Is there any REASON gay marriage is wrong?

[Stevepinto3]

Now this unchanging and perfect law changed because God's son, Jesus, who was also God, said so.

Why have I never said this to a Christian before?

You win 10 Internets.

 

[Dr. wonderful]

I just dont get marriage as a hole its ment to be a religous union etc yet people that dont believe in god/gods get married so if it doesnt matter about that, why should it matter if thier both the same sex ?

Let me eplain:

You have to get marry twice, Getting a marriage license and getting marry spirtually In a church which shows that you will involve god in the marriage. That actually depends on whatever you are actually baptized or is marrying someone who was baptized. If you do not believe in God or gods, then you get marry somewhere else or outside, on a beach. The difference between that and religous version if you put God in the affair.

I stated earlier in the thread that the reason that the church is outraged over this is because if you are gay, you can NOT create your own child. That's is why.


Also people thinks it icky. >.>

 

[FinalHeart95]

Nope. There are no good, secular arguments against gay marriage. Pretty much all secular arguments I can think of could easily get pulled apart in about 7 and a half seconds.

There are the religious ones, of course, but you can't base laws on the religious stuff. Especially since gay marriage would only be for legality. I WOULD be against it if it forced churches to allow gay marriage. But it doesn't.

 

[Squeaky]

I just dont get marriage as a hole its ment to be a religous union etc yet people that dont believe in god/gods get married so if it doesnt matter about that, why should it matter if thier both the same sex ?

Let me eplain:

You have to get marry twice, Getting a marriage license and getting marry spirtually In a church which shows that you will involve god in the marriage. That actually depends on whatever you are actually baptized or is marrying someone who was baptized. If you do not believe in God or gods, then you get marry somewhere else or outside, on a beach. The difference between that and religous version if you put God in the affair.

I stated earlier in the thread that the reason that the church is outraged over this is because if you are gay, you can NOT create your own child. That's is why.


Also people thinks it icky. >.>

I didnt realize that it was that complicated to get married. I was a little lazy to type what I ment the evolution of marriage being more than just "in the eyes of god" it really shouldnt matter the church shouldnt worry as if they arnt christain they arnt technically breaking any of thier rules, they arnt part of the "group" It annoys me that any organised group religious or un feel the need to dictate as to how we run our lives it nice they show concern but its not nessacery. ( i have had a little to drink so forgive the grammar and general lack of intelligence in these posts hopefully you understand what iam trying to get at).

 

[Malgan]

As a non-religious gay man I have to say what most people say. It does not ruin anything for anyone or ruin the traditional marriages for anyone. Some people here said that it shouldn't be called marriage, but I don't see the point of that. We tried a "Partnership" solution here in Norway, which ended up just excluding us. We want to live normal lives without being separeted by all the terms.

However, I disagree that we should have the right to marry in churches against the church's beliefs. Respect goes both ways, and I believe that we could be the bigger man-loving men and woman-loving women, and accept that their beliefs contradict our lifestyles, therefore we should accept it and don't force us down their throats. The church is slow at accepting new things at allways, but most of them are reasonable people. They'll come around.

 

[godfist88]

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.

Best one I heard was, what's next? Marrying animals?!?!?

animals can't give consent so, that's unlikely. i hope.

 

[Sidewinder1]

It is absurd that so many are against the happiness of others. If a person is gay and is in a loving relationship, who is to say that it is wrong?
Quoting the "Good Book" is a pathetic excuse for an argument. Using a text that has been "revised" to suit the agenda of certain peoples beliefs. Homosexuality is not a demon that must be slain. If you want to abolish anything start with the homophobic bullshit.

 

[Dr. wonderful]

I just dont get marriage as a hole its ment to be a religous union etc yet people that dont believe in god/gods get married so if it doesnt matter about that, why should it matter if thier both the same sex ?

Let me eplain:

You have to get marry twice, Getting a marriage license and getting marry spirtually In a church which shows that you will involve god in the marriage. That actually depends on whatever you are actually baptized or is marrying someone who was baptized. If you do not believe in God or gods, then you get marry somewhere else or outside, on a beach. The difference between that and religous version if you put God in the affair.

I stated earlier in the thread that the reason that the church is outraged over this is because if you are gay, you can NOT create your own child. That's is why.


Also people thinks it icky. >.>

I didnt realize that it was that complicated to get married.

For Catholic? Oh yes.

For anyone else, not that much. I also agree what you said. it's not complicated unless you think about it, it's like asking "How do you breath?" and then you get confused.

Also, marriage is complicated? Ha! You do NOT want to go in detail about divorce either.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

To be honest if I was gay I wouldn't want to get married traditionally. I'd personally like homosexuals to have their own type of marriage to rub in the faces of straight couples. Something equally as meaningful and bonding as a marriage but exclusive to my partner and me.

It's not about segregation at all, it's about gay men and women something of their own to hold onto rather than letting them into an institution that's a religious ceremony (one reason I'm not getting married in church). I want my wedding to feel special by any means; gay couples should be able to have it anyway they want.

 

[ScorpSt]

Personally, I'm against government recognized marriage in the first place. Marriage is a religious institution, so why should the government be allowed to say who people can and can't marry. I think that anyone who wants to enter into what is currently defined as a "Marriage" under law should be in a "Civil Union". This way, the religious people don't get upset about the government "redefining marriage" and all couples will be entitled to equal treatment and protection.

