make independent of the religious and cultural issues. In general, naive children don't really see anything weird about gay marriage or gay sex (well, any more than they tend to find sex in general to be weird).

Also also, legal gay marriage does not force churches to perform gay marriages. I wish people would stop and think before believing such nonsense. Churches don't have to marry people of other faiths or atheists. In fact, the civil institution of marriage doesn't require religion in any way - you just go sign a piece of paper. The religious side of gay marriage is a non-issue: the churches that are going to be willing to do it are already doing it for the most part and the churches that don't want to do it won't do it. The only thing you manage by outlawing gay marriage is to hurt the social and economic well-being of gay couples.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

£100 to anyone who turns up on the doorstep of the Westboro Baptist Church with another guy after gay marriage becomes legal and asks if they will perform the wedding.

An additional £100 if they slap Fred or Shirley.

And a ton more if they're so enraged they slap you, as omg the pleasure I'd have in seeing a gay couple sue them for assault, using the exact same lowdown tactics they exist by.

Get the right judge and maybe you could bankrupt them

Seriously, I think the 'reason' could be about gays not knocking out kids to further the human race, but look around, are we short of people? I know there's enough teenage girls around my way who would have benefited from more of the 'unnatural act of sodomy' when I see their faces as push the buggy around town. (I'm actually more critical of the guys in that area, just wear a rubber dammit, I'd wear two I'm so scared of creating more of me, if it didn't come across as rather unromantic )

 

[Dense_Electric]

Nice try, but it doesn't apply to me. The Bible is still a reason ( a damn good one for some ) that gay people shouldn't marry.

But you haven't answered my question: what separates those other things mentioned in Leviticus from the homosexuality thing? I don't see too many fundamentalist Christians arguing that slavery should be re-legalized, but homosexuality gets a ridiculous amount of attention. Why is one valid when another is invalid?

 

[direkiller]

Because their religion says so.

They usually conveniently overlook the fact that I am not of their religion when making these sorts of statements.

I can only speak for moderate Christians but there is nothing in the new testament that is against gay marriage. The fundies get all of their ant-gay talking points from the old testament, which is an interesting read and important to know where we come from but is for the most part rendered moot by the new testament.

the fundies also get it from Paul
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#Christian_natural_law
summed up as any sex where a kid can not be conceived is hated by god and therefor is bad(also relates to masterbation,anal,oral,condoms, ecd)

this is where the "its unnatural" argument is from(despite it mostly being used for homophobia sake and people assuming no outer animal on earth has homosexual relationships
)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

I believe that is what you're referring to.

Yea
was also pointing out people using that argument don't even know its origins or how to defend there point(and it starts being funny how wrong they are)