Is there any REASON gay marriage is wrong?

[Jonabob87]

My two reasons for being against it are as follows.
1. allowing gays to marry gives them the right to adopt children, something I think is wrong. If they want to do it themselves, I don't like it but I can't stop it. I think it's just wrong to allow them to screw up a childs life and steer them towards the same future just because you want to be more like a natural couple when you're not.

2. 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.

So your opinions on the rights of other human beings, who have done nothing wrong, are taken from vastly ambigious book written by a group of men a couple of 1000 years ago (the Old Testament is about 4000 years old I think - that's the one that has passages condoning rape by the way, and holds women to be inferior to men); and I'm sure there are plenty of passages that could be interpreted to accept homosexuality.

You also seem to assert that homosexuality is a choice, or something that can be passed on to other people simply by being around them. Which, y'know, is ridiculous.

Passages condoning rape? The tribe of Benjamin was all but annihilated in retaliation to a single act of gang rape in the Bible...

 

[Nimcha]

Wow 21 pages! And you guys are all arguing with the same dude over and over?

 

[Jonabob87]

I recon sexuality in society has been completely bisexual since we first realised we could make rational thoughts. In ancient greece, men would generally have a wife and a male lover on the side, and women commonly slept with other women.

When the Roman civilisation descided to conquer most of the world, they bought with them tyranical laws and ruels of society that are still enforced socially in todays society. The romans were also the ones who created the rules and laws of christianity which persist today as the founding religeon of the western world.

Some of the rules the Romans created were as such:

Men were only allowed to have one women, this meant that the emperors could have as many women as they wanted whilst emasculating the men in society and preventing an overthrow of government.

They also banned homosexual relationships, this meant that every man and woman was in a heterosexual relationship resulting in a larger population growth to expand their empire faster and create more warriors.

The Roamns basically used their populace as a resource for their own security and power, and for some reason a lot of their laws and rules still persist as socially acceptible norms when they totally go against our nature as human beings.

I recon, in the future, after people further regain they tollerance of homosexuality, we will turn into a bisexual society where it is commonplace for people to sleep with either gender whenever they feel like it.

The laws of Christianity were around long before the Roman empire even existed...

 

[orangeban]

I recon sexuality in society has been completely bisexual since we first realised we could make rational thoughts. In ancient greece, men would generally have a wife and a male lover on the side, and women commonly slept with other women.

When the Roman civilisation descided to conquer most of the world, they bought with them tyranical laws and ruels of society that are still enforced socially in todays society. The romans were also the ones who created the rules and laws of christianity which persist today as the founding religeon of the western world.

Some of the rules the Romans created were as such:

Men were only allowed to have one women, this meant that the emperors could have as many women as they wanted whilst emasculating the men in society and preventing an overthrow of government.

They also banned homosexual relationships, this meant that every man and woman was in a heterosexual relationship resulting in a larger population growth to expand their empire faster and create more warriors.

The Roamns basically used their populace as a resource for their own security and power, and for some reason a lot of their laws and rules still persist as socially acceptible norms when they totally go against our nature as human beings.

I recon, in the future, after people further regain they tollerance of homosexuality, we will turn into a bisexual society where it is commonplace for people to sleep with either gender whenever they feel like it.

The laws of Christianity were around long before the Roman empire even existed...

Not really, Christianity really became official (rather than just a radical branch of Judaism) after Christ's death, when the Romans were very much around. The laws of Judaism werer around long before though.

 

[spartandude]

I recon sexuality in society has been completely bisexual since we first realised we could make rational thoughts. In ancient greece, men would generally have a wife and a male lover on the side, and women commonly slept with other women.

When the Roman civilisation descided to conquer most of the world, they bought with them tyranical laws and ruels of society that are still enforced socially in todays society. The romans were also the ones who created the rules and laws of christianity which persist today as the founding religeon of the western world.

Some of the rules the Romans created were as such:

Men were only allowed to have one women, this meant that the emperors could have as many women as they wanted whilst emasculating the men in society and preventing an overthrow of government.

They also banned homosexual relationships, this meant that every man and woman was in a heterosexual relationship resulting in a larger population growth to expand their empire faster and create more warriors.

The Roamns basically used their populace as a resource for their own security and power, and for some reason a lot of their laws and rules still persist as socially acceptible norms when they totally go against our nature as human beings.

I recon, in the future, after people further regain they tollerance of homosexuality, we will turn into a bisexual society where it is commonplace for people to sleep with either gender whenever they feel like it.

The laws of Christianity were around long before the Roman empire even existed...

Roman empire predates christianity.

 

[Danpascooch]

Well, I find it kind of gross, but obviously that's my insecurities and isn't indicative of something they're doing wrong, GO FOR IT DUDES!

 

[Jonabob87]

I'm not a dumb person, but I don't have the slightest idea how gay marriage would hurt regular marriage. I would very much appreciate if someone who does know responds to this post. Thank you.

But no, there's no reason that gay marriage is wrong. It's all a crock of shit if you ask me.

