Is there any REASON gay marriage is wrong?

[superbatranger]

In favor of it not being legal. Like most politicians i don't think we should change the definition of marriage when the traditions are what matter. But hey, if they want to get married just sign the papers at city hall, badabing badaboom.

EDIT: This belongs in the politics and religion section.

But wouldn't that be discriminatory? It just feels like it would be to me.

 

[Jonabob87]

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.
...

So if an employee doesn't want to register the marriages of black people, that's a "liberty" he/she should be given as well?

Fun state it'll be when government employees can discriminate at will...

Why do people claim that race and sexuality are comparable? At the very most you can say you THINK people are born gay, if you stick to the scientific method anyway.

 

[Broax]

No, no it's not... I would we care about what gay people do... I understand why religious marriage is not accepted (as apparently gay people are going to hell) but I don't get it how a civil marriage is wrong...

 

[Mangod]

Gays should be allowed to marry in a fair and just society. Why'd they want to marry in the house of a religion that has persecuted them for who knows how long is a different question, with probably more varied answers.

 

[brimstone1392]

I know this won't be popular, but I do (in the case of such an important issue) feel the need to add my 2 cents.... what's the rate of exchange now... Screw it... my thirteen-hundred cents (that should cover it!) Gay marriage isn't the question, it's the question of government incursion into our lives. The right question should be "Does a government have/should they have the authority or even RIGHT to decide what is/is not moral in a matter that "should be" strictly spiritual and/or personal?

The answer is.... whatever you make of it.

Just my 2 (thirteen-hundred-and-fifty-by now) cents.

Damn... Economics sucks!

 

[bruunwald]

I am married. I love my wife. Gay marriage in no way whatsoever harms or changes that. There is nothing approaching reason that blocks gay marriage.

That hard headed people want to force their own beliefs upon everybody else to the detriment of the latter's personal liberties ceased being a surprise to me the day my second grade public school teacher held me back during recess so her strange friend (a trespasser on school grounds) could come in and exorcise the demon that caused me to daydream a lot (she called it "not being obedient to her will") by forcing me to "accept Jesus into {my] heart." Evidently, I did not seem sincere enough (I wasn't; I was totally terrified) because I was not allowed outside all day, even for PE.

A scant year later, I learned this lesson again, when, after moving to another town, a troop of door-to-door Jesus ladies stopped me in the street and grilled my nine-year-old ass on what religion I might be and whether I had the right Bible in the house and whether they could come in and examine it and instruct me, until one enterprising young fellow (with whom I am friends to this day) ran inside to get his mom to come out and chase these EVIL PEOPLE away.

And though I myself am a child of wonder, who imagines all sorts of things that might be possible in this grand Universe, I, to this day realize that a great many religious people in this world, maybe most in the case of a certain two largest religions, are actually pretty evil, and are either too ignorant, or too willfully ignorant to accept that. Their religion brings them to hate, and that is what holds back gay marriage: hate.

There is nothing anyone will ever say or do to make me forget and pretend that the only "reason" for keeping these people down is hate. It is obvious, it is right in front of us all of the time. Denying it is like letting loose a 200-pound, axe-wielding gorilla on a kitten, and then claiming you are just trying to "protect the apes." Generally, conventionally religious people are hateful, frightened, and the cause of most needless suffering, and the denial of basic human rights for anyone with whom they do not immediately identify, and at 2:21 in the morning, I think nobody need censor themselves about this obvious fact.

 

[Jonabob87]

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.

As a Christian, I can honestly say I really don't see what all the fuss is about. To me, marriage is about love. Everyone should have the right to express their love through marriage, regardless of sexual orientation.

As a Christian you should read where it says in the Bible

"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.

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.

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.

There are also Christian denominations that think Christians will become Gods and rule their own universes when the world ends.

If you say "I'm a Christian" then refuse to acknowledge something your Holy book says then you're not really being a Christian are you. If God speaks through it and says that homosexuality is wrong, turning round and saying "homosexuality is right" is completely contradicting what you're own chosen belief system says. You're choosing the label but not the belief.

There's not a single part in the old or new testaments that says homosexuality is alright, in four separate places (that I can think of) it says the opposite.

If you claim Jesus was a groovy love everyone guy and use that as an excuse to ignore the "homosexuality is wrong" thing then you've missed where Jesus said:

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Atheists who are pro-gay marriage make sense. They have no faith in a higher power and therefore no reason to seek to fulfill laws passed down by said higher power.

However, Christians do have a faith in a higher power, a set of laws given to them and by extension a reason to live by them.

 

[Gigano]

...

Why do people claim that race and sexuality are comparable? At the very most you can say you THINK people are born gay, if you stick to the scientific method anyway.

...Why would it even matter? Both are entirely harmless traits, meaning there's no reason to start examining whether people can "help" them in the first place.

But to go along with your notion that it's OK to discriminate against choices, would you then think it was OK for a government employee to refuse to register the marriages of people who'd made the filthy, filthy, filthy choice to be Christians?

Not all of us like those guys, and if you'd give me the right to refuse them rights when I become a civil servant on account of their life choice, then I'd be most thankful!

