Is there any REASON gay marriage is wrong?
- Thread starter kidigus
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The arguments, I have read them in this thread, are:
1) It is and abomination in my religion
So, don't get a gay marriage! And so is shellfish, gathering sticks on the sabbath (watch out retail workers!), taunting a bald man (you'll get eaten by bears), or being a tree that gives no fruit (Jesus will curse you!). In the words of Jesus (played by the ever-reserved Jack Black), "It seems you pick and choose. So, choose love instead of hate." And Leviticus said "...man shall not lie with other men"; so lesbians should be able to marry, right?
2) It would mean a church could get sued if they didn't perform a gay wedding.
Well, a Catholic priest could refuse to marry me (atheist) and my wife (had an abortion 15 years ago), so we didn't bother. We're not Mormon, so good luck getting us into a temple. Why is it everyone says gay marriage infringes on religious rights when the religious already infringe on everyone not their own?
3) Marriage is a RELIGIOUS ceremony, let them have something else!
Then you will have to annul my marriage (did not occur in a church or have a preist/pastor/imam/cantor/rabbi present). And Muslim marriages. And Hindi. And Wiccans...
4) It is a state/church violation dictating what religion has to accept.
Then why do married couples receive tax breaks, greater protection under the law, etc? If you want state/church protection, you have to give state/church protection when you don't agree with the outcome, too.
5) Gays cannot produce children, so it isn't in the interest of government.
Neither can sterile couples. Do we not let them get married without a fertility test? Anyone want to jerk off in front of a judge?
6) Children raised in a one man-one woman couple are healthier and more psychologically stable.
Yeah? Then take away Britney Speer's kids. And force abortion on single moms. And since teens in most states can't legally marry, get them abortions and tubal ligations, too.
7) Same sex marriage will devalue current, heterosexual marriages.
I know someone to ask about this! That bastion of family values, Newt Gengrich, who cheated on his first and second wives, and then again with his third wife (while she was in the hospital receiving chemotherapy) with their babysitter! Or maybe rock stars that are married for less than 6 weeks. Or the 59% of marriages that end in divorce. It seems heterosexual marriage is doing much more harm to the institution.
8) Gays want us to teach anal sex in the school.
Please. Most schools refuse to teach VAGINAL sex in school.
9) Gay marriage adds no current benefit to society.
Neither do Alzheimer patients, legless vets, nor Jessica Black. Do we just euthanize them? Why do the family values crowd endorse "death panels"?
1) It is and abomination in my religion
So, don't get a gay marriage! And so is shellfish, gathering sticks on the sabbath (watch out retail workers!), taunting a bald man (you'll get eaten by bears), or being a tree that gives no fruit (Jesus will curse you!). In the words of Jesus (played by the ever-reserved Jack Black), "It seems you pick and choose. So, choose love instead of hate." And Leviticus said "...man shall not lie with other men"; so lesbians should be able to marry, right?
2) It would mean a church could get sued if they didn't perform a gay wedding.
Well, a Catholic priest could refuse to marry me (atheist) and my wife (had an abortion 15 years ago), so we didn't bother. We're not Mormon, so good luck getting us into a temple. Why is it everyone says gay marriage infringes on religious rights when the religious already infringe on everyone not their own?
3) Marriage is a RELIGIOUS ceremony, let them have something else!
Then you will have to annul my marriage (did not occur in a church or have a preist/pastor/imam/cantor/rabbi present). And Muslim marriages. And Hindi. And Wiccans...
4) It is a state/church violation dictating what religion has to accept.
Then why do married couples receive tax breaks, greater protection under the law, etc? If you want state/church protection, you have to give state/church protection when you don't agree with the outcome, too.
5) Gays cannot produce children, so it isn't in the interest of government.
Neither can sterile couples. Do we not let them get married without a fertility test? Anyone want to jerk off in front of a judge?
6) Children raised in a one man-one woman couple are healthier and more psychologically stable.
Yeah? Then take away Britney Speer's kids. And force abortion on single moms. And since teens in most states can't legally marry, get them abortions and tubal ligations, too.
7) Same sex marriage will devalue current, heterosexual marriages.
I know someone to ask about this! That bastion of family values, Newt Gengrich, who cheated on his first and second wives, and then again with his third wife (while she was in the hospital receiving chemotherapy) with their babysitter! Or maybe rock stars that are married for less than 6 weeks. Or the 59% of marriages that end in divorce. It seems heterosexual marriage is doing much more harm to the institution.
8) Gays want us to teach anal sex in the school.
