Is there any REASON gay marriage is wrong?

Recommended Videos

Killing_Time

New member
Mar 7, 2009
230
0
0
Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman for thousands of years (mostly for paternal purposes). I have no problem if two men or two women want to have a special union of their own, but just don't call it marriage cause that's not what it is. Marriage is held by many to be a sacred tradition, and allowing homosexuals to use the word "marriage" for their unions devalues the whole concept of marriage for a lot of heterosexual couples. Besides, if homosexual relationships are by definition "different" or "alternative lifestyles" doesn't it make sense to call their unions something different then what "normal" unions are called?
 

BlackWidower

New member
Nov 16, 2009
783
0
0
The best argument I've heard is that if you let them marry, next they will adopt kids and those kids well end up screwed up because of the aura of gay sex in the house. What they fail to provide is any evidence to back that up.

"The only thing that's true, is what has been proven." - Me
 

orangeban

New member
Nov 27, 2009
1,442
0
0
The Cadet said:
orangeban said:
Dorkamongus said:
orangeban said:
Apoligies if you can't be bothered to answer this, but is Mormon the religion branch which believes you become angels if your good enough after death? Because if so, you are definetly one of the most awesome religions I've heard of.

My captcha included an accent on a letter, that's not fair :(
Short answer is yes. If you are good enough, you can indeed become angels after death. I'm not really comfortable discussing religion in a public setting. However, if you want me to explain further, I will try my best.
No, it's fine, don't do anything you don't want to. Just saying your religion sounds pretty cool. If I had to choose religion from a "who gives the best rewards" policy yours sounds pretty nice.
...You've never heard the song "Engel" by Rammstein, or looked up its translation, have you... Also eternal bliss >>> being an angel.
Hmm, I'd rather the religion come out and say "you get to be an angel". It's always a good idea to try and eliminate wriggle room in contracts for the other person.
 

White Deer

New member
Mar 28, 2011
48
0
0
Honestly I think that it's okay.I mean they will get married and then what?They'll get a divorce after a few years just like all of the heterosexual people.
 

masticina

New member
Jan 19, 2011
763
0
0
No!

Really I have heard no good reason why it would be bad. I heard allot of ridiculous reasons though! Reasons that make you shakes your head at the people at that accept them. Really how does Jim and Mark marrying do anything bad.

Hell NOM's let gets out the children "I don't understand it" .. now that was low. Very very low.. how these guys even dare to call them self Christian. Woo!
 

Rinji

New member
Feb 9, 2011
123
0
0
There is no good reason why people who love each other very much shouldn't be allowed to get married. I say it this way because, when you get right down to it, that's all it is. Two people who love each other.

No one should give a damn about them having the same gender. They're in love, let them get married.
 

Lordpils

New member
Aug 3, 2009
411
0
0
godfist88 said:
some people tend to think that if gay marriage is legal then it would set a precedent for other "more weird" types of marriages, like polygamy. but i think that's a little far fetched.
I see absolutely no reason either should be illegal. How does it effect anyone if your neighbors are two gay married men or one straight woman married to 4 men? Personally I think to illegalize both makes no sense whatsoever.
I have never heard a reasonable argument to keep them from being married.
 

Krion_Vark

New member
Mar 25, 2010
1,700
0
0
kidigus said:
The reason Gay Marriage is seen as wrong is because it is something that is introduced by the bible and according to the bible thumpers being gay is wrong therefore gay marriage is wrong. If marriage wasn't a religious thing then gay marriage wouldn't be wrong but with the view points of the world as they are today then gay marriage is wrong because of what it supposedly says in the bible.