[small]Not really, but I hope you see the point.[/small]

 

[Jonabob87]

...

Why do people claim that race and sexuality are comparable? At the very most you can say you THINK people are born gay, if you stick to the scientific method anyway.

...Why would it even matter? Both are entirely harmless traits, meaning there's no reason to start examining whether people can "help" them in the first place.

But to go along with your notion that it's OK to discriminate against choices, would you then think it was OK for a government employee to refuse to register the marriages of people who'd made the filthy, filthy, filthy choice to be Christians?

Not all of us like those guys, and if you'd give me the right to refuse them rights when I become a civil servant, then I'd be most thankful!

If Christian marriage wasn't the status quo and Christians were an outside group demanding change then sure why not.

-removal- Believe me, where I'm from no one likes Christians.

edit: I thought you were being serious, removed now

 

[Someone Depressing]

There's nothing wrong with Gay Marriage. I don't know why people even think it's wrong, really.

 

[tzimize]

(Before reading, please note that I AM in favor of gay marriage, in case you're very thick and don't get that right away)

You might hear people go on about how "Gay marriage is wrong", and "How it shoud be illegal" and so on. But I've yet to hear an objective reason for the case. They sometimes try to justify their position with "It would hurt regular marriage", but this is far fetched at best and a flat out lie at worst.

Fortunately these forums tend to be pretty open-minded on the matter, but if you happen to disagree with me, I'd very much like to hear a good, solid, factual reason to support your position.

EDIT: Lol, I finaly caught on to the error in the title X). I originally wanted it to say "would be" instead of "is" but forgot to delete the "be".

In a political/tax sense: No. Gays should have equal rights as the rest of us.

In a religious sensE: Yes. The bible. (as logical as that can be). I'm no christian but if I am not mistaken the bible says that marriage should be between a woman and a man. Case closed. It does not make any sense for christians to want to live their life in the exact opposite way their holy book tells them to.

So. Gays should be able to marry, but I dont see why they should have to do it in a church, and I dont think a priest who does not want to should have to go against his belief an marry them just because they want to.

Its not a human right to be married afaik.

For the record, I am not a christian and couldnt care less about wether gays marry in churces or not. But from a principal standpoint it just seems hypocrytical to me to be a christian and want to marry gayly in a church.

 

[Gigano]

...

If Christian marriage wasn't the status quo and Christians were an outside group demanding change then sure why not.

-removal- Believe me, where I'm from no one likes Christians.

edit: I thought you were being serious, removed now

I don't really see how the "status quo" is relevant for what's ethically justifiable. And isn't the status quo "heterosexual marriage" (and sometimes gay civil unions) rather than "Christian marriage" anyway? At least in the first world countries which haven't adopted gay marriage already like 7 European countries already have.

And I am actually none too fond of the branches of Christianity (or other religions/ideologies) which - among other things - discriminate against utterly harmless sexual practises (homosexuality being the prime example). But I'll certainly respect their equal legal rights even when I don't respect them; a courtesy they should perhaps consider taking up themselves.

 

[Killclaw Kilrathi]

There are also Christian denominations that think Christians will become Gods and rule their own universes when the world ends.

If you say "I'm a Christian" then refuse to acknowledge something your Holy book says then you're not really being a Christian are you. If God speaks through it and says that homosexuality is wrong, turning round and saying "homosexuality is right" is completely contradicting what you're own chosen belief system says. You're choosing the label but not the belief.

There's not a single part in the old or new testaments that says homosexuality is alright, in four separate places (that I can think of) it says the opposite.

If you claim Jesus was a groovy love everyone guy and use that as an excuse to ignore the "homosexuality is wrong" thing then you've missed where Jesus said:

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Atheists who are pro-gay marriage make sense. They have no faith in a higher power and therefore no reason to seek to fulfill laws passed down by said higher power.

However, Christians do have a faith in a higher power, a set of laws given to them and by extension a reason to live by them.

As an agnostic I'm not particularly interested in arguing with you about liberal Christianity, if you're interested in that I'd suggest you find a few actual liberal Christians. Personally I'd consider them Christians if they believe in Jesus Christ as their lord and saviour, and anything else just differences in the fine print, but that's just me. My point was simply that under the broad generic umbrella term of Christian there are plenty of differing viewpoints on homosexuality.

 

[Marik Bentusi]

Not for me, but certain people are disturbed by certain things for various reasons and to the degree where they'd like the law to wrap around their tastes.

I don't know what you strongly dislike or outright hate, but let's just say it's eating meat because "meat is murder" or some BS like that (I'll pick it because it's somewhat common) and every time you see somebody enjoying their meat you cringe and it feels like you have to puke every second and the way everyone tolerates it makes you cringe even more (it only really works with an example that fits you, but I have no way of knowing what that would be, haha ^^.

Maybe if you see it from a more emotional perspective you can understand a little bit where those people come from. At least I can understand how those people probably feel, even if I don't agree with them.
I myself have no problem with gay marriage or stuff like that as long as it's not rubbed into my face - but alas, we live in a society where it's perfectly acceptable to trash-talk and stalk the hell out of every detail of a person's private life just because they're a celebrity - on TV no less. But that's another story.