Of course, some people might try to make the argument of, "If we allow this, then people will take multiple spouses and marry animals and furniture! Where do we draw the line?" Here's the line. A civil union may be entered by any two consenting adults (ie: someone who can legally sign an official document). How is that difficult to understand?

If by Gay marriage you mean homosexual couples having the right to demand any religious organization accept them under penalty of law then yeah, it's a bad thing, forcing a acceptance under penalty of law is not the way to do things in this case. Church and government should be separate.

I know there was more to your post, but I just had to respond to this. Are there people who actually believe this will happen if they legalize gay marriage? This feels like someone passing a law forcing all stores to sell guns, simply because the 2nd Amendment says we can own them.

Edit: Adding remainder of quote so his statement is no longer out of context.

(Note to the inevitable: Tax breaks for marriages apply under the principle that a couple is likely to spend more. As well since the income is combined the couple generally loses low income benefits (Hst, free medicare for example) so the tax break is meant to help off set this. A couple generally pays more tax then two single people and gets less in return, if any at all. This note is meant for the people who still think marriage tax breaks are a way to favor religious marriages.)

If you mean make it so Homosexuals couples can a) have every single right and privilege (tax benefits, adoption, whatever have you) as well as allow any church or organization who is willing to perform said ceremonies as well as always provide a legitimate third party service to perform the ceremonies. Then no, there is no problem. As long as the couple are responsible caring people they have every right to a family.

 

[Archtype]

The reason I usually hear is that it 'destroys the moral virtues of society and the establishment of marriage'. This is the only non-religious or bigoted argument I've really ever heard, and there's a couple problems with it. One, marriage has never been sacred, up until the past century we mostly married for political or economic alliances between families, not for 'love'. Two, what exactly are these 'moral virtues of society'? I've heard an argument from my dad that basically can be summed up as 'homosexuality uncuts the moral fabric of society and leads to stagnation, I mean, look at Rome.' I've heard this from other people as well, so let's just clear this up: Rome did not fall because of homosexuality. Read a goddamn book. Secondly, by that logic, the Greeks regularly had all kinds of man sex and what did it get them? The beginnings of science, Western culture, and philosophy.

Um, scuse me but it does not matter if the majority of a society is married because of politics or not, something being holy/sacred could not give a rip if the people think it is or not.... It just is, or it isn't. And whether it is/isn't sacred is decided by a religions' deity. NOT by humanity.

And how do you determine if the deity believes it is sacred? Scattering bones on the ground? Reading the stars? An old book written by moral men? All these come from the works of men, not gods. What is sacred is indeed determined by humanity. And my point was that Christianity has long been a part of this economic and political marriage system, and thus their claim that homosexuality perverts the nature of marriage is simply mindless and illogical based on the actions of previous Christians. Marriage was never sacred, throughout most of history in most cultures it was a notorious system of ownership.

Your opinion of history is quite different from mine it seems.

For one thing it ceases to be "sacred" if you believe its sacred qualities are determined by humanity. So I don't know why you even bother to use the term, because by definition it cannot be sacred/holy/from God if humanity alone says it is. Also, considering that the Bible has one of the earliest recordings of marriage (arguably the earliest), ALONG WITH the claim that it was God who instigated it in the first place, makes marriage sacred/holy to Christians. Because after all, Holy = from God.

On that note it is not mindless to say that I, as a Christian, consider homosexuality to be a perversion of marriage in accordance to what the Bible says regarding the matter.

Also, I don't really understand why people think it is logical to assume that "since he is a Christian, he is incapable of doing bad things. Thus, if he messes up/is actually a bad person, CHRISTIANITY is the culprit....not him...." Where does this notion come from? Just because someone claims to be a Christian does not automatically make them a "good person", and it especially does not mean that if they turn out to be a "bad person" Christianity as a whole must be false. Lol such a ridiculous scenario.

 

[Archtype]

Third, yeah you are mistaken. The market of morality is dominated by religion considering that as far as we can tell morality was originally defined by various religions. After all, who gives a rip about morality if you have no one to answer to.. Just do what you want, right?

OK. You, me. We're having an off-topic discussion. Right now.

You clearly know squat about the philosophy of morality and ethics. There are numerous interpretations of how morality works, some requiring God(s), some not. There are hundreds and thousands of books written on the topic. Yet here you are casually dismissing other people's mores with some cheap throw-away argument you probably heard from your pastor.

First, you understand how bad this argument makes you sound, right? You're basically implying that you are an awful person, and that the only reason you do anything good is because of a carrot/stick reward system. I, on the other hand (imagine this with the most condescending attitude you can), don't do bad things because I actually give a damn about how my actions affect others, and I have a vested interest in the quality of human life.

Why is it implied that without some God judging us we'll just start killing each other in the streets? What, being good has no reward in life, in any philosophical sense? We don't go out of our way to kill each other for what should be obvious reasons; any population that did so would inevitably fail. The same can be said for stealing and lying, they are detrimental to a functioning society. If people are incapable of trusting each other there is no trade, no shared effort, no communication, no love, no community at all. These things increase our odds for survival, they make our lives better. Why would we not want them?

Is this such a bizarre concept of morality to grasp? We determine what is right and wrong through reason and observation. We avoid that which causes harm, and we encourage that which improves the quality of life. Why is that so strange?

Faith without some dark spots would cease to be faith for starters. Correct?

There was a time when "faith" simply meant "trust", deserving or not. This is actually how it was often used in the old testament, trusting that God would do good. Now it often just means believing without proof. Either term could be applicable in the context I used, but I was primarily using the first, so by saying blind faith I was implying unwarranted trust. Is there a situation in which trust can be assured? That is an interesting question in itself, as the only examples in which I could think of require inductive reasoning as opposed to deductive. Good enough for practical use, not for philosophical debate. I'm rambling, I'll move on to the next part.

