Is there any REASON gay marriage is wrong?

[FolkLikePanda]

Suppose it's tradition. Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman (there's probably been some exceptions with Spartans or Romans or shite like that) which may be blamed on religion or just blatant homophobia and to be honest I would find it weird if a bloke said "This is my husband". However, many people marry for the sake of it or for the benefit rather than two people loving each other and so if two people love each other then they should be able to marry regardless of gender similarities. Really it should be up to the church if they allow and/or recognize gay marriages in their buildings, afterall marriages are usually a religious ceremony but I suppose that non-religious ceremonies can and do take place. To me, just let them get on with it as logn as it doesn't harm me or bug me in anyway they can do what they want. It's not something I'm against but it isn't something I would support.

Again, it's not just that marriage has always been "between a man and a woman". It's also "always" (that is, up until just a mere few hundred years ago, IF THAT) been a transfer of property, the property being the woman. This "new" marriage has been redefined COMPLETELY with the liberation of women.

(Fucking spam shite code thing I only posted one comment today!)
Anyway On Topic: So you're basically saying that before that marriage was mainly the fact of a woman becoming a mans property but now it is more about the love? If so, then I see why many people feel gays should be allowed to marry, afterall one man owning another man who also owns him seems very strange. But still its not something I would support. I still find homosexuality weird but I know some gasy people and to be honest their sound enough chaps but still the thought of a man being in love with another man I don't fully understand.

 

[MrGalactus]

Do you know what the queers are doing to the soil? [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xuvcpjf1JU]

 

[Therumancer]

[
Just on your financial points, should marriage therefore be disallowed between :infertile couples, couples who don't intend to have children and the elderly. (For reasons previously stated.) Maybe there should be a fertility test at the marriage and it should end with "Till death do us part, or fail a fertility test under section 12 clause B of the marriage contract."

Arguably, yes it should, if someone wanted to pursue that for a law.

HOWEVER, I would also say that I don't think the goverment should be involved in marriage anyway, and if they are going to provide such benefits it should be provided to the legal guardians of a dependant in a general sense.

I'm a Christian, but also believe in the seperation of church and state, and think that the goverment involvement with marriages comes too close to that line, and being institutionalized like it is becomes a point of referance for other cases where there is spiritual influance on the rule of law where there shouldn't be.

Ideally, marriage should simply be between those involved and their church/community, I don't think the goverment should be involved to begin with.

So while you could regulate it the way your talking about to balance the laws as they are now, I'd personally just take an axe to the whole thing all together.

My arguements however are based on reality (which is why I didn't say that to begin with) and dealing with the laws as they are now. Not how I think things should ideally work.

One thing I think a lot of people don't understand when it comes to social issues is that it's always a lot harder to put the genie into the bottle (so to speak). Sometimes you wind up dealing with things that are fundementally broken, but can't easily be dealt with, and can just run damage control to try and make things worse.

See, to me, argueing that it's not fair that someone else can exploit a system you can't doesn't typically hold much weight, other than to say that you need to re-do the whole system. Two wrongs don't wind up making a right, and letting someone get away with exploitation because other people are doing it, is just plain messed up.

Not to mention the bottom line of how many people are going to be affected, to people viewing an issue like gay marriage from the outside it seems harmless. The reason why the authorities waffle though (even if they start out as supporters) is because of the costs involved to everyone else. Maybe it's not fair that there are married couples who do not have children, and will not have them, are receiving tax breaks, but everyone is used to that and the system accounts for it already, as broken as it might be. You change the law so more people will draw those benefits without the intent, and lose that money to the tax breaks, your just making the problem worse.

 

[Stevepinto3]

It is wrong simply because it is unnatural. Even the animals have enough sense to know what to have sex with and what not to.

On the Christianity side of it, it is denounced multiple times in the Old and New Testament.

With all that being said, I don't think it should be outlawed because I don't think that anything should be outlawed that does not hurt someone else. You should be free to do what you want.

While I think it is great that you don't wan't to force your beliefs on others, I have some Questions...

1) You do know that homosexuality does occur in the animal kingdom?

2) What about all the other things Levictus forbidds but no one cares about? Why aren't those as important?

1) Yes Ide forgotten about that example, my apologies. However, I will still hold to its unnatural nature because outside of the animal kingdom it can serve no purpose. (Animal purpose theoretically could be establishment of dominance)

2) Regardless of if Leviticus forbids other things or not, it also reinforces the denouncement in the New Testament. And considering most Christians consider themselves to be under the New Law, that is all that matters.

