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.

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.

I've seen gay people hit on straight people and the straight un's usually decked him (I'd probably do the same to be honest as a primal sort of violent reaction [short temper]) and harm I mean even psychological I mean if hes a dirty git (negative stereotype I know) and he does whatever to make you feel sick then sod the git.

 

[9Darksoul6]

@kidigus
To put it simply: there's no way to know the impacts, because gay marriage was never accepted/promoted by any society in the past millennia (maybe ever).
I can, however, conjecture long-term demographic problems that could emerge in non-third-world countries; personally, I couldn't care less.

 

[DuctTapeJedi]

Fun Fact: During the time when Paul was doing his ministry in Rome, the Roman aristocracy's birth rates were on a decline, and he was already catching a lot of crap for his pro-chastity views. The Romans were implementing policies aimed at increasing the birth rates of the upper class, and even went as far as to ban certain books of the Bible (See: The Book of Thecla).

It's not unreasonable to consider that Paul's comment against homosexuality was just a part of the Romans' push to shore up the numbers of their upper class.

As for the instances where it's condemned in the Old Testament, I don't eat kosher, so I don't see why we're still obsessing over it, either.

 

[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.

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?

Lol yeah I suppose it makes them feel threatened. Like I said, I only feel threatened if people try to force something on me, be it homosexuality or a religion. I mean, if people are interested then all they have to do is read. I mean, if someone asks me I will give them my opinion and back it with scripture. But I believe that God has given us a choice just like a father does to his children. With that being said lol, all choices have consequences one way or another.

 

[JochemDude]

None at all.

 

[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.

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.

1) Just because it doesn't occur naturally doesn't make it wrong. Steel doesn't occur naturally, is it immoral to make it? I base what's morally wrong on whether or not it's actually harmful to people. Gay marriage harms no one, it doesn't disadvantage anyone, so I don't see it as wrong.

2) While it's true the bible never strictly says that slavery is good, it clearly never condemns slavery and it gives directions on how to go about owning slaves. It would be like me giving someone instructions on how to steal a car, but not actually saying "go steal a car". I believe that to own another human as property is morally wrong regardless of how they may be treated. Again though this is off topic so if you wish to continue this particular discussion you can shoot me a personal message. Or if not that's cool too.

 

[Rafe]

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.

...That's not a flaw. It's an analogy.

Look, what I'm saying is, imagine you're black. Imagine that you want to adopt a child. And imagine that the local agencies turn you away... BECAUSE YOU ARE BLACK. Would you not be incensed? Would you not see that there is inherent harm in allowing this AMAZINGLY intolerant institution to proceed? Would you not cry foul if someone said, "Yeah, but we have to protect their views too"?

You're taking my hypothetical analogy and countering it by saying "well, yeah, that's not what it's like". Because analogies obviously don't work here, let me make my point blisteringly clear:

Why is there something wrong with discriminating against an intolerant viewpoint?

What we have here is a group of people who are willing to discriminate against people for no good reason based on something that they cannot reasonably influence themselves (it's not even like discriminating against stupid people-you can educate yourself! But you can't change your sexuality). This is a viewpoint that does not DESERVE to be tolerated. Just like slavery didn't. Didn't the end of slavery really hurt the viewpoint of those rich white slaveowners? Poor guys, have to part with so much of their workforce... Yeah, no. We don't defend every viewpoint, legally, especially not ones that are inherently intolerant.

Well thanks for making your point 'blisteringly' clear for one.

An analogy should draw as many parallels as possible, which is why I believe it is flawed. Its a fair point but you can't draw comparisons with slavery and some religious institutions not wanting to host gay marriages.

For one its not as if their are no other options, civil partnerships and the like hold the same benefits. Also not all are against gay marriage.

Secondly I thought I said this, but they're not discriminating for "no good reason". Christianity, whether you believe or not (I don't), have shaped nearly all morality and politics of the West over 2000 years. You can't just attack their views by calling them "intolerant" because that is exactly what you are showing to them in the first place. Who are we to judge what is right and wrong?