Completely blind though? Not quite, take for example the commandment to abstain from certain meats in the Old Testament. It did not make any sense at the time, but today we know that many of the restricted meats posed major health risks unless cared for in specific ways (refrigerators lol). I might not always be able to give an explanation as to WHY a commandment was given, but past examples tell me that God deserves trust.

I have all kinds of problems with this reasoning.

1) It's cherry-picking.
What about Deuteronomy 22:11? "Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together."
Exodus 23:19? "Do not cook a young goat in it's mother's milk."

What is the mighty wisdom in this? Why was this imparted upon us and not, say, the formula for penicillin?

2) It's inductive reasoning. "Eating X can be bad. The bible said not to eat X. Therefor the author must have known." It seems to follow, but it's far from irrefutable and there are always other possible explanations.

3) Even if the author did know it could have more likely been from observing people getting sick after consuming certain food. It doesn't take divine inspiration to understand cause and effect.

Indeed, I don't know squat about ethics or "morality" as defined by other people of equal intellectual capacity as myself. I would define them myself if I did not believe that a being substantially greater than I defined them. I feel no need to learn about other people's definition of right or wrong because it is always changing. The quote "The philosopher knows so much about nothing at all." seems to be applicable here.

Implying that I am an awful person? Interesting word choice, who are you to say that what I consider bad/good is actually bad or good? Who makes that decision?

I never said that society would rip itself apart if most people were to accept the belief of
no God. I am simply asking why it is that we do not just kill someone else or beat them senseless if they tick us off? Regardless of our beliefs. Why don't we just walk up to someone who has some food that we fancy and blow them away? That is how animals do it, since apparently we are just animals why does this strike us as "wrong"? (imagine this with the most condescending attitude you can) Why do we feel like someone who does something of that sort should be punished? Who are we to decide? Nature says that the strong rule and the weak die. Why do people inherently fight that?

Any situation in which an atheist argues morality with someone of a religious background never ceases to amuse me. Rofl, it just illustrates how atheism has just as many or more beliefs that any religion does...except that there is no point to life other than breathing and stuffing your gob each and every day in order to survive. I'll keep my optimism methinks.

 

[Archtype]

Very good question kidigus. The answer is of course, yes. Allow me to elaborate.

About 6,000 years ago, the one and only God, who everyone on the planet acknowledges as the Judeo-Christian god, irrefutably created the world in six literal days. Despite being all powerful, he took a day off after after that. Go ahead and ask any scientist, they'll show you the mounds of evidence for this creation (actually don't bother, just believe me).

Well everything was perfect until a woman (of course) ate some fruit that God told her SPECIFICALLY not to eat. So now things weren't perfect, so we had sin. Now, all sorts of unnatural things happen like disease, labor pains, and Fox News, but WORST of all is when two people love each other BUT have matching genitals. Eww.

You see God's law is perfect and unchanging, and he mandated in what everyone acknowledges as a perfect book meant to be taken literally that marriage be restricted to ONLY one man and one set of women that could number as high as the man would like. Well he didn't have to marry them as a set, he could marry one and then pick up a few more later. So just in case you got lost, 1 man and 300 women (and hundreds more concubines) totally okay, but two men, an abomination.

Now this unchanging and perfect law changed because God's son, Jesus, who was also God, said so. Or at least some of the guys that came after him said so. Now marriage is strictly between one man and one woman, the way God from the beginning intended it.

Now since the Founding Fathers wrote in the Constitution that this is a Christian nation that should be guided by the Bible (they don't say it specifically but it is in there if you read into it hard enough), then we are obligated to make the law match what Christianity dictates.

If anyone disagrees with this, I welcome your questions but just keep in mind that attempting to correct me could endanger your immortal soul (i.e. you could go to hell).

Now while this entire thing has been satire and I don't believe a word of it, the scary thing is that this really is one of the main reasons cited to stop gay marriage.

I musta missed something in the billions of times I've read this thing... Because I never noticed the part where 1 man and 300 women was accepted and shown as a good thing to do...

 

[Duskflamer]

I've noticed people saying that we can't call gay unions "marriage" because marriage is a religious term. I've also noticed people saying that it has to be called "marriage" or else it implies that gays are inferior. What about this as a compromise:

Marriage becomes a purely religious term. In legal terms, "Civil Union" refers to two people who have signed a civil contract to accept certain responsibilities and privileges (certain tax breaks, hospital visitations, funds becoming merged for the point of taxes, and whatever other legal stuff comes with marriage, I can't say I'm familiar with it). This term is used regardless of gender. Male-female pairs, male-male pairs, and female-female pairs are all called "Civil Unions." All current and past legal documents shall be revised to refer to use the term "Civil Union" where they currently use the term "Marriage."

"Marriage," Thus becomes a term solely used by religious organizations. A religious "marriage" carries no legal weight, any legal documents which are presently signed to create a legal "marriage" shall be altered to create a legal "Civil Union."

How's that? Marriage remains (technically, actually becomes) the realm of religion, religions which are by no means required to marry gay couples (or for that matter any couples they don't like. They'd be perfectly free to refuse to marry an interracial couple, or a couple that has had sex already, or whatever they feel is sinful, as the term marriage will no longer carry legal weight). The legal union between a loving couple uses the same term regardless of the genders of those involved.