Please. Most schools refuse to teach VAGINAL sex in school.
9) Gay marriage adds no current benefit to society.
Neither do Alzheimer patients, legless vets, nor Jessica Black. Do we just euthanize them? Why do the family values crowd endorse "death panels"?
The reason people are against it is because they hold the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. I however see that marriage is between two people who love each other. I have absolutly nothing against gay marriage and I hope it's legalised here in Australia in the near future.
No, do what they want, just between the four walls. I don't like watching two men kissing each other in the street, or doing pride festivals.
This is the most interesting conundrum for me on the issue, actually. Marriage is traditionally a religious ceremony so should they have to put up with their concept being redefined? Then again, plenty of atheists get married. And then what about liberal churches which WANT gay marriage? There are a few in my city who religiously acknowledge gay relationships. The Metropolitan Fellowship, for example, is a Christian denomination that maintains all couples are universally positive so long as they're loving and monogamous.Spineyguy said:
Personally I think the easiest solution would be to remove all legal recognition of marriage and replace the legal part with civil unions for everyone, gay or straight. Then give the ceremony of marriage back to religion, and let each individual church decide who they will or won't marry. The sanctity of marriage is maintained (actually restored, as it will no longer be controlled by the state) and the civil rights issue is resolved. And no more legislators essentially declaring which religious beliefs are more valid than others.
Why? Because at the end of the day, when a son asks: "Daddy, if those two men are married, why can't I marry my friend Johnny?" and daddy has to come up with some kind of reason to explain, that he wants his own DNA to continue through the ages and his only chance to do that is to make sure his son believes he MUST be straight and AVOID the ideas and concepts that being gay is ok, so that in his teenage formative years he will accept girls (regardless that they are confusing, annoying and sometimes crazy, who have some strange idea that sex should be restricted) as his life partner rather than guys (who are on the same wave length, make more sense and are up for sex on a regular basis).
And we have the kinsey reports to show us that the greater percentage of people have same sex interests at varied degrees (from small to alot) and only social values and cultural rules dictate that we should bend in one way or another. In order for your DNA to live onwards, you NEED the church and the law to stop public homosexuality.
And we have the kinsey reports to show us that the greater percentage of people have same sex interests at varied degrees (from small to alot) and only social values and cultural rules dictate that we should bend in one way or another. In order for your DNA to live onwards, you NEED the church and the law to stop public homosexuality.
Well, admittedly, from a biological standpoint, homosexuality is not exactly "working as designed", as in: it does not produce children, thus furthering the growth of the species. So, yeah, I can see where those opposed to it are coming from.
But a modern society should be far beyond that. A modern society should accept all non-destructive preferences as equal, and I can't think of anything less destructive than homosexuality. Accepting that is a matter of tolerance and being able to detach oneself from mere doctrine, but especially a matter of trusting your fellow human beings.
But a modern society should be far beyond that. A modern society should accept all non-destructive preferences as equal, and I can't think of anything less destructive than homosexuality. Accepting that is a matter of tolerance and being able to detach oneself from mere doctrine, but especially a matter of trusting your fellow human beings.
I respect your religious beliefs (if you're not a Poe, it's hard to tell sometimes), but that was one of the most ridiculous arguments I ever read.Bane_Star said:
How is a son asking why he can't marry his friend any different than right now? Kids have friends of the opposite gender you know, what if he asks "why can't I marry my friend Lisa?". The answer for both questions is "Because it's something adults do, son. And it's only done if two people love each other very much." Guarantee you the kid will respond with "Yuck! I don't love Johnny/Lisa! Gross!"
The rest of your argument simply doesn't hold up. Yeah people can have varying degrees of sexuality, I'm bisexual myself so when I have sex with guys it's a choice I make. But that doesn't mean EVERYONE swings between gay and straight, and frankly it's better they experiment as teenagers and find out where they are on the issue than have it repressed only to come out later in very ugly ways (think sham marriages and all those Republican sex scandals).
Fact of the matter is, public homosexuality does not affect the father's likelihood of his DNA living onwards either way. Unless of course you think a gay son having sex with a woman out of guilt for who he is to be somehow a beneficial outcome.
Civil partnerships = Fine. I don't see why we should care, we don't view it as a true marriage regardless of which genders into it. What I do think is wrong is people who work in registry offices being fired because they refuse to perform gay civil partnerships. Essentially saying that one persons liberty is more important than another's.
Forcing people who believe that homosexuality is wrong to perform or hold gay marriages in their places of worship is over the line. This is already quite a real concern in Britain these days.
