Is there any REASON gay marriage is wrong?

[Nieroshai]

DISCLAIMER: READ MY WHOLE POST BEFORE COMMENTING

Marriage is a religious institution, a "sacrament" if you will of many faiths and cultures. Marriages were performed by individuals with spiritual authority. This being the case, one would have to be religious to marry at all. THAT BEING THE CASE: we can redefine the word marriage to ultimately MEAN a civil union, and consider religious marriages their own class apart with religious protection. Both kinds would have the same rights under the law, but semantics mean a lot to people. So am I opposed to gay marriage? Yes in the traditionalist sense, no in the modernist sense. So either stop calling it "gay marriage" or outright change what defines marriage.

 

[Kakashi on crack]

2. How is this a bad thing? What, teaching acceptance and tolerance is evil? Okay, let's all teach our kids to hate their fellow man, and we can watch from our retirement homes as society falls apart because of that.


9. No, they wouldn't. Suddenly having same-sex marriage won't lead to more gay people, it'll just lead to the ones already around being happier. So birth rates will stay the same. Don't worry, you'll still have your drunk sluts from the South getting knocked up and having 14 kids in her trailer, that'll be safe from us.

By the way, I'm a self-admitted moron so if anything I said in my rebuttals of Mr. Perkins's claims is wrong, feel free to correct me

Just on these two my good sir

2. We've been teaching kids to hate their fellow man for so long, that it is already happening, look at our government!

9. Actually, you won't be safe from those 14 kids as 2 of them will become rapists, 1 will become a serial killer (or serial killer rapist), 4 of them will die, 6 of them will become politicians, and the last one will somehow end up becoming president and screwing everything up as has happened multiple times in the past! /joking

Actually, with #9 I'm not sure if I should have added the /joking at the end... hmm...


Captcha: llith gudes

 

[Dantness]

I only read the first few posts, so I'm not sure where this whole thread went, but I want to have my say. I think one reason people are against, or not for, gay marriage is because, for America at least, it was founded on a Christian foundation. Many, not all, conservatives are Christian and believe to be gay is to sin. I know because I grew up in a Christian, conservative home and went to a very Christian conservative school. And believe me, being not straight in that environment is difficult. I am full pro-gay marriage. In my opinion love is love no matter what gender. Acceptance is the new prejudice. That was my two cents worth.

 

[Weskerbot3000]

nope no problem here
everyone has the right to be miserable

 

[sarttan]

Since this thread derailed somewhere around post #1, allow me to play a role:

"Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. "

-Adam Kolasinski

It's a reason, and a secular, non homophobic one at that.

edit: to give credit.

Wouldn't gay marriage in addition to straight marriage bring in more money than straight marriage alone? 'Cause I'm pretty sure it would.

Thanks for trying.

Well you have to give the first guy credit. That's the first non-, "I picture gay sex in my head and find it disgusting," or, "They're like vampires. Give them children, and they will start biting necks," or, "Because God says so," argument about gay sex I've ever heard in the entire debate.

Still, They do a good job raising adopted children. I know this from experience because several of my real world friends were raised by homo-couples (not because I was adopted, since I wasn't.).

For not spewing complete crap I salute you.

 

[Rascarin]

Gay's are wrong, they should be all lined up and stoned. and now there able to adopt children and pass there disgust to them. the governments of this world should also be lined up and stoned, I know 100% of you will disagree and aim hate at me but it's my opinion so please don't reply... It's not a religious thing, I don't think they'd break me and my wife up, it's just purely discussing, I'd sleep with an animal faster.

There are so many things wrong with this statement I don't even know where to start.

"I know 100% of you will disagree" - that is because you are blatantly, flagrantly wrong. I'm not even going to bother arguing your other points, but people like you, sir, are everything that is wrong with the world. Ignorance, bigotry and unbridled hatred. And you say we are disgusting.

 

[loc978]

Similar to some previous posters in this thread, I only believe gay marriage is wrong in the same light that all marriage is wrong. If you want to have a religious ceremony for your union, go right ahead. If you want a formal recognition of your relationship- fine, I really don't care.
But if you want government funds to help raise your kids or buy a house for you and your spouse... no. Just no. Leave money and the government out of marriage completely, I say.
No special rights for the co-dependent!

 

[LaughingAtlas]

The fact that you used "biologically correct" in this sense means you may need to hit a few biology texts. Your argument assumes the purpose of sexual acts is ONLY to reproduce, which is not the case in humans nor in several other species. Many primates engage in sexual behaviors with no intention or even capacity to reproduce, but rather for social cohesion or other purposes. Sorry. You're attempting to confuse teleology (and a very confused teleology at that) with science; biology describes living systems "as is," without saying whether it is good or bad.

Likewise, just after a discussion of the appeal to inherent nature and how it is a fallacy, you've committed just such a fallacy, then snipped everyone's points but your own. Bad form.

1. I may have worded that wrongly, but yes, my first thought when reproductive acts are brought up is reproduction. Was that wrong? Without contraceptives, the process can be reffered to as fertilization, can it not? To my understanding, this can produce a new human life.

2. I realize that's not the only thing people use it for and never said it was, your apparent assumption of understanding of my arguement has led to misconstruing my point. Bad form.

3. How exactly is one to quote someone, type a message, and not have a great quote clutter without snipping? That's kind of the point of a snip, I'd say.

 

[gphjr14]

No, if they love each other, no one should be able to say they can't get married.

Rainbow ponies have no legal grounds to get married.

But yeah I really don't care either way what people do.