 

[Blind Sight]

Your opinion of history is quite different from mine it seems.

For one thing it ceases to be "sacred" if you believe its sacred qualities are determined by humanity. So I don't know why you even bother to use the term, because by definition it cannot be sacred/holy/from God if humanity alone says it is. Also, considering that the Bible has one of the earliest recordings of marriage (arguably the earliest), ALONG WITH the claim that it was God who instigated it in the first place, makes marriage sacred/holy to Christians. Because after all, Holy = from God.

On that note it is not mindless to say that I, as a Christian, consider homosexuality to be a perversion of marriage in accordance to what the Bible says regarding the matter.

Also, I don't really understand why people think it is logical to assume that "since he is a Christian, he is incapable of doing bad things. Thus, if he messes up/is actually a bad person, CHRISTIANITY is the culprit....not him...." Where does this notion come from? Just because someone claims to be a Christian does not automatically make them a "good person", and it especially does not mean that if they turn out to be a "bad person" Christianity as a whole must be false. Lol such a ridiculous scenario.

Umm...marriage predates recorded history my good friend. There's archaeological evidence of primitive marriage rituals going back to the Cro-Magnons, including ceremonial garments representing the male and female. Marriage rituals and laws can be traced back in the 'civilized' world to the Hammurabi's Code and Sumerians, a culture that pre-dates the oldest biblical document we have, which are the Dead Sea scrolls, believed to be written around 50 BCE. Now, to be fair, papyrus and other paper used at the time falls apart after about a hundred years, so there were probably earlier Old Testament and Torah documents, but most historians and archaeologists put it at around several hundred years before the Dead Sea scrolls. Even if you accept the Christian and Jewish notion that beginnings of the Old Testament were written by Moses around 1400 BCE (despite no historical backing whatsoever) Hammurabi's Code and Sumerian culture still predates it by three hundred years. So no, the Bible does not 'arguably' have the oldest definition of marriage within it.

And by the way, this isn't my 'opinion' of history. This is the accepted conclusion of hundreds of historians and theologists.

Note that I did not blame Christianity for the matter of economic and political marriage, nor did I say that Christianity was false. You're putting words into my mouth. What I said is that marriage has never been 'sacred' meaning moral in any sense. It has been a process that involved basically owning and trading women for centuries. How is a father trading his daughter like a sack of meat a 'sacred' and moral action? What I was saying is that Christians engaged in these actions, but had no moral qualms about it, unlike homosexuality. Ah yes, the 'sacred' institution of owning another human being, it's just so holy, isn't it? I mean, owning a woman is completely fine, but 'fags' marrying? Well that's just EVIL.

My point about it being sacred is that you have had no god come down from his holy mount and declare this as truth to you. All you've had to determine that it is holy is the writings of a book, a book written by men hundreds/thousands of years ago (I use both due to the fact that the Bible has been mistranslated and edited many, many times by individuals or by committee), not gods. Even a Christian admits that God himself did not write the Bible, the Bible is a product of generations of men writing. How do you know that the Bible is the word of God? Where is your proof, your evidence? What about the Torah and the Quran? These are both sacred texts, what separates your book from them, how is it the word of God instead of these other works? Has God spoke to you in his mighty voice, telling you that homosexuality is a perversion of marriage? These are genuine questions I'm asking, PROVE to me that the Bible is the manifest word of a higher being, and then your reasoning for homosexuality being evil will be legitimized. Just saying 'it's in the Bible so I believe it' makes you a sheep and an anti-intellectual slave.

As to what the Bible says on the matter, I assume of course you're referencing passages like Leviticus 20:13. Tell me, do you also follow Leviticus 20:9, which states that you can kill disobedient children? Or Exodus 21:7, which grants you the right to sell your daughters into slavery? Or Exodus 35:2, which calls for the death of people who work on the Sabbath? These are all quotes from God's teachings. Should they be followed, just like Leviticus 20:13? After all, it is the word of God, and who are you to question it? Or do Christians cherry-pick the Bible to support their own beliefs?

And a further aside, don't passages like Exodus 35:2 contradict a certain commandment? What higher being would knowingly contradict his own teachings? Explain.

 

[NightHawk21]

Your opinion of history is quite different from mine it seems.

For one thing it ceases to be "sacred" if you believe its sacred qualities are determined by humanity. So I don't know why you even bother to use the term, because by definition it cannot be sacred/holy/from God if humanity alone says it is. Also, considering that the Bible has one of the earliest recordings of marriage (arguably the earliest), ALONG WITH the claim that it was God who instigated it in the first place, makes marriage sacred/holy to Christians. Because after all, Holy = from God.

On that note it is not mindless to say that I, as a Christian, consider homosexuality to be a perversion of marriage in accordance to what the Bible says regarding the matter.

Also, I don't really understand why people think it is logical to assume that "since he is a Christian, he is incapable of doing bad things. Thus, if he messes up/is actually a bad person, CHRISTIANITY is the culprit....not him...." Where does this notion come from? Just because someone claims to be a Christian does not automatically make them a "good person", and it especially does not mean that if they turn out to be a "bad person" Christianity as a whole must be false. Lol such a ridiculous scenario.