1) Aaaaand, so what? Know what the only difference between a gay and straight couple is? The gay ones can't reproduce. In my opinion that's probably not such a bad thing considering overpopulation, and they can always adopt kids. So even if it were unnatural it's still not harmful in the slightest.

2) Slavery is condoned in the both the new and old testaments, so...yeah. Not that I'm looking to insult people's beliefs (here anyway) but just because someone's religion says something is wrong doesn't mean that it should be enforced upon others. And no, marriage is not a strictly Christian or even religious thing. It is a legal/social contract.

 

[Rafe]

(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".

I think gay marriage should be allowed... But if the marriage is held in a church, it overrides the intrinsic and sacred beliefs of the particular religion.

Okay here me out. Most major religions are against gay marriage full stop, it violates their entire religious viewpoint and the foundations of their beliefs. If homosexuals desire a marriage in a church, then the religion in question should have every right to refuse or accept.

Though I'm not religious, I respect their right to uphold their beliefs by refusing homosexual marriage. Also, Government intervention to 'force' religions to host gay marriages (which has happened) is reverse discrimination, which asserts that they are in the wrong. Priests and so on would, to them, be forced to perform a 'sin'.

Another different case which elaborates is Catholic adoption agencies in the UK being closed down for refusing to adopt children to homosexual couples. The discrimination is simply switched round so that the Catholics suffered the full front of the tyranny of the majority for attempting to uphold their sacred views. It infringes on their liberty to refuse. I can only imagine same-sex couples would apply for adoption in Catholic adoption agencies in the first place either to make a statement or close them down.

Well anyway you wanted to see a reason for disagreeing with gay marriage, though this is only disagreeing on the grounds of respecting certain religious beliefs.

Replace Homosexual with Black and then read through your post again. Does it still seem reasonable to you?

Well your flaw their is that I'm pretty sure no religion is against black marriage. I'm saying turning the tables of discrimination isn't the answer. Read my post again.

 

[Zero=Interrupt]

The only people who really, really want this are the divorce lawyers, let's be honest. Their business would treble, and they already make too much fucking money off of people's misery.

 

[Stevepinto3]

Suppose it's tradition. Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman (there's probably been some exceptions with Spartans or Romans or shite like that) which may be blamed on religion or just blatant homophobia and to be honest I would find it weird if a bloke said "This is my husband". However, many people marry for the sake of it or for the benefit rather than two people loving each other and so if two people love each other then they should be able to marry regardless of gender similarities. Really it should be up to the church if they allow and/or recognize gay marriages in their buildings, afterall marriages are usually a religious ceremony but I suppose that non-religious ceremonies can and do take place. To me, just let them get on with it as logn as it doesn't harm me or bug me in anyway they can do what they want. It's not something I'm against but it isn't something I would support.

Again, it's not just that marriage has always been "between a man and a woman". It's also "always" (that is, up until just a mere few hundred years ago, IF THAT) been a transfer of property, the property being the woman. This "new" marriage has been redefined COMPLETELY with the liberation of women.

(Fucking spam shite code thing I only posted one comment today!)
Anyway On Topic: So you're basically saying that before that marriage was mainly the fact of a woman becoming a mans property but now it is more about the love? If so, then I see why many people feel gays should be allowed to marry, afterall one man owning another man who also owns him seems very strange. But still its not something I would support. I still find homosexuality weird but I know some gasy people and to be honest their sound enough chaps but still the thought of a man being in love with another man I don't fully understand.

Ever been in love with a woman? It's like that. But with a man.

Homosexuality in 14 words. TAAA-DAAAAAAAAAAA.

 

[JamesStone]

Well, I agree with gay marriage. I´m nor gay myself, but it´s just logic. So, we agree that gays can date, that they aren´t possessed by the Devil ( or whatever ) and that there´s nothing wrong with homosexuality, but sudenttly they can´t marrie? That´s stupid. A marriage it´s a civil union between 2 people that love each other, independent of their sex. There´s no sacred thing in marriage, no religious argument (since marriage already existed before Cristianism) and no fucking reason unless the fear of the unknown.

Maybe the people that say: "No gay marriage dude, it´s wrong dubly dubly du" want to comeback to the Roman Empire times, were legionnaires and important people mounted each others like they mounted their women, but if anyone said: " I´m gay", their asses would be kicked so hard that their intestins would reach their stomaches.