It seems that American politicians on the conservative side like to claim it would destroy and moral core of America.

British Christians say that once it becomes legally accepted the next push will be to force Churches to house gay marriages.

The American one is ridiculous, the British one is reasonably sensible.

 

[Jonabob87]

I recon sexuality in society has been completely bisexual since we first realised we could make rational thoughts. In ancient greece, men would generally have a wife and a male lover on the side, and women commonly slept with other women.

When the Roman civilisation descided to conquer most of the world, they bought with them tyranical laws and ruels of society that are still enforced socially in todays society. The romans were also the ones who created the rules and laws of christianity which persist today as the founding religeon of the western world.

Some of the rules the Romans created were as such:

Men were only allowed to have one women, this meant that the emperors could have as many women as they wanted whilst emasculating the men in society and preventing an overthrow of government.

They also banned homosexual relationships, this meant that every man and woman was in a heterosexual relationship resulting in a larger population growth to expand their empire faster and create more warriors.

The Roamns basically used their populace as a resource for their own security and power, and for some reason a lot of their laws and rules still persist as socially acceptible norms when they totally go against our nature as human beings.

I recon, in the future, after people further regain they tollerance of homosexuality, we will turn into a bisexual society where it is commonplace for people to sleep with either gender whenever they feel like it.

The laws of Christianity were around long before the Roman empire even existed...

Roman empire predates christianity.

But it doesn't predate Judaism, which Christianity is an offshoot of and where it gets the 10 commandments.

 

[Jonabob87]

I recon sexuality in society has been completely bisexual since we first realised we could make rational thoughts. In ancient greece, men would generally have a wife and a male lover on the side, and women commonly slept with other women.

When the Roman civilisation descided to conquer most of the world, they bought with them tyranical laws and ruels of society that are still enforced socially in todays society. The romans were also the ones who created the rules and laws of christianity which persist today as the founding religeon of the western world.

Some of the rules the Romans created were as such:

Men were only allowed to have one women, this meant that the emperors could have as many women as they wanted whilst emasculating the men in society and preventing an overthrow of government.

They also banned homosexual relationships, this meant that every man and woman was in a heterosexual relationship resulting in a larger population growth to expand their empire faster and create more warriors.

The Roamns basically used their populace as a resource for their own security and power, and for some reason a lot of their laws and rules still persist as socially acceptible norms when they totally go against our nature as human beings.

I recon, in the future, after people further regain they tollerance of homosexuality, we will turn into a bisexual society where it is commonplace for people to sleep with either gender whenever they feel like it.

The laws of Christianity were around long before the Roman empire even existed...

Not really, Christianity really became official (rather than just a radical branch of Judaism) after Christ's death, when the Romans were very much around. The laws of Judaism werer around long before though.

Christianity became "official" a good hundred or more years after the death of Christ. They were originally called "Nazerenes" and later "Christians" as a derogatory term.

The laws of the Christian faith are virtually the same as that of the Jewish faith, which predates the Roman empire.

 

[spartandude]

I recon sexuality in society has been completely bisexual since we first realised we could make rational thoughts. In ancient greece, men would generally have a wife and a male lover on the side, and women commonly slept with other women.

When the Roman civilisation descided to conquer most of the world, they bought with them tyranical laws and ruels of society that are still enforced socially in todays society. The romans were also the ones who created the rules and laws of christianity which persist today as the founding religeon of the western world.

Some of the rules the Romans created were as such:

Men were only allowed to have one women, this meant that the emperors could have as many women as they wanted whilst emasculating the men in society and preventing an overthrow of government.

They also banned homosexual relationships, this meant that every man and woman was in a heterosexual relationship resulting in a larger population growth to expand their empire faster and create more warriors.

The Roamns basically used their populace as a resource for their own security and power, and for some reason a lot of their laws and rules still persist as socially acceptible norms when they totally go against our nature as human beings.

I recon, in the future, after people further regain they tollerance of homosexuality, we will turn into a bisexual society where it is commonplace for people to sleep with either gender whenever they feel like it.

The laws of Christianity were around long before the Roman empire even existed...

Roman empire predates christianity.

But it doesn't predate Judaism, which Christianity is an offshoot of and where it gets the 10 commandments.

i know, christianity is really just a branch of judaism

 

[TheSteeleStrap]

I'm all for gay marriage. If you do a little research, you will see that the dictionary definition of the word marriage already covers heterosexuality and homosexuality, so nothing needs to be changed. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage so that argument is down the drain. All the other ones have been rehashed and they are just stupid arguments to begin with.

 

[XHolySmokesX]

I would also like to note that calling gay marriage a civil partnership is giving the people who don't deserve a say the most importance.

Anyone who says gay marriage, atheism, sex (before marriage or outside of a relationship) and masterbation are wrong, are the kind of intollerant people that for some reason our society is trying to protect.

What i don't understand is, why doesn't our society embrace social change, it would improve our society miles miles more than actively destroying our social freedoms and praising those who support its destruction!!!!