Umm...marriage predates recorded history my good friend. There's archaeological evidence of primitive marriage rituals going back to the Cro-Magnons, including ceremonial garments representing the male and female. Marriage rituals and laws can be traced back in the 'civilized' world to the Hammurabi's Code and Sumerians, a culture that pre-dates the oldest biblical document we have, which are the Dead Sea scrolls, believed to be written around 50 BCE. Now, to be fair, papyrus and other paper used at the time falls apart after about a hundred years, so there were probably earlier Old Testament and Torah documents, but most historians and archaeologists put it at around several hundred years before the Dead Sea scrolls. Even if you accept the Christian and Jewish notion that beginnings of the Old Testament were written by Moses around 1400 BCE (despite no historical backing whatsoever) Hammurabi's Code and Sumerian culture still predates it by three hundred years. So no, the Bible does not 'arguably' have the oldest definition of marriage within it.

And by the way, this isn't my 'opinion' of history. This is the accepted conclusion of hundreds of historians and theologists.

Note that I did not blame Christianity for the matter of economic and political marriage, nor did I say that Christianity was false. You're putting words into my mouth. What I said is that marriage has never been 'sacred' meaning moral in any sense. It has been a process that involved basically owning and trading women for centuries. How is a father trading his daughter like a sack of meat a 'sacred' and moral action? What I was saying is that Christians engaged in these actions, but had no moral qualms about it, unlike homosexuality. Ah yes, the 'sacred' institution of owning another human being, it's just so holy, isn't it? I mean, owning a woman is completely fine, but 'fags' marrying? Well that's just EVIL.

My point about it being sacred is that you have had no god come down from his holy mount and declare this as truth to you. All you've had to determine that it is holy is the writings of a book, a book written by men hundreds/thousands of years ago (I use both due to the fact that the Bible has been mistranslated and edited many, many times by individuals or by committee), not gods. Even a Christian admits that God himself did not write the Bible, the Bible is a product of generations of men writing. How do you know that the Bible is the word of God? Where is your proof, your evidence? What about the Torah and the Quran? These are both sacred texts, what separates your book from them, how is it the word of God instead of these other works? Has God spoke to you in his mighty voice, telling you that homosexuality is a perversion of marriage? These are genuine questions I'm asking, PROVE to me that the Bible is the manifest word of a higher being, and then your reasoning for homosexuality being evil will be legitimized. Just saying 'it's in the Bible so I believe it' makes you a sheep and an anti-intellectual slave.

As to what the Bible says on the matter, I assume of course you're referencing passages like Leviticus 20:13. Tell me, do you also follow Leviticus 20:9, which states that you can kill disobedient children? Or Exodus 21:7, which grants you the right to sell your daughters into slavery? Or Exodus 35:2, which calls for the death of people who work on the Sabbath? These are all quotes from God's teachings. Should they be followed, just like Leviticus 20:13? After all, it is the word of God, and who are you to question it? Or do Christians cherry-pick the Bible to support their own beliefs?

And a further aside, don't passages like Exodus 35:2 contradict a certain commandment? What higher being would knowingly contradict his own teachings? Explain.

Now I think this has gone on far enough. Firstly both of you calm down. Now since I don't feel like scrolling through 30 or so pages to find all the unquoted sections I only provide statements in relations to your last post Blind Sight. In relation to predating written history, you're probably right, but a lot of that has to do with your definition of marriage. If you consider it a relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of creating children than their is substantial evidence to support a monogamous lifestyle going back millions of years into our descendants, maybe as far as the Australopithecines. Marriage as a sacred union is a bit trickier to define since no single definition of God exists and a lot of religious texts have been lost.

Sacred does not specifically mean important to God or any particular religion (or as you and most other people seem to think solely Christianity). Also it is quite vital to remember that you have to think about the issues you address through the eyes of the people that lived during that time (Cultural Anthropology 101). It is perhaps important to remember that women were not even considered persons (legally) until not too long ago, and as such the trading of one's daughter to someone else to be his wife was a god way of drawing both families closer together. This strategy, I would like to point out has had a major impact on the breakdown of states in today's modern world due to colonization and the like, and has ended or halted quite a few wars. I would also like to point out that even nowadays couples in arranged marriages are just as happy as couples who married for love after 9 years, and the couples that married for love see a steeper drop in satisfaction than those whose unions were arranged.

For the next part I will use the religious point of view of the 2 largest religions (Christianity and Islam)(This view is also held by Judaism, but I can't say if any of the other religions have similar views). The holy book(s) were written by prophets, men who were spoken through by God. Now I understand you might not believe this but I'm telling you what the view of these religions is, that being said their is no concrete proof and no one is telling you what to believe (Also, just an fyi the Torah is the holy book of Judaism and basically contains 5 books of the old testament, the same one which is in the Bible. In addition, I would imagine that the Qur'an also contains a good deal about Jesus and the prophets of the Old Testament seeing as how Islam broke away from Christianity after Jesus and considers him a prophet). I encourage you however to refrain from calling other as you did by the end of your paragraph as it doesn't do anything to support your case, as a good athiest or otherwise.

In addition, I would also like to point out that all the passages you referenced come from the Old Testament, which while is a part of the Bible, is not looked to as much as the New Testament (which was written after the death of Christ and is the foundation of Christianity, not the Old Testament). If you want a religious argument, it might be worth noting that entry into heaven was not possible until the death of Christ. It was only when Christ died and was resurrected that sins were forgiven and entry into heaven was granted. That being said it might stand to reason that striking fear into others might have seemed like a good way of keeping them in line more or less (A tactic employed by the Gods of many religions I would like to point out).