 

[FolkLikePanda]

Suppose it's tradition. Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman (there's probably been some exceptions with Spartans or Romans or shite like that) which may be blamed on religion or just blatant homophobia and to be honest I would find it weird if a bloke said "This is my husband". However, many people marry for the sake of it or for the benefit rather than two people loving each other and so if two people love each other then they should be able to marry regardless of gender similarities. Really it should be up to the church if they allow and/or recognize gay marriages in their buildings, afterall marriages are usually a religious ceremony but I suppose that non-religious ceremonies can and do take place. To me, just let them get on with it as logn as it doesn't harm me or bug me in anyway they can do what they want. It's not something I'm against but it isn't something I would support.

Again, it's not just that marriage has always been "between a man and a woman". It's also "always" (that is, up until just a mere few hundred years ago, IF THAT) been a transfer of property, the property being the woman. This "new" marriage has been redefined COMPLETELY with the liberation of women.

(Fucking spam shite code thing I only posted one comment today!)
Anyway On Topic: So you're basically saying that before that marriage was mainly the fact of a woman becoming a mans property but now it is more about the love? If so, then I see why many people feel gays should be allowed to marry, afterall one man owning another man who also owns him seems very strange. But still its not something I would support. I still find homosexuality weird but I know some gasy people and to be honest their sound enough chaps but still the thought of a man being in love with another man I don't fully understand.

Ever been in love with a woman? It's like that. But with a man.

Homosexuality in 14 words. TAAA-DAAAAAAAAAAA.

Yeah but it still seems weird, its like putting two postive ends of two magents together, but then they attract and then I'm confused after that.

 

[Stevepinto3]

Suppose it's tradition. Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman (there's probably been some exceptions with Spartans or Romans or shite like that) which may be blamed on religion or just blatant homophobia and to be honest I would find it weird if a bloke said "This is my husband". However, many people marry for the sake of it or for the benefit rather than two people loving each other and so if two people love each other then they should be able to marry regardless of gender similarities. Really it should be up to the church if they allow and/or recognize gay marriages in their buildings, afterall marriages are usually a religious ceremony but I suppose that non-religious ceremonies can and do take place. To me, just let them get on with it as logn as it doesn't harm me or bug me in anyway they can do what they want. It's not something I'm against but it isn't something I would support.

Again, it's not just that marriage has always been "between a man and a woman". It's also "always" (that is, up until just a mere few hundred years ago, IF THAT) been a transfer of property, the property being the woman. This "new" marriage has been redefined COMPLETELY with the liberation of women.

(Fucking spam shite code thing I only posted one comment today!)
Anyway On Topic: So you're basically saying that before that marriage was mainly the fact of a woman becoming a mans property but now it is more about the love? If so, then I see why many people feel gays should be allowed to marry, afterall one man owning another man who also owns him seems very strange. But still its not something I would support. I still find homosexuality weird but I know some gasy people and to be honest their sound enough chaps but still the thought of a man being in love with another man I don't fully understand.

Ever been in love with a woman? It's like that. But with a man.

Homosexuality in 14 words. TAAA-DAAAAAAAAAAA.

Yeah but it still seems weird, its like putting two postive ends of two magents together, but then they attract and then I'm confused after that.

It's genetic, it's not like they just decide one day "Yeah, I'm gonna try to date a guy now". I understand why you might not get it. I'm not attracted to men, and I don't really see why some people would be, even women. Seriously, I sometimes wonder why every woman in the world isn't a lesbian.

But the point is it's just how some people are. I mean, ask yourself, why are you attracted to women exactly? Is there some logical reason for it? Not really, it's just some natural compulsion that you feel.

 

[Shycte]

It is wrong simply because it is unnatural. Even the animals have enough sense to know what to have sex with and what not to.

On the Christianity side of it, it is denounced multiple times in the Old and New Testament.

With all that being said, I don't think it should be outlawed because I don't think that anything should be outlawed that does not hurt someone else. You should be free to do what you want.

While I think it is great that you don't wan't to force your beliefs on others, I have some Questions...

1) You do know that homosexuality does occur in the animal kingdom?

2) What about all the other things Levictus forbidds but no one cares about? Why aren't those as important?

1) Yes Ide forgotten about that example, my apologies. However, I will still hold to its unnatural nature because outside of the animal kingdom it can serve no purpose. (Animal purpose theoretically could be establishment of dominance)

2) Regardless of if Leviticus forbids other things or not, it also reinforces the denouncement in the New Testament. And considering most Christians consider themselves to be under the New Law, that is all that matters.

It's really intresting because there are female chimpanzees who only ever have intercourse with other women, they have no intrest in the males at all. Simply put, they prefer women. But then again, there are no biological reasons for homosexuality even if it is in the animal kingdom or not. However, it does raise the question if homosexuality really is unatural, because evidently, it isn't something that we humans just made up. Could it be, that just like some people are born albino, some are born homosexual?