Now that I think about it can't people sue the US Government for acknowledging marriages but not civil unions for not keeping church and state separate?
 

somonels

New member
Oct 12, 2010
1,209
0
0
Homosexual can't make more subjects, so why give them the economical benefits that are supposed to encourage that?
Just to clarify something, the paper the state gives out is not marrige, it is a legal contract. Marrige is a cultural tradition from the christian teachings, which only the church can grant.
 

orangeban

New member
Nov 27, 2009
1,442
0
0
somonels said:
Homosexual can't make more subjects, so why give them the economical benefits that are supposed to encourage that?
Just to clarify something, the paper the state gives out is not marrige, it is a legal contract. Marrige is a cultural tradition from the christian teachings, which only the church can grant.
Well, homosexuals who want children almost always have to adopt so they take pressure of the state care system which equals more moneyz! Also, we shouldn't decide wether people should be equal according to the economic benefits, otherwise we'd still have slavery.
 

Saarai-fan

New member
Nov 12, 2009
213
0
0
My official opinion is this; Gay marriage should be legal and it won't harm normal marriages. Whenever somebody says it will harm marriage, they're usually talking about, "Bibical marriage." Marriage that says it can only be between one man and one woman. Trying to push that into law is basically trying to enforce a religious belief down on everybody in the Country through the law. Which is itself, somewhat illegal itself according to the 1st amendment of the Constitution. Quote, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." To enforce a rule based on a group or somebody's own personal religious beliefs, is intruding on all those who religious beliefs say that the subject in question is ok to have. Not all Christians interpret the Bible as saying that homosexuality is a sin, nor do all religions. I mean, if the majority of America's population were Islamist (I'm just using a example here, I have no problems with Islam), it wouldn't be right for them to enforce a law in the country that all within it cannot eat bacon, when many of those within the country says eating bacon is ok because their religion has no problem with it.

I personally think marriage should be up to the Churches and other religious places of worship, and that government's only role is to give out the Marriage licenses. If one is against gay marriage, they should just be a member of a church that doesn't recognize gay marriage or provides gay marriage services. This way, those who want to gay marry or support it can be part of a church they know of that does support it, while those that disagree can be part of a chruch that doesn't. Some of course, would still have a problem with gay marriage. Some will of course, point to the Bible talking about Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that if Gay marriage is allowed, it will offend God, and God will personally see to the destruction of any person, church, home, town, city, state, or country that allows Gay marriage. That they're trying to protect them from offending God and receiving his wrath, including any innocents that may get harmed someway in the crossfire. Again, this is enforcing their own personal religious beliefs through law on those who may not share the belief.

Another personal belief I have, and this is just a theory I personally have, is that it maybe somewhat a genetic defense of sorts. We as a species of human beings, at least some of us, strive to see that our DNA and it's history passes on to a new generation. That those who fear gay marriage, fear their children would view it as saying they can find "love" within those of the same gender as themselves. And since two people of the same gender can't really, "make a baby," the parent thinks to themselves, "Oh no. My child is gay. My family line ends with him or her, because he or she can't make babies with somebody the same gender as he or she." Yes, indeed, Gay people can go to sperm banks and so on to make a child, but perhaps this information doesn't register in the minds of some of the parents. That it's not human, and therefore, evil. They want to see that their family line continues, and want to see their child marry somebody of the opposite gender so they can possibly have children of their own naturally. Again, this is a bogus thing for those against gay marriage to act.

Again, I say, it should be left up to the churches, and government's only role in marriage is to give out the Marriage licenses. And yes, this means I'm ok with polgamy being practiced in every state if one's own religious beliefs says it's alright. Whom am I to say it's wrong, unless if it's trully something that can harm somebody, like stealing or killing someone. That's just plain common sense, not religious belief. The only things I don't think should or would be allowed, is those bellow 16 or 18 depending on the state cannot get married unless if approved by parent or guardian, and no animal marriage. Animal marriage is just a stupid idea and something people pull out of their asses to say where legalizing a certain kind of marriage will lead us. Again, that's just stupid BS.

In conclusion, Gay marriage is ok and it shouldn't harm anyone's marriage. Period.
 

Dorkamongus

New member
Jan 11, 2011
62
0
0
orangeban said:
Dorkamongus said:
orangeban said:
Apoligies if you can't be bothered to answer this, but is Mormon the religion branch which believes you become angels if your good enough after death? Because if so, you are definetly one of the most awesome religions I've heard of.