Now I realize that what I said won't change your mind and hell I'm not even saying you should, but I've attempted to provide you with a relatively thorough explanation to your issues. As I final word too, and one that applies to more than just you, I would encourage you guys to not just group Christians together and blast Christianity altogether. Not every Christian is as stubborn or a bigot like members of the Westboro Baptist Church. It seems unfair that you guys should rip on a whole religion just because of a select few bigots give it a bad name, especially when Christianity has given so many people hope when they've had nothing. Anyways to each their own, and if you wanna have an educated level headed debate, I'll be listening, but keep it civil, save the bitchin for something that's worth getting angry over.

 

[Archtype]

Your opinion of history is quite different from mine it seems.

For one thing it ceases to be "sacred" if you believe its sacred qualities are determined by humanity. So I don't know why you even bother to use the term, because by definition it cannot be sacred/holy/from God if humanity alone says it is. Also, considering that the Bible has one of the earliest recordings of marriage (arguably the earliest), ALONG WITH the claim that it was God who instigated it in the first place, makes marriage sacred/holy to Christians. Because after all, Holy = from God.

On that note it is not mindless to say that I, as a Christian, consider homosexuality to be a perversion of marriage in accordance to what the Bible says regarding the matter.

Also, I don't really understand why people think it is logical to assume that "since he is a Christian, he is incapable of doing bad things. Thus, if he messes up/is actually a bad person, CHRISTIANITY is the culprit....not him...." Where does this notion come from? Just because someone claims to be a Christian does not automatically make them a "good person", and it especially does not mean that if they turn out to be a "bad person" Christianity as a whole must be false. Lol such a ridiculous scenario.

Umm...marriage predates recorded history my good friend. There's archaeological evidence of primitive marriage rituals going back to the Cro-Magnons, including ceremonial garments representing the male and female. Marriage rituals and laws can be traced back in the 'civilized' world to the Hammurabi's Code and Sumerians, a culture that pre-dates the oldest biblical document we have, which are the Dead Sea scrolls, believed to be written around 50 BCE. Now, to be fair, papyrus and other paper used at the time falls apart after about a hundred years, so there were probably earlier Old Testament and Torah documents, but most historians and archaeologists put it at around several hundred years before the Dead Sea scrolls. Even if you accept the Christian and Jewish notion that beginnings of the Old Testament were written by Moses around 1400 BCE (despite no historical backing whatsoever) Hammurabi's Code and Sumerian culture still predates it by three hundred years. So no, the Bible does not 'arguably' have the oldest definition of marriage within it.

And by the way, this isn't my 'opinion' of history. This is the accepted conclusion of hundreds of historians and theologists.

Note that I did not blame Christianity for the matter of economic and political marriage, nor did I say that Christianity was false. You're putting words into my mouth. What I said is that marriage has never been 'sacred' meaning moral in any sense. It has been a process that involved basically owning and trading women for centuries. How is a father trading his daughter like a sack of meat a 'sacred' and moral action? What I was saying is that Christians engaged in these actions, but had no moral qualms about it, unlike homosexuality. Ah yes, the 'sacred' institution of owning another human being, it's just so holy, isn't it? I mean, owning a woman is completely fine, but 'fags' marrying? Well that's just EVIL.

My point about it being sacred is that you have had no god come down from his holy mount and declare this as truth to you. All you've had to determine that it is holy is the writings of a book, a book written by men hundreds/thousands of years ago (I use both due to the fact that the Bible has been mistranslated and edited many, many times by individuals or by committee), not gods. Even a Christian admits that God himself did not write the Bible, the Bible is a product of generations of men writing. How do you know that the Bible is the word of God? Where is your proof, your evidence? What about the Torah and the Quran? These are both sacred texts, what separates your book from them, how is it the word of God instead of these other works? Has God spoke to you in his mighty voice, telling you that homosexuality is a perversion of marriage? These are genuine questions I'm asking, PROVE to me that the Bible is the manifest word of a higher being, and then your reasoning for homosexuality being evil will be legitimized. Just saying 'it's in the Bible so I believe it' makes you a sheep and an anti-intellectual slave.

As to what the Bible says on the matter, I assume of course you're referencing passages like Leviticus 20:13. Tell me, do you also follow Leviticus 20:9, which states that you can kill disobedient children? Or Exodus 21:7, which grants you the right to sell your daughters into slavery? Or Exodus 35:2, which calls for the death of people who work on the Sabbath? These are all quotes from God's teachings. Should they be followed, just like Leviticus 20:13? After all, it is the word of God, and who are you to question it? Or do Christians cherry-pick the Bible to support their own beliefs?

My friend, you are incredibly ignorant of biblical teachings. I'm not saying that is a bad thing or something like that, it is just a fact. Aight I'll try to address this one at a time.

First of all, when I refer to marriage, I am referring to a good/proper relationship between a man and wife as depicted in the Bible. So when you refer a caveman version of marriage (which is unfortunately practiced even to this day) which is basically sex slavery and call it a biblical marriage, I am kinda lost.

Second, yes it IS your opinion of history. Little "historical evidence" can literally be "proven" no matter how many historians think it is correct. Lol the vast majority of intellectuals used to think the earth was flat. I rest my case.

Third, mistranslated? When? Last time I checked that was something that Christians actually used in religious debates. The fact that the writings within the Bible agree with writings found in the dead sea scrolls is usually something Christians use to bolster faith.

Yes I will gladly admit that God's hand did not write the Bible. It would take a divine being far less effort to write the greatest literary work of all time personally than it would to construct the same over hundreds of years by scores of different men with different backgrounds. That feat alone should be enough to make someone think. Why do I believe that the Bible is the word of God and not the Koran or something else? Simple.