At our second paragraph I have to admit you have me shamed, but really for me as an outsider to the Christian community, it seem a bit strange that so much focus is on the fight against homosexuals, well atleast in some circles within the religon. There plenty of other "sinful" thing, so why is homosexuality such a big thing?

 

[FolkLikePanda]

Suppose it's tradition. Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman (there's probably been some exceptions with Spartans or Romans or shite like that) which may be blamed on religion or just blatant homophobia and to be honest I would find it weird if a bloke said "This is my husband". However, many people marry for the sake of it or for the benefit rather than two people loving each other and so if two people love each other then they should be able to marry regardless of gender similarities. Really it should be up to the church if they allow and/or recognize gay marriages in their buildings, afterall marriages are usually a religious ceremony but I suppose that non-religious ceremonies can and do take place. To me, just let them get on with it as logn as it doesn't harm me or bug me in anyway they can do what they want. It's not something I'm against but it isn't something I would support.

Again, it's not just that marriage has always been "between a man and a woman". It's also "always" (that is, up until just a mere few hundred years ago, IF THAT) been a transfer of property, the property being the woman. This "new" marriage has been redefined COMPLETELY with the liberation of women.

(Fucking spam shite code thing I only posted one comment today!)
Anyway On Topic: So you're basically saying that before that marriage was mainly the fact of a woman becoming a mans property but now it is more about the love? If so, then I see why many people feel gays should be allowed to marry, afterall one man owning another man who also owns him seems very strange. But still its not something I would support. I still find homosexuality weird but I know some gasy people and to be honest their sound enough chaps but still the thought of a man being in love with another man I don't fully understand.

Ever been in love with a woman? It's like that. But with a man.

Homosexuality in 14 words. TAAA-DAAAAAAAAAAA.

Yeah but it still seems weird, its like putting two postive ends of two magents together, but then they attract and then I'm confused after that.

It's genetic, it's not like they just decide one day "Yeah, I'm gonna try to date a guy now". I understand why you might not get it. I'm not attracted to men, and I don't really see why some people would be, even women. Seriously, I sometimes wonder why every woman in the world isn't a lesbian.

But the point is it's just how some people are. I mean, ask yourself, why are you attracted to women exactly? Is there some logical reason for it? Not really, it's just some natural compulsion that you feel.

True and I see you're point. But still gays don't bother me as long as they don't: make a fuss that they're gay, try anything on me and as long as they don't harm me. To me they should just get on with it and to be honest I despise homophobic people, I mean if I'm honest, when I was younger I thought all gays were evil etc. but after a while you realize they're normal people with something they cor help so just let 'em live with it doesn't bother me so why should I worry aboot it.

 

[Stevepinto3]

Suppose it's tradition. Marriage has usually been between a man and a woman (there's probably been some exceptions with Spartans or Romans or shite like that) which may be blamed on religion or just blatant homophobia and to be honest I would find it weird if a bloke said "This is my husband". However, many people marry for the sake of it or for the benefit rather than two people loving each other and so if two people love each other then they should be able to marry regardless of gender similarities. Really it should be up to the church if they allow and/or recognize gay marriages in their buildings, afterall marriages are usually a religious ceremony but I suppose that non-religious ceremonies can and do take place. To me, just let them get on with it as logn as it doesn't harm me or bug me in anyway they can do what they want. It's not something I'm against but it isn't something I would support.

Again, it's not just that marriage has always been "between a man and a woman". It's also "always" (that is, up until just a mere few hundred years ago, IF THAT) been a transfer of property, the property being the woman. This "new" marriage has been redefined COMPLETELY with the liberation of women.

(Fucking spam shite code thing I only posted one comment today!)
Anyway On Topic: So you're basically saying that before that marriage was mainly the fact of a woman becoming a mans property but now it is more about the love? If so, then I see why many people feel gays should be allowed to marry, afterall one man owning another man who also owns him seems very strange. But still its not something I would support. I still find homosexuality weird but I know some gasy people and to be honest their sound enough chaps but still the thought of a man being in love with another man I don't fully understand.

Ever been in love with a woman? It's like that. But with a man.

Homosexuality in 14 words. TAAA-DAAAAAAAAAAA.

Yeah but it still seems weird, its like putting two postive ends of two magents together, but then they attract and then I'm confused after that.

It's genetic, it's not like they just decide one day "Yeah, I'm gonna try to date a guy now". I understand why you might not get it. I'm not attracted to men, and I don't really see why some people would be, even women. Seriously, I sometimes wonder why every woman in the world isn't a lesbian.