And seeing as we like analogies: Imagine someone turns up to a private party completely uninvited, surely its the hosts right to turn them away, and if the person starts his own party that people go to then everyone has achieved the result they wanted. My point is religions are being attacked for defending their principles and should be respected for it. Find a different branch of Christianity or other religions that is tolerant if you're determined to be in a church. Why would you want to go some place where you are not tolerated anyway? Find somewhere different and better.

 

[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)

everything gets legalized first in the netherlands....awesome.

Well... we can't really own guns without a hassle, softdrugs are only tolerated in certain areas and in small amounts and if you're wearing a funny hat or something, and harddrugs are a no-no. Also pedofilia and bestiality are prohibited(thank god) and public nudity is frowned upon. I could go on, but yeah. There's alot we don't have.

We DO have a good healthcare-insurance system(everyone from the age 18 onwards is required by law to have health-insurance(kids are included in their parents' insurance) which is about 90 euros a month on average(without dental). Still better than no healthcare at all... But then again, most of Europe and the rest of the civilized world uses a system like that {looks at USA}
...

 

[Archtype]

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.

Archetype, seriously, do not start on that "but it's natural" crap. Even if it is not natural to be homosexual, that DOES NOT MAKE IT WRONG. Something being unnatural does not make it wrong, or evil, or immoral. It simply means it does not have its basis in nature outside of humanity. Which is kind of like saying "Killing zebras is unnatural because it does not have its basis in nature outside of african predators"; completely ludicrous. The argument just doesn't work.

Man, apparently some people really get their undies in a knot over this. Calm down guys, trying to have a gentlemanly debate here. Let's keep it that way.

I don't care enough to take it to another forum... sorry. I'm here now if you wish to partake in banter! ;D

The word "wrong" is very interesting. I say that because it is defined by whatever deity you believe in....we would not have a "right" or a "wrong" without a God or gods. So the simple fact that you are trying to argue about what constitutes as "right" does not make any sense. If you are not religious there is nothing "right" just as there is nothing "wrong". So who are you to debate other people on something being "right" or "wrong"? Because you have no view on the matter whatsoever.

The fact of homosexuality is: it comes down to if you are religious or not.

1) If observed from a religious standpoint, it is wrong. (Especially in terms of Christianity. I am making a generalization btw, I know that some religions accept it.)

2) If you are NOT looking at it from a religious standpoint, you should not care one way or another.

 

[Awsomeotaku]

well most people would be offended if you called it "marriage", marriage is a holy term and most religions are against homosexuality. But you can always call it something else

 

[Aris Khandr]

For one its not as if their are no other options, civil partnerships and the like hold the same benefits. Also not all are against gay marriage.

Secondly I thought I said this, but they're not discriminating for "no good reason". Christianity, whether you believe or not (I don't), have shaped nearly all morality and politics of the West over 2000 years. You can't just attack their views by calling them "intolerant" because that is exactly what you are showing to them in the first place. Who are we to judge what is right and wrong?

And seeing as we like analogies: Imagine someone turns up to a private party completely uninvited, surely its the hosts right to turn them away, and if the person starts his own party that people go to then everyone has achieved the result they wanted. My point is religions are being attacked for defending their principles and should be respected for it. Find a different branch of Christianity or other religions that is tolerant if you're determined to be in a church. Why would you want to go some place where you are not tolerated anyway? Find somewhere different and better.

What Christianity has to say about my relationship means less than nothing to me, as I am not Christian. Marriage is not the exclusive property of Christianity. People were getting married before the eyes of Zeus, Ra, and Odin well before anyone ever heard of the Jewish God. No one is saying "Christians must start marrying gays." All we're saying is for them to keep their objections to their religion, and let the secular law of the land stop discriminating.

 

[Aris Khandr]

well most people would be offended if you called it "marriage", marriage is a holy term and most religions are against homosexuality. But you can always call it something else

"Marriage" is only a religious term because religion dominated every aspect of life while the English language was being formed. If we want to talk about the erosion of religious terms, perhaps we should start with the rather broad definition of "godly" and "divine" that are in use these days.

 

[silasbufu]

Only two things come to my mind. First is religion, but I personally am an atheist and I don't care about that sort of thing.
Second would be child adoption, presuming that would be a next step for the couple. I don't know...I'm sure a gay couple can do great as parents, but it just doesnt' seem right to me. I'm not opposed to it though.