 

[subject_87]

Nah, straight people have done a terrible job of 'upholding the sanctity of marriage' anyway, so they're in no position to moralize on the subject.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

Then pull out your King James Version and actually prove me wrong insted of you just saying you think it is.

Argh, It's two in the Morning, I still have work to do, and I have to be in a project meeting by ten, so this'll be my last post tonight.

Actually, 1 Corinthians 6:10 is translated in the NIV as Homosexuals, saying they (amongst a list of other sinful acts) will not enter the kingdom of Heaven

Romans 1:26-27 makes a pretty clear statement that woman-woman and men-men relationships are unnatural, and these relationships are stated in a negative light. (NIV: "Shameful lusts", "indecent acts" "perversion")

Thats all that wikipedia have on the matter, but those two verses are pretty clear (how many times does it have to say You shall not kill for it to be wrong?)

 

[ReservoirAngel]

9. Actually, you won't be safe from those 14 kids as 2 of them will become rapists, 1 will become a serial killer (or serial killer rapist), 4 of them will die, 6 of them will become politicians, and the last one will somehow end up becoming president and screwing everything up as has happened multiple times in the past! /joking

The sad part of this is...you're probably close to being right.

Hell we've (well you have) already had one total dumbass as President for 8 years before, and you could in a (hopefully) far out possibly have a dumb, backwater airhead as President next year.

Us in the UK? We've got a strange-looking man. That's literally all I know about the dude running my country: that he looks odd.

Man politicians are some fucked up people...

 

[PowerC]

Because their religion says so.

They usually conveniently overlook the fact that I am not of their religion when making these sorts of statements.

I am of "their" religion and Im still very supportive of gay marriage, people who use a benevolent god too justify ostracizing almost half of the population are some of the worst kinds of people, dang Catholicism, the jerks. Any religious reasoning for gay marriage to be wrong is total bull.

 

[BillEsquire]

Gay's are wrong, they should be all lined up and stoned. and now there able to adopt children and pass there disgust to them. the governments of this world should also be lined up and stoned, I know 100% of you will disagree and aim hate at me but it's my opinion so please don't reply... It's not a religious thing, I don't think they'd break me and my wife up, it's just purely discussing, I'd sleep with an animal faster.

Hey, I can't tell whether you are trolling or not. But please, as I am a gay myself, could you explain to me what is wrong with two men/women loving each other? I'm not trying to start an argument or "convert" you. I would just like to see the reasons behind your thinking as I am genuinely interested in your opinion.

 

[meryatathagres]

Bah devolved into a christian debate. What did I write earlier that marriage isn't a christian or even jewish concept.
But for christians:
- thou shalt not judge lest thee be judged
Besides, whether you're wicked or a saint, you get into heaven if you believe and accept Christ into your heart. So isn't this all moot from xtian point of view?

 

[Dundore77]

Think of it this way. If everyone was gay the humans would go extinct. If everyone can't do something then its immoral.

please don't take that seriously btw. there is no legit reason other than its against their morals and/or religion.

 

[viranimus]

On the one hand I would say, Yes.. Gay people have every right to be just as miserable as the rest of us.

On the other hand, I shouldnt even bother because theres no way to voice it correctly without it being spun as being a hating homophone filled with hate filled hate. This environmentis entirely too accepting just to have a fake and unjustified sense of enlightenment. So really I doubt your going to get an objective cross reference of opinions on this subject as only one side of the argument can be voiced freely without criticism. I will say is that for the most part it is a religious institution, and the government is designed to be separated from the state, so having legal mandates determining principles of a religious institution is just as wrong as having religion try to force its will on governmental policies.

Simple fact is, no matter if it happens or not, it is NOT the same thing as marriage. I think if you call it civil union, it denotes that it is something different than a marriage. Ensure that churches are under no obligation to recognize these unions should they choose not to. Ensure that no tax benefits are received by preventing joint filing. (look up your tax law history, the reason why families are given these sort of tax breaks in the first place is because of the greater likelihood of reproduction that would help to ensure social security's future security.) Leave gay adoption in its current status of being determined on a state by state basis. Then allow them to be legal unions, that gives couples the rights to make legal decisions on the others behalf and proper visitation rights protected under law, that would be an acceptable compromise all around. But it seems that the larger part of the gay community wont consider it because it doesnt force people to accept them in the way they want to be accepted and the opponents wont accept it because they do not feel we should make radical changes to the legal system that effect all citizens just to bow to the whims of 10-15% of the total population.

I say go ahead and do that. And while we are at it. Immediately begin removing tax exempt status for religion, because specifically this compromise had to be made for no other real reason than to protect religions right to be however they want as a group. Still grant them a massive reduction on what other organizations and individuals have to pay and call it we saved your ignorant ass tax. Or perhaps to be more politically correct and refer to it as "Defense of separation of church and state" tax. In the process killing 2 birds with one stone.

 

[PowerC]

Then pull out your King James Version and actually prove me wrong insted of you just saying you think it is.

Argh, It's two in the Morning, I still have work to do, and I have to be in a project meeting by ten, so this'll be my last post tonight.

Actually, 1 Corinthians 6:10 is translated in the NIV as Homosexuals, saying they (amongst a list of other sinful acts) will not enter the kingdom of Heaven

Romans 1:26-27 makes a pretty clear statement that woman-woman and men-men relationships are unnatural, and these relationships are stated in a negative light. (NIV: "Shameful lusts", "indecent acts" "perversion")

Thats all that wikipedia have on the matter, but those two verses are pretty clear (how many times does it have to say You shall not kill for it to be wrong?)

So you've totally forgone forgiveness and Gods absolute love then huh?