Is there any REASON gay marriage is wrong?

[LitleWaffle]

Gay people cannot reproduce, therefore they shouldn't get married or have sex ever.

Men cannot reproduce, which means that sex between two males will not produce any offspring.

OT: For the United States(since I live there), people say that it would infringe on traditional marriage.

However, that argument is quite odd, since the divorce rate is at an all time high without any relation to homosexuality.

PS: Frankly, I have no information on other countries and how they are handling gay marriage, and I apologize for my ignorance.

 

[Dense_Electric]

Jesus DID however speak a LOT about love, turning the other cheek, not being nasty, not judging... etc.

It's funny how so many "Christians" seemed to have missed that part. If we were going to follow any part of the Bible, why couldn't it have been that part? Honestly, divine or not, Jesus as he is described in the Bible seems like the most awesome, chill person who ever lived. Now if only more of his so called followers could be more like him.

EDIT: lol, I just realized, does Jesus strike anyone as what we might now call a hippie? Granted, without the drugs and the laziness, but as far as the whole philosophy of all people living together in peace, he's right up there with Wavy Gravy.

 

[Duskflamer]

I thought about putting this in my initial post but couldn't think of how to word it just right.
I do not aprove of it, but realize not everyone is christian and have the right to believe in what they want. It's like having a friend, or in this case a fellow human being, who you see doing something you know is wrong but they won't listen to you. Now I, once again, find myself searching for a proper sentence to say "I care, but I know people won't understand why I care" because as a christian I'm just trying to prevent them from going to hell, but they don't believe in hell so... I don't know what to say.

Alright, that is a somewhat valid argument (I remember learning something at some point about how christians have an obligation to 'save' people. Granted I heard that mostly in that it was used as an excuse to wipe out entire civilizations in the Americas but I digress).

Here's the thing though, let's assume for the moment you're wrong. I know you believe you're right, I'm not saying you're not right. But for the sake of argument, let's say you're wrong. There is no God (or, there is a God but not the Christian God), there is no hell for 'sinners,' there is no 'heaven' for the faithful. If we accept this for the sake of argument, then what have you accomplished by forcing others to conform to your ideals? Nothing except making someone else's life miserable for something you thought was true.

Also, assuming everything in the bible is correct, did God not give us free will? Are we as humans not free to choose our own fate? Make all the arguments you like, do your best to convert people to christianity, but there is no reason to impede on the free will of people who a staunchly opposed to Christianity, and you'd have more success trying to save people who are less adamant about the issue.

I appreciate your sensitivity, but I'm an understanding man and I hope you don't read this as me blowing up in your face
you seem to have this idea that christians are all zealots. I tried to say I had trouble wording that sentence because even what I ended up submitting misses that I don't want to force it. I tried to use the example of watching a friend do something you think is wrong because thats is what its like. I personally would never force someone to believe in something they don't want to. That never truly saves people. I believe the only real way to save people is to let them do what they think is right first. I, as a christian, believe God will uphold his rules, and when sinners defy him they will not be happy people. Then when they are confused, hurt, and not sure where they went wrong, that is when you go in and talk to them. Tell them that the reason they screwed up their life was because they were constantly doing things that God thought was wrong. My christian fellowship, at least, does not have strict, intimidating, "we're better than you" ideals, we simply do the right thing, such as not drinking, lying, cheating, stealing, fighting, killing, or, for the sake of this thread, having homosexual sex.
A forceful zealot christian has misread the bible because they did not pick up on what you already have when you're not even a christain.
A really good christian simply tells people what they need to hear when they've hit rock bottom and need help. That will truly convert more souls than an inquisition ever will.

That is actually a very reasonably road to take, however it doesn't give you a lot of ground to stand on with the main issue here. Namely, if you don't want to 'force' people to convert to Christianity, then why try to impose Christian law on non-Christians? (through banning same-sex marriage.)