My captcha included an accent on a letter, that's not fair :(
Short answer is yes. If you are good enough, you can indeed become angels after death. I'm not really comfortable discussing religion in a public setting. However, if you want me to explain further, I will try my best.
No, it's fine, don't do anything you don't want to. Just saying your religion sounds pretty cool. If I had to choose religion from a "who gives the best rewards" policy yours sounds pretty nice.
Heh, I can do you one better about this one then... There is a way (That I will not mention here, as it will get me flamed so bad I'll have a nice tan) that God will actually raise you up to his own level, giving you all of his powers and knowledge. essentially, He makes you into a god yourself.
 

outcesticide69

New member
Nov 10, 2010
43
0
0
Well marriage in the united states was originally introduced by Christianity, and many Christians find it offensive, but even though marriage is between a man and a women there are civil unions which give a gay couple the same legal rights as a married couple. So unless gays are apposed to compromising, i feel its completely alright for a civil union. Otherwise they're just bitching and complaining like a kid in a toy store asking his mom for an expensive toy another kid's mom bought. :p
 

Mr Binary

New member
Jan 24, 2011
235
0
0
I don't see anything wrong with it. It doesn't really affect myself or society in a negative way. In fact, that's a form of freespeech so it helps society in a way....
 

Dreiko_v1legacy

New member
Aug 28, 2008
4,696
0
0
My problem with gay marriage is not an ethical one or a moral one, it's in the semantics.



When your menu reads "grilled chicken" and the actual dish is grilled beef, regardless of how good the grilled beef tastes, regardless if it's better than the grilled chicken, it still is and can never actually BE grilled chicken.


Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. No matter how much they love each other or how much they deserve the same rights, two men/women will never be a man and a woman, thus can't get married.


Simple. No?
 

DonMartin

New member
Apr 2, 2010
845
0
0
GenericPCUser said:
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.
I can see your logic, but only because you use your own definition of the word "religion". I kind of think that in order to view something objectively and understand it, you can't have your own definitions of words that everyone use. You kind of admitted the almost spontaneous subjectivity in the definitions yourself:

GenericPCUser said:
...the first thing that popped up for me.[...]
Personally, I think this hardly seems like the grounds for a objectively logical argument. However, I would sort of understand if you were saying this to state your personal opinion, but this doesn't seem coherent when you also wrote

"To everyone still using religion as a defense for bigotry allow me to direct you to a previous post of mine."

above the quote of your previous post.


Also, this seems even more important for someone who says they consider "reason" as something universal. I mean, even rationality can differ from person to person. To some it might seem perfectly logic that bright red is always bright red,(the colour stays the same no matter the circumstances) but others may say that bright red is no longer bright red when it is in a shade or in the dark, (it now has the appearance of a darker shade of red, therefore it is one) for a simple example.

Now, to return to the definition of religion..

It seems that your spontaneus interpretation of the word "religion" seems to fit the more accepted, or maybe more common view on believing in a god/gods.

"...that control human destiny..."
Im sorry, but I don't understand what this has got to do with religion? Even most branches of christianity, which I presume (and I apologize if I presume incorrectly) is the belief you most directly aim your critizism towards, state that god gave man free will. Now, if you by destiny mean Heaven or Hell, that's a different thing.

"...whether it's right or wrong..."
Don't people believe in god because they believe he exists? They hardly believe in him AND consider it to be wrong, I mean. And as such, is it not right, or true, for them and people of their belief? Highly subjective, right?

"supernatural means beyond what is natural, natural being what is true, so this meaning beyond the truth, or more simply 'not true.'"
Again, your definition of supernatural seems to be very personal, too much so for using it as an argument against "religion".


Please note, though, that I mean in no way to offend you or critizice your capability of rational thinking. Im just pointing out some things in your post that made me think. If I have misunderstood, please tell me.

(as for OP: I stated my opinion in the post above this one. Not that there would be anything particularily intresting about that.)