No other work can even hold a candle to what I just described for starters. Also, other "founders" that compare themselves to Christ always had something to gain. Christ is not only the one who gained nothing, but even given the opportunity to take power He turned it down. There are many times depicted in the Bible where it was made plain that Christ had an insane amount of followers. However, He never took advantage of it in any way. The same cannot be said for other religious figures. They always got something/benefited from their teachings. Lol and none of them even tried to claim that they rose from the dead. So, why the Bible? Because everything else just cannot compare.

I don't really care what the Old Testament says regarding doctrine, unless it is reinforced in the New Testament. Mainly because it is the Old Testament...as opposed to the NEW Testament. With that being said, since this certain topic IS addressed in the New Testament it is logical to assume that it is safe to quote both Testaments. With that being said one of the most straight-forward New Testament passages is 1 Cor 6. Thus other things regarding everything you just mentioned are irrelevant... But just to humor you, the Bible does NOT say it is right/good to sell your daughters. It is just covering every possible scenario and how to go about dealing with them. There is a quote in Matthew where Jesus speaks of certain things that Moses allowed in the Old Testament only because people were so stubborn/selfish, but that God did not set it up to be that way.

 

[Archtype]

Your opinion of history is quite different from mine it seems.

For one thing it ceases to be "sacred" if you believe its sacred qualities are determined by humanity. So I don't know why you even bother to use the term, because by definition it cannot be sacred/holy/from God if humanity alone says it is. Also, considering that the Bible has one of the earliest recordings of marriage (arguably the earliest), ALONG WITH the claim that it was God who instigated it in the first place, makes marriage sacred/holy to Christians. Because after all, Holy = from God.

On that note it is not mindless to say that I, as a Christian, consider homosexuality to be a perversion of marriage in accordance to what the Bible says regarding the matter.

Also, I don't really understand why people think it is logical to assume that "since he is a Christian, he is incapable of doing bad things. Thus, if he messes up/is actually a bad person, CHRISTIANITY is the culprit....not him...." Where does this notion come from? Just because someone claims to be a Christian does not automatically make them a "good person", and it especially does not mean that if they turn out to be a "bad person" Christianity as a whole must be false. Lol such a ridiculous scenario.

Indeed, the only reason I was addressing solely from a Christian perspective is because I was challenged regarding that perspective. Lol I didn't start out that way.

Regardless, Yes to all the above.
Umm...marriage predates recorded history my good friend. There's archaeological evidence of primitive marriage rituals going back to the Cro-Magnons, including ceremonial garments representing the male and female. Marriage rituals and laws can be traced back in the 'civilized' world to the Hammurabi's Code and Sumerians, a culture that pre-dates the oldest biblical document we have, which are the Dead Sea scrolls, believed to be written around 50 BCE. Now, to be fair, papyrus and other paper used at the time falls apart after about a hundred years, so there were probably earlier Old Testament and Torah documents, but most historians and archaeologists put it at around several hundred years before the Dead Sea scrolls. Even if you accept the Christian and Jewish notion that beginnings of the Old Testament were written by Moses around 1400 BCE (despite no historical backing whatsoever) Hammurabi's Code and Sumerian culture still predates it by three hundred years. So no, the Bible does not 'arguably' have the oldest definition of marriage within it.

And by the way, this isn't my 'opinion' of history. This is the accepted conclusion of hundreds of historians and theologists.

Note that I did not blame Christianity for the matter of economic and political marriage, nor did I say that Christianity was false. You're putting words into my mouth. What I said is that marriage has never been 'sacred' meaning moral in any sense. It has been a process that involved basically owning and trading women for centuries. How is a father trading his daughter like a sack of meat a 'sacred' and moral action? What I was saying is that Christians engaged in these actions, but had no moral qualms about it, unlike homosexuality. Ah yes, the 'sacred' institution of owning another human being, it's just so holy, isn't it? I mean, owning a woman is completely fine, but 'fags' marrying? Well that's just EVIL.

My point about it being sacred is that you have had no god come down from his holy mount and declare this as truth to you. All you've had to determine that it is holy is the writings of a book, a book written by men hundreds/thousands of years ago (I use both due to the fact that the Bible has been mistranslated and edited many, many times by individuals or by committee), not gods. Even a Christian admits that God himself did not write the Bible, the Bible is a product of generations of men writing. How do you know that the Bible is the word of God? Where is your proof, your evidence? What about the Torah and the Quran? These are both sacred texts, what separates your book from them, how is it the word of God instead of these other works? Has God spoke to you in his mighty voice, telling you that homosexuality is a perversion of marriage? These are genuine questions I'm asking, PROVE to me that the Bible is the manifest word of a higher being, and then your reasoning for homosexuality being evil will be legitimized. Just saying 'it's in the Bible so I believe it' makes you a sheep and an anti-intellectual slave.

As to what the Bible says on the matter, I assume of course you're referencing passages like Leviticus 20:13. Tell me, do you also follow Leviticus 20:9, which states that you can kill disobedient children? Or Exodus 21:7, which grants you the right to sell your daughters into slavery? Or Exodus 35:2, which calls for the death of people who work on the Sabbath? These are all quotes from God's teachings. Should they be followed, just like Leviticus 20:13? After all, it is the word of God, and who are you to question it? Or do Christians cherry-pick the Bible to support their own beliefs?

And a further aside, don't passages like Exodus 35:2 contradict a certain commandment? What higher being would knowingly contradict his own teachings? Explain.