 

[Jonabob87]

...

If Christian marriage wasn't the status quo and Christians were an outside group demanding change then sure why not.

-removal- Believe me, where I'm from no one likes Christians.

edit: I thought you were being serious, removed now

I don't really see how the "status quo" is relevant for what's ethically justifiable. And isn't the status quo "heterosexual marriage" (and sometimes gay civil unions) rather than "Christian marriage" anyway? At least in the first world countries which haven't adopted gay marriage already like 7 European countries already have.

And I am actually none too fond of the branches of Christianity (or other religions/ideologies) which - among other things - discriminate against utterly harmless sexual practises (homosexuality being the prime example). But I'll certainly respect their equal legal rights even when I don't respect them; a courtesy they should perhaps consider taking up themselves.

Gay civil unions are pretty rare actually, and the majority of weddings are conducted at the very least using a priest/minister and the Christian version of the vows (unless people write their own). But yeah you could say the status quo is heterosexual marriage, and a Christian marriage IS a heterosexual marriage, so what's the difference?

The only one we "discriminate" against that I can think of is homosexuality, and don't call it harmless. You can say "People can do whatever they feel like I don't care" but to call the leading cause of the spread of HIV in the UK "harmless" is daft.

 

[ComicsAreWeird]

I think gay marriage should be as legit as hetero marriage. I cant understand how someone could be offended by someone else´s happiness. So no, no reason whatsoever.

 

[Jonabob87]

There are also Christian denominations that think Christians will become Gods and rule their own universes when the world ends.

If you say "I'm a Christian" then refuse to acknowledge something your Holy book says then you're not really being a Christian are you. If God speaks through it and says that homosexuality is wrong, turning round and saying "homosexuality is right" is completely contradicting what you're own chosen belief system says. You're choosing the label but not the belief.

There's not a single part in the old or new testaments that says homosexuality is alright, in four separate places (that I can think of) it says the opposite.

If you claim Jesus was a groovy love everyone guy and use that as an excuse to ignore the "homosexuality is wrong" thing then you've missed where Jesus said:

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Atheists who are pro-gay marriage make sense. They have no faith in a higher power and therefore no reason to seek to fulfill laws passed down by said higher power.

However, Christians do have a faith in a higher power, a set of laws given to them and by extension a reason to live by them.

As an agnostic I'm not particularly interested in arguing with you about liberal Christianity, if you're interested in that I'd suggest you find a few actual liberal Christians. Personally I'd consider them Christians if they believe in Jesus Christ as their lord and saviour, and anything else just differences in the fine print, but that's just me. My point was simply that under the broad generic umbrella term of Christian there are plenty of differing viewpoints on homosexuality.

I'm really not interested in hearing anything about anything "liberal" in a political sense, I assume that's what you mean? It must be considering that liberty in the truest sense leads to anarchy or oppression one way or another.

The word "Christian" was originally a derogatory term meaning "follower of Christ". How can you be a follower of someone if you don't also follow their teachings?

 

[Gigano]

Gay civil unions are pretty rare actually, and the majority of weddings are conducted at the very least using a priest/minister and the Christian version of the vows (unless people write their own). But yeah you could say the status quo is heterosexual marriage, and a Christian marriage IS a heterosexual marriage, so what's the difference?

That heterosexual marriage encompass all other faiths and none (Islamic marriage, Hindu marriage, Atheist marriage etc.), and thus isn't anything specifically Christian. Nor have it ever been; All world religions have featured such institutions since ancient times, and civil marriage have quite a few decades up its belt as well.

So it hardly "belongs" to Christians, but is a legal construct where you can add the flavour of whatever religion you adhere to (or choose not to bother).

The only one we "discriminate" against that I can think of is homosexuality, and don't call it harmless. You can say "People can do whatever they feel like I don't care" but to call the leading cause of the spread of HIV in the UK "harmless" is daft.

...And giving them the option to make a legal commitment to a single partner for life would exacerbate the spread of HIV how?

And it's still harmless as a concept (and when practising safe sex with condoms etc.). Though yes, it cannot be ruled out that the significant social oppression, stereotyping, and necessity for secrecy does contribute to make parts of the gay scene act less responsibly in terms of practising safe sex; which is one of the reasons gay marriage should be instituted.

 

[Jonabob87]

Gay civil unions are pretty rare actually, and the majority of weddings are conducted at the very least using a priest/minister and the Christian version of the vows (unless people write their own). But yeah you could say the status quo is heterosexual marriage, and a Christian marriage IS a heterosexual marriage, so what's the difference?

That heterosexual marriage encompass all other faiths and none (Islamic marriage, Hindu marriage, Atheist marriage etc.), and thus isn't anything specifically Christian. Nor have it ever been; All world religions have featured such institutions since ancient times, and civil marriage have quite a few decades up its belt as well.

So it hardly "belongs" to Christians, but is a legal construct where you can add the flavour of whatever religion you adhere to (or choose not to bother).

I didn't say it belonged to Christians, I said a Christian marriage would be inherently heterosexual.

The only one we "discriminate" against that I can think of is homosexuality, and don't call it harmless. You can say "