But the point is it's just how some people are. I mean, ask yourself, why are you attracted to women exactly? Is there some logical reason for it? Not really, it's just some natural compulsion that you feel.

True and I see you're point. But still gays don't bother me as long as they don't: make a fuss that they're gay, try anything on me and as long as they don't harm me. To me they should just get on with it and to be honest I despise homophobic people, I mean if I'm honest, when I was younger I thought all gays were evil etc. but after a while you realize they're normal people with something they cor help so just let 'em live with it doesn't bother me so why should I worry aboot it.

Most gay people don't try to hit on straight people. The idea of "the recruiter" is a stereotype, although there are always a few. Also I don't think I have ever met a violent gay person, though I'm sure there are some. If a gay person is harming you it probably doesn't have as much to do with their homosexuality as it does with them being an asshole.

 

[Archtype]

It is wrong simply because it is unnatural. Even the animals have enough sense to know what to have sex with and what not to.

On the Christianity side of it, it is denounced multiple times in the Old and New Testament.

With all that being said, I don't think it should be outlawed because I don't think that anything should be outlawed that does not hurt someone else. You should be free to do what you want.

While I think it is great that you don't wan't to force your beliefs on others, I have some Questions...

1) You do know that homosexuality does occur in the animal kingdom?

2) What about all the other things Levictus forbidds but no one cares about? Why aren't those as important?

1) Yes Ide forgotten about that example, my apologies. However, I will still hold to its unnatural nature because outside of the animal kingdom it can serve no purpose. (Animal purpose theoretically could be establishment of dominance)

2) Regardless of if Leviticus forbids other things or not, it also reinforces the denouncement in the New Testament. And considering most Christians consider themselves to be under the New Law, that is all that matters.

1) Aaaaand, so what? Know what the only difference between a gay and straight couple is? The gay ones can't reproduce. In my opinion that's probably not such a bad thing considering overpopulation, and they can always adopt kids. So even if it were unnatural it's still not harmful in the slightest.

2) Slavery is condoned in the both the new and old testaments, so...yeah. Not that I'm looking to insult people's beliefs (here anyway) but just because someone's religion says something is wrong doesn't mean that it should be enforced upon others. And no, marriage is not a strictly Christian or even religious thing. It is a legal/social contract.

1) Was simply giving an example of how it might be considered wrong both logically and religiously. I did not say that it inherently "harms" people, not sure where that came from.

2) Yeah, I don't really consider it an insult so no worries lol. Simply because I don't think slavery in and of itself is morally wrong. Obviously, the majority of slavery practiced in America during the 17th - 18th century was horribly immoral and disgusting. Which is the nature of forced slavery in general. However, the Bible never says outright that slavery is an inherently good thing. And it certainly does not command its instigation. It simply states what behavior a master should have to his/her slaves. And on a side note, I would be ecstatic if some managers would follow half of the aforementioned behaviors.

 

[I am 2 cool 4 anime]

it is a yes,in my opinion.This is the same as asking is it ok being gay,im not gay,but i dont understand why would you be so harsh on gay ppl( i still make gay jokes,sorry gays but i do it coz im in that kind of place where you WILL DIE if you are gay,) they can do whatever they want with there lives,only if it dosent involve pain and hate to others!IT IS THERE LIVES NOT OURS!

 

[EmpressZombiKitty]

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.

OT: What? Like this guy? He already has a TV show called "Sister Wives" With his 4 Wives and 19 children. -_-;

http://www.holidayatthesea.com/wp-content/uploads/sister-wives.jpg

He even gets a Season 2.

http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/tv/sister-wives

In all seriousness though, I agree with you. Despite this show...

 

[mrdude2010]

Well, you see, if you have people infected with the disease of homosexuality and you let them marry, they might generate homosexual children, who will take over 'Merica and outlaw heterosexuality whilst destroying GOOD OLD-FASHIONED VALUES!

/sarcasm

yea, we don't want the world to be crowded with all the children made by gay couples! that would be terrible!

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

1) Yes Ide forgotten about that example, my apologies. However, I will still hold to its unnatural nature because outside of the animal kingdom it can serve no purpose. (Animal purpose theoretically could be establishment of dominance)

Unnatural nature? You do realize that makes absolutely no sense right? So since humans ARE animals (by definition), then one guy having sex with another is merely asserting his dominance? Why couldn?t it be something like genetic population control? Why is serving a purpose a prerequisite for rights?

2) Regardless of if Leviticus forbids other things or not, it also reinforces the denouncement in the New Testament. And considering most Christians consider themselves to be under the New Law, that is all that matters.

If you?d like to have this religious discussion with me, I?d welcome you to start a thread in the religion forum.