Now I think this has gone on far enough. Firstly both of you calm down. Now since I don't feel like scrolling through 30 or so pages to find all the unquoted sections I only provide statements in relations to your last post Blind Sight. In relation to predating written history, you're probably right, but a lot of that has to do with your definition of marriage. If you consider it a relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of creating children than their is substantial evidence to support a monogamous lifestyle going back millions of years into our descendants, maybe as far as the Australopithecines. Marriage as a sacred union is a bit trickier to define since no single definition of God exists and a lot of religious texts have been lost.

Sacred does not specifically mean important to God or any particular religion (or as you and most other people seem to think solely Christianity). Also it is quite vital to remember that you have to think about the issues you address through the eyes of the people that lived during that time (Cultural Anthropology 101). It is perhaps important to remember that women were not even considered persons (legally) until not too long ago, and as such the trading of one's daughter to someone else to be his wife was a god way of drawing both families closer together. This strategy, I would like to point out has had a major impact on the breakdown of states in today's modern world due to colonization and the like, and has ended or halted quite a few wars. I would also like to point out that even nowadays couples in arranged marriages are just as happy as couples who married for love after 9 years, and the couples that married for love see a steeper drop in satisfaction than those whose unions were arranged.

For the next part I will use the religious point of view of the 2 largest religions (Christianity and Islam)(This view is also held by Judaism, but I can't say if any of the other religions have similar views). The holy book(s) were written by prophets, men who were spoken through by God. Now I understand you might not believe this but I'm telling you what the view of these religions is, that being said their is no concrete proof and no one is telling you what to believe (Also, just an fyi the Torah is the holy book of Judaism and basically contains 5 books of the old testament, the same one which is in the Bible. In addition, I would imagine that the Qur'an also contains a good deal about Jesus and the prophets of the Old Testament seeing as how Islam broke away from Christianity after Jesus and considers him a prophet). I encourage you however to refrain from calling other as you did by the end of your paragraph as it doesn't do anything to support your case, as a good athiest or otherwise.

In addition, I would also like to point out that all the passages you referenced come from the Old Testament, which while is a part of the Bible, is not looked to as much as the New Testament (which was written after the death of Christ and is the foundation of Christianity, not the Old Testament). If you want a religious argument, it might be worth noting that entry into heaven was not possible until the death of Christ. It was only when Christ died and was resurrected that sins were forgiven and entry into heaven was granted. That being said it might stand to reason that striking fear into others might have seemed like a good way of keeping them in line more or less (A tactic employed by the Gods of many religions I would like to point out).

Now I realize that what I said won't change your mind and hell I'm not even saying you should, but I've attempted to provide you with a relatively thorough explanation to your issues. As I final word too, and one that applies to more than just you, I would encourage you guys to not just group Christians together and blast Christianity altogether. Not every Christian is as stubborn or a bigot like members of the Westboro Baptist Church. It seems unfair that you guys should rip on a whole religion just because of a select few bigots give it a bad name, especially when Christianity has given so many people hope when they've had nothing. Anyways to each their own, and if you wanna have an educated level headed debate, I'll be listening, but keep it civil, save the bitchin for something that's worth getting angry over.

 

[sirtommygunn]

I'm in full support of Gay marriage

Okay... now that that's out of the way let me say this: I have a problem with marriage in general.
Anyone who says "Sex with only one person for the rest of my life sounds like a great idea." is completely daft.

Marriage doesn't seem to have a purpose beyond saving crap-loads of money on your taxes. Or maybe changing one of the involved parties names would make picking a surname for the children easier.

But other than that it's just a sex contract.
If two people are in love they're already going to do all the other stuff that marriage entitles. and if those two people ever stopped loving each other why should they continue to live together. Just because some guy said "'Till death do you part." That's not a good reason.

Then there's sex Which feels really really good. Why shouldn't you do it with as many people as you can (so long as they're all willing). Love doesn't have any thing to do with physical sensation. I know people who get offended at the notion of "cheating" but if you marry someone that selfish that should be your problem instead of the general rule of thumb.

You seem to have forgotten that sex leads to certain things, such as children.

Imagine how confusing it would be to raise children in a society where you can just sleep with anyone at anytime. Without each person being limited to one partner, it would swiftly become difficult to figure out who is responsible for which children, and inheritance would be even harder to figure out. Also, it creates a commitment to raise the children you and your partner created. Marriage was made to solve these problems, not because someone eventually decided to ruin everybody's fun.

Now obviously this is less relevant today with birth control and condoms, but there are still A)people who are stupid enough to not use these things if they don't want children and B)several thousand years of tradition.

 

[Kagim]

Are there people who actually believe this will happen if they legalize gay marriage?

You missed my point. I was asking him to define his question further. Is the quoted statement what he was asking? Or is it my next paragraph, the one you didn't quote as well, and if history serves me right I'm going to start seeing people take that one paragraph and start slapping pictures of Hitler at me... le sigh...

I am not stating "Lol that's what everyone thinks" i was asking a question. "By allow gay marriage is this what you are asking? Because if that IS what your asking then yes it IS wrong."

Do people actually think that? Yes, they do. I have met them. They demand that religious groups should be forced to perform a religious ceremony for them. I disagree. Does every single homosexual couple feel that way? Obviously not. Yet those people exist, so i simply defined the stances, the one i agree with and the one i don't, to clarify my feelings on said matter.

This feels like someone passing a law forcing all stores to sell guns, simply because the 2nd Amendment says we can own them.

Yes, the idea IS silly. Which is why i disagree with it. Which is why i clarify my personal thoughts and opinions on the matter in my last paragraph.