 

[The Gnome King]

Jesus DID however speak a LOT about love, turning the other cheek, not being nasty, not judging... etc.

It's funny how so many "Christians" seemed to have missed that part. If we were going to follow any part of the Bible, why couldn't it have been that part? Honestly, divine or not, Jesus as he is described in the Bible seems like the most awesome, chill person who ever lived. Now if only more of his so called followers could be more like him.

EDIT: lol, I just realized, does Jesus strike anyone as what we might now call a hippie? Granted, without the drugs and the laziness, but as far as the whole philosophy of all people living together in peace, he's right up there with Wavy Gravy.

Jesus Christ, I am convinced, would be the biggest liberal democrat socialist alive today. If he were alive today.

He would *not* hang out with conservatives. Or the tea-party.

In fact I think he had a few choice quotes about how hard it is to get into Haven as a rich man...

 

[Jonabob87]

...

I live in a country where Muslims demand we bomb your country, and when we refuse they riot in the streets telling us that Mohammed is going to bomb us. No one is arrested.

Kind of a separate issue there; I'm sure we can find common ground in denouncing Muslim fundamentalists and their violent ways, as well as a notion that death threats and incitement of violence should be dealt with harshly, be they religiously motivated or not.

A nurse offers to pray for a patient on his death bed. He complains, she loses her job.

A Christian couple who own a BnB have a policy where they don't allow unmarried couples to share a room but they'll give them two rooms for the same price as the single. A gay couples this as an entirely homophobic rule and takes them to court. They win. They then try and sue AGAIN but halt the case due to the reaction of the general public.

Perhaps your society isn't quite as ridiculously unbalanced as mine.

Well, considering that Christians are no better in their desire to discriminate gay people, I find it hard to pity them. If they won't help secure equal rights for everyone, why would anyone care about them when they lose out?

If you want general support for legislation that accommodates for your religious views, then reasonably you'll have to support legislation that accommodate for other lifestyles as well.

Agreed, regardless of who it's imposed upon.

So yes to the state (if not the church) recognizing gay marriage then?

I've already said I have no problem with civil partnerships/state marriages. My problem is when people start demanding that churches marry gay couples.

I brought up the examples of Christian inequality because you seem to think that Christianity is the big boy who everyone bows down to and does what they're told.

 

[k-ossuburb]

It's no different than the idiots who opposed inter-racial marriages. Essentially, it's the same deal, I have absolutely no problem with anyone marrying anyone else regardless of age*, gender, race or beliefs.

Although, I do have a problem with marriage in general as I don't completely understand the point in it other than financial reasons and making things easier for the government when they turn you all into statistics. Not to say that I oppose it, I just think it's pointless.

*As long as the culture and law allow it, of course, but I was referring to people of, say 60 marrying someone of 20 (it happens, and I'm okay with that) but I wasn't referring to someone of 60 marrying someone of 6.

 

[Dense_Electric]

Jesus DID however speak a LOT about love, turning the other cheek, not being nasty, not judging... etc.

It's funny how so many "Christians" seemed to have missed that part. If we were going to follow any part of the Bible, why couldn't it have been that part? Honestly, divine or not, Jesus as he is described in the Bible seems like the most awesome, chill person who ever lived. Now if only more of his so called followers could be more like him.

EDIT: lol, I just realized, does Jesus strike anyone as what we might now call a hippie? Granted, without the drugs and the laziness, but as far as the whole philosophy of all people living together in peace, he's right up there with Wavy Gravy.

Jesus Christ, I am convinced, would be the biggest liberal democrat socialist alive today. If he were alive today.

He would *not* hang out with conservatives. Or the tea-party.

In fact I think he had a few choice quotes about how hard it is to get into Haven as a rich man...

Hah, he probably would have. Though I think the thing about getting into Heaven as a rich man had more to do with hording wealth than with simply accumulating it, but nonetheless you certainly have a good point.