 

[ZtH]

well most people would be offended if you called it "marriage", marriage is a holy term and most religions are against homosexuality. But you can always call it something else

Sorry for singling you out, of the many people who have posted the same you were the most accessible. This part of the debate has already been gone over. Marriage was originally a social institution. If you care to read why there are posts on the subject somewhere around 6-10 pages back. To put it simply marriage was not created as a religious institution and has never been a purely religious institution and therefore gay marriage should still be called marriage.

 

[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.

1) Just because it doesn't occur naturally doesn't make it wrong. Steel doesn't occur naturally, is it immoral to make it? I base what's morally wrong on whether or not it's actually harmful to people. Gay marriage harms no one, it doesn't disadvantage anyone, so I don't see it as wrong.

2) While it's true the bible never strictly says that slavery is good, it clearly never condemns slavery and it gives directions on how to go about owning slaves. It would be like me giving someone instructions on how to steal a car, but not actually saying "go steal a car". I believe that to own another human as property is morally wrong regardless of how they may be treated. Again though this is off topic so if you wish to continue this particular discussion you can shoot me a personal message. Or if not that's cool too.

My apologies, allow me to reword considering it seems I've caused you to misunderstand my analogy.

When I spoke of it being "wrong" from a logic standpoint I should have said it was "incorrect". Because logic obviously has nothing to do with something being right or wrong. It would be incorrect because it serves no material purpose, unless you wish to call a state of happiness a material purpose....lol which would lead me to simply burn the whole logical side and restate that the whole argument still comes down whether or not you are religious.

 

[Cutter9792]

Way I see it, marriage (and love in general) should be between a person and a person. Sex, color, or other assorted differences should not matter, or be of anyone's business.

 

[Stevepinto3]

Man, apparently some people really get their undies in a knot over this. Calm down guys, trying to have a gentlemanly debate here. Let's keep it that way.

I don't care enough to take it to another forum... sorry. I'm here now if you wish to partake in banter! ;D

The word "wrong" is very interesting. I say that because it is defined by whatever deity you believe in....we would not have a "right" or a "wrong" without a God or gods. So the simple fact that you are trying to argue about what constitutes as "right" does not make any sense. If you are not religious there is nothing "right" just as there is nothing "wrong". So who are you to debate other people on something being "right" or "wrong"? Because you have no view on the matter whatsoever.

The fact of homosexuality is: it comes down to if you are religious or not.

1) If observed from a religious standpoint, it is wrong. (Especially in terms of Christianity. I am making a generalization btw, I know that some religions accept it.)

2) If you are NOT looking at it from a religious standpoint, you should not care one way or another.

I'm tempted to hit you with the typical Euthyphro Dilemma but the response I've gotten to that lately has been circular reasoning. But hey, in case you're not familiar with it...

Is that which is good, good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good? If the first, then goodness is subject to God's will, thus if say God ordered you to murder someone that would be morally right. If the second, then God is not needed for morality to exist.

Of course this is only relevant if you ascribe the concept of objective morality to God. I believe in neither objective morality or God so...yeah.

I take it you have never actually asked someone that is not religious about their concept of morality, or if you have they certainly hadn't thought it through much.

 

[bpm195]

Actually, I think "one" reason that most "mainstream" religions protest gay marriage is because if the laws become passed, they become legally liable for lawsuits if their priests "or other" refuse to marry a gay couple.

I have read of a case where a bishop of my religion was sued because he refused to marry two gays in our same religion. It's been a while since I read it, so I don't really remember the details, and I don't really want to look it up, but it does make a small point.

If people (and priests are people too) have to live under the fear that they can get sued (and lose under the suit) by people just for doing their jobs and holding to their beliefs... They might end up either refusing to do marriages at all, or marry everyone, regardless of what their own beliefs and duties may be.

It's just one reason that I personally think holds "some" merit.

I private citizen is never liable for refusing a service for another private citizen unless there is a contract stating obligation. Much like a preist can refuse to marry two people that he doesn't deem fit for marriage. Even if gay marriage is legally recognized, there's absolutely no law that would force a priest to perform the ceremony.