 

[Hamster at Dawn]

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."

You kind of have a point but since a civil union is exactly the same thing as a gay "marriage" would be, why does it make a difference? You've just given it a different name but it's still the same thing. That's like saying "I hate eggs and they make me vomit, but if you call them 'pale delights' then I'll happily eat them".

 

[CarlMin]

I can find no reason why it would hurt me or society in general if we embraced all kinds of love. I have biases but I'm not about to let them blind me.

That rather depends. Pedophilia should probably still be outlawed.

Yeah, that doesn't really come under the 'love' banner. Paedophilia itself is harmless, it's when people act on it that it becomes a problem, and I don't reckon 'child molestation', which is what you're referring to, comes under the 'love' banner.

I don't doubt for a second that pedophiles experience real biological love when they are attracted to children, as sick and disgusting that thought might be. As do zoophiles and dendrophile for all we know.

I'm not saying it could possible excuse molesting a child or even that it's relevant aspect, no absolutely not. I just reacted on the expression "all kinds of love"

 

[Rofl-Mayo]

Quite frankly, I don't have a problem with it. I saw this thread last night and asked her this question and she said, "It's unholy and disgusting." I don't agree with her because it's not affecting any one else.

 

[jpoon]

I still like the idea of just renaming it for gay people. Just give it a new name so the religious freaks will shut up about it. South Park absolutely nailed it!

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155043/butt-buddies

 

[Woodsey]

My two reasons for being against it are as follows.
1. allowing gays to marry gives them the right to adopt children, something I think is wrong. If they want to do it themselves, I don't like it but I can't stop it. I think it's just wrong to allow them to screw up a childs life and steer them towards the same future just because you want to be more like a natural couple when you're not.

2. 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.

So your opinions on the rights of other human beings, who have done nothing wrong, are taken from vastly ambigious book written by a group of men a couple of 1000 years ago (the Old Testament is about 4000 years old I think - that's the one that has passages condoning rape by the way, and holds women to be inferior to men); and I'm sure there are plenty of passages that could be interpreted to accept homosexuality.

You also seem to assert that homosexuality is a choice, or something that can be passed on to other people simply by being around them. Which, y'know, is ridiculous.

Passages condoning rape? The tribe of Benjamin was all but annihilated in retaliation to a single act of gang rape in the Bible...

" First of all, in some passages God seems to tacitly sanction rape. In the Old Testament Moses encourages his men to use captured virgins for their own sexual pleasure, i.e. to rape them. After urging his men to kill the male captives and female captive who are not virgins he says: "But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves" (Numbers 31: 18). God then explicitly rewards Moses by urging him to distribute the spoils. He does not rebuke Moses or his men (Numbers 31: 25-27)."

"Second, when rape is condemned in the Old Testament the woman's rights and her psychological welfare are ignored. For example: "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father fifty skelels of silver, and she shall be his wife, and he may not put her away all of his days" (Deuteronomy 22; 28-29). Here the victim of rape is as treated the property of the father. Since the rapist has despoiled the father's property he must pay a bridal fee. The women apparently has no say in the matter and is forced to marry the person who raped her."

http://misslink.org/chapel/askaminister/bible/rape.html

From the first answer. And whilst the second answer disputes it, it does boil down to the real issue: interpretation. Even then, you may be interpreting the wrong thing anyway (the Bible wasn't written in English after all). And then, of course, there are the hordes of contradictions that pop up anyway.

I notice how you didn't dispute my point about women either (I assume you agree that its true), and of course, the guy I quoted probably ignores that too - why? Because its ridiculous to ever think you'd treat women like that in this day and age.

But gays? Oh no, gays are (supposedly) condemned in the Bible (depending on your interpretations), IT IS THE WORD OF GOD!

The whole thing is fucking ludicrous - the only life lessons people should be taken from the Bible are the things like "do not kill", and "don't be a dick". And if they can't work that sort of thing out for themselves then there really is a problem.

I still like the idea of just renaming it for gay people. Just give it a new name so the religious freaks will shut up about it. South Park absolutely nailed it!

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155043/butt-buddies

The problem then is that you're allowing religion to have an influence over law-making; a superficial one, perhaps, but one that should not exist.

 

[Racecarlock]

Let's face the facts here. The only reason gay marriage is still not legal in some states is because of a crippling addiction to "Tradition" and because some asshole named leviticus said "A man shall not lay with another man" in a religious book a few thousand years ago or something. So, there are no logical arguments against it, but does that stop them? Hell no.

 

[The Stonker]

No.

/Thread.

 

[Megacherv]

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

I should tell me sterile friend he can never get married then...

Probably, it would be kind of pointless.

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

Is this your view or something you've heard ever?

That barely makes sense. Have I ever heard my own view? Of course I have, it's what I think.

What about recreational sex? Are we no longer allowed to have that? Masturbation, that's a waste of time as well surely. People who are sterile can't get married and spend the rest of their life with the person they love? Of course, it all makes so much sense!