 

[John the Gamer]

Nope. And I live in the Netherlands, which was incidentially the first country to legalize same-sex marriage. Yay for us! (Btw I'm not gay)

 

[Dexiro]

I disagree with using the term "marriage" because the idea of "marriage" as it is has been the same for thousands of years, and now we have to change it because... why exactly? Because less than 10% of the worlds population demands a change of ideas? What's next? "Marriage" to a goat? "Marriage" to your left hand? Once you break the defined nature of the language, where does it end?

Why not civil union? Why not a whole new word? Why must it be "marriage?"

By the way, that's Elton John's opinion, as well as mine. I'm not against civil unions, but I am against using the term "marriage."

I believe actual marriage has more legal benefits and it definitely has more sentimental value.

For thousands of years people believed women were inferior but that doesn't mean they were right. We'd simply be updating the definition with modern beliefs -

The change from "a man and woman that love each other" to "2 people that love each other" is hardly an unreasonable one and it's hard to see how it could become a slippery slope.

 

[Jonabob87]

If you say "I'm a Christian" then refuse to acknowledge something your Holy book says then you're not really being a Christian are you. If God speaks through it and says that homosexuality is wrong, turning round and saying "homosexuality is right" is completely contradicting what you're own chosen belief system says. You're choosing the label but not the belief.

There's not a single part in the old or new testaments that says homosexuality is alright, in four separate places (that I can think of) it says the opposite.

All Christians pick and choose what they wish to believe from their holy books. I don't know any Christians, for example, still following the Leviticus prohibitions against shellfish or mixing blends of fibers when making clothing, for example.

Other Bible verses Christians ignore today:

"Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says." (1 Corinthians 14:34)

"Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering." (1 Corinthians 11:13-15)

"If any man takes a wife, and goes in on her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, 'I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin..." (Deuteronomy 22:13,14)

"But if ... evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones..." (Deuteronomy 22:20,21)

And many, many others, like:

Lev 1:9
Lev 11:10
Lev 19:27
Lev 21:20
Lev. 25:44

Exodus 21:7
Exodus 35:2

Show me One.Single.Christian alive today who claims to follow EVERYTHING that the Bible teaches. He or she would likely be in jail, if he or she followed, say, Deuteronomy 22:20,21.

Just sayin'

Jesus DID however speak a LOT about love, turning the other cheek, not being nasty, not judging... etc.

The punishment for the laws of the old testament has been heaped upon Jesus, as they sacrificed animals back in those times. The animal would take on the punishment (death) for that persons sin. Jesus said he came to fulfill the law of Moses, which he did by being every single death mentioned in that law. Shellfish and eating blood and that is a different type of law (I forget the names of the three types of hebrew law). That would be for hygiene purposes.

With regards to the teachings of Paul, he so often said "I THINK that's what God says" to cover things he said.

My Bible says (I can't find it) "I do not" for those Corinthians verses. As in he himself doesn't allow women to talk or preach in churches while he is there. I think that's probably more down to his Hebrew roots than a revelation of the Lord. My personal beliefs of the Bible is that it is the inspired word of God, not a perfect book. If it were a perfect book it would make more sense. It gives two separate stories for the death of Saul, for example.

However when it comes to something that is re-iterated so many times in the Bible I don't think you can just push it aside.

Jesus DID however speak a LOT about love, turning the other cheek, not being nasty, not judging... etc.

Yeah, I wish the westboro baptist church had read that bit.

 

[Aedrial]

IMO It doesn't affect me at all so let them do as they wish. But I do believe that theres nothing wrong with gay UNIONS, but gay MARRIAGE is an entirely different thing. While they deserve to be equal you can't exactly go to all the various religions, who, on the whole don't exactly support this kinda thing and force them to accept it.. well that would be breaching their rights and would be just as bad as banning gays from 'existing', if you get my drift. Anyway to each their own, it's not my thing, but I can understand if that's what people want.