"The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."
Have one viewpoint on marriage, or the other. This is one instance where you can't have both.
Forcing people who believe that homosexuality is wrong to perform or hold gay marriages in their places of worship is over the line. This is already quite a real concern in Britain these days.
As a Christian you should read where it says in the BibleBaron_Rouge said:
"The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."
Have one viewpoint on marriage, or the other. This is one instance where you can't have both.
I'm pretty sure he's being sarcastic.That Hyena Bloke said:
Inasmuch as the concept of marriage is an entirely fabricated and largely religious / premodern social construct, no. It was brewed up to ensure the next generation of a particular culture would have proper support from both parents (pretty crucial in a largely subsistence farming economy) etc. Not so important now. But the memetic and regulatory benefits of it remain hanging-on regardless.
The whole thing of marriages being strictly heterosexual seems to be a recent (well, ok, last couple millenia) and abrahamaic idea anyway. The romans and various other ancient - or even persisting non judeo-christian (pacific islands etc) cultures had much less trouble accepting homosexual and transgender members of their population, and allowing them to live within their chosen, "unnatural" (perfectly natural to them...) roles. Sex is sort of fixed, unless you're born intersex; gender and sexual orientation is a bit more fluid. A desire for love and companionship, and the ability to give similar back, is a human - heck, mammalian or even just animal - thing that goes far deeper. They understood that.
tl;dr - no, of course not, you fundamentalist cretins
(...not gay, but know enough couples. they seem more committed, stable and loving than a lot of heterosexual ones, if anything. and think of all the orphaned kids that could be given a good home by those who want to adopt rather than taking the surrogate route...)
The whole thing of marriages being strictly heterosexual seems to be a recent (well, ok, last couple millenia) and abrahamaic idea anyway. The romans and various other ancient - or even persisting non judeo-christian (pacific islands etc) cultures had much less trouble accepting homosexual and transgender members of their population, and allowing them to live within their chosen, "unnatural" (perfectly natural to them...) roles. Sex is sort of fixed, unless you're born intersex; gender and sexual orientation is a bit more fluid. A desire for love and companionship, and the ability to give similar back, is a human - heck, mammalian or even just animal - thing that goes far deeper. They understood that.
tl;dr - no, of course not, you fundamentalist cretins
(...not gay, but know enough couples. they seem more committed, stable and loving than a lot of heterosexual ones, if anything. and think of all the orphaned kids that could be given a good home by those who want to adopt rather than taking the surrogate route...)
No.
Beyond conservative religion and bigotry - to the limited extent they aren't the same thing - there is absolutely nothing harmful about two people who are gay being allowed to formalize their pre-existing relationship and getting the option for the same legal boons and obligations a heterosexual couple have.
Beyond conservative religion and bigotry - to the limited extent they aren't the same thing - there is absolutely nothing harmful about two people who are gay being allowed to formalize their pre-existing relationship and getting the option for the same legal boons and obligations a heterosexual couple have.
But of course, there are many reasons....the list can be made extensive indeed. But if these reasons are valid is up to each individual. One could reason that it is wrong from a moral/religious position, or perhaps that it is going against the natural order.
At the end of the day, it's what the state legislates that ultimately counts.
At the end of the day, it's what the state legislates that ultimately counts.
Well, if I was being technical about it, in the "Christian" sense of marriage, which is between a man and a woman, a man marrying another man is impossible. A marriage is basically a ritual asking God to watch over your union. If God doesn't like gays, then gays can't get married.
But Civil Partnerships are the same thing, just without "God's Blessing". The joys of being agnostic, athiest.
Basically, if I was to answer the question without sounding like a stuck up arse, there is NOTHING wrong with gay marriage.
But Civil Partnerships are the same thing, just without "God's Blessing". The joys of being agnostic, athiest.
Basically, if I was to answer the question without sounding like a stuck up arse, there is NOTHING wrong with gay marriage.
There are plenty of Christian denominations that accept homosexuality, I can respect that you may not consider them "true" Christians but your personal interpretation of the Bible doesn't make theirs any less valid.Jonabob87 said:
As for your first point, I agree wholeheartedly about gays being married in churches. The church should be able to decide that. But as for employees at a registry office, no. Sorry but if a marriage celebrant is unwilling to do their job, their boss should find someone who will. This is exactly the same as the Muslim supermarket workers who refuse to handle alcohol. If your religion conflicts with your job, then you shouldn't be working in that job. Registry offices are not places of worship, they're secular workplaces and are subject to anti-discrimination policy.