 

[Kortney]

I wouldnt consider myself a homophobe, and if i had some gay freinds that decided to get married i would attend thier wedding. however, i do not believe gay marriage should be legalised based on religious principle. that being said, i would not vote for it, but i also would not boycott it or protest it.

marriage was first a religious institution, and while it is now a governmental institution i still consider it a religious event. as my religion (christian) has marriage between a man and a woman, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman, i tend to disagree that it should be legalized. however, i do feel that a gay couple should have every right a married couple has, tax incentive wise and such.

Do people get divorced in the eyes of God too?

That's always puzzled me.

Why does that puzzel you? God set down the laws for divorce as part of his pro-women's rights agenda.

Bah! What's next, is God going to legalise cannabis!!?!!?!

 

[Jonluw]

Well, marriage is a thing the church does, and if they consider homophobia an inherent part of their religion, I don't think it's anyone's right to force these petty people to give their blessings to someone they do not want to.

The church doesn't - to my knowledge - have a copyright on the word 'marriage' though, so why can't homosexuals just marry in the courthouse or something?
Why would they even want to get married in the house of a god who - apparently - despises their very being?

 

[Gigano]

...

I've already said I have no problem with civil partnerships/state marriages. My problem is when people start demanding that churches marry gay couples.

Well, if it's a state church then it can't really discriminate against homosexual members, but otherwise privately run churches can marry or not marry who- or whatever they want as far as I care. All that matters is the secular legal availability of a marriage to all persons, all that weird religious stuff I'm more than happy to leave to the religious.

Seems we're in agreement then, at least concerning private churches.

I brought up the examples of Christian inequality because you seem to think that Christianity is the big boy who everyone bows down to and does what they're told.

Not really - I would be a perfect example of that myself - but it does seem to contain the most vocal bigots in regard to condemning and persecuting homosexuality, which is one of the reasons I don't care much for it (or these segments of it, more liberal denominations probably exist as well, though they're bound by their scriptures in how others must view them), and find it a petty and calcified world view.

I certainly harbour no misconception that the conservative kind you seem to represent is at all influential or widespread here in Western Europe though, otherwise our societies would be much more bleak. But it's still the main bastion for homophobia and discrimination against gays in general, and thus I naturally home in on it when talking discriminatory ideologies.

 

[direkiller]

I wouldnt consider myself a homophobe, and if i had some gay freinds that decided to get married i would attend thier wedding. however, i do not believe gay marriage should be legalised based on religious principle. that being said, i would not vote for it, but i also would not boycott it or protest it.

marriage was first a religious institution, and while it is now a governmental institution i still consider it a religious event. as my religion (christian) has marriage between a man and a woman, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman, i tend to disagree that it should be legalized. however, i do feel that a gay couple should have every right a married couple has, tax incentive wise and such.

Do people get divorced in the eyes of God too?

That's always puzzled me.

God is very picky about who can divorce who at which time and under which situation
http://www.religioustolerance.org/div_bibl.htm

 

[Richard Eis]

No. In fact it's good because it will actually soak up some of the children in need of adoption.

Oh and if two people having sex freaks you out then you have a problem. It's just sex, get over yourself. Or at least stop watching it

 

[Ironic Pirate]

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.

If we're getting all fascist with out reasons now, then regular marriage doesn't serve any purpose either. You don't need to be married to have kids, and if the state could choose reproductive partners for people it could be much more efficient.

 

[reActionHero]

No, do what they want, just between the four walls. I don't like watching two men kissing each other in the street, or doing pride festivals.

I don't like watching a man and a woman kissing, or doing pride festivals (fucking mardigra) so cut it out.

I truly believe that a gay couple offend more people, than a "normal" couple. I'm not homophobic BTW, just don't like watching it. Of course, french kissing in public also offend people, but when homosexuals do the same, it's another level.
Actually, in Eastern Europe. That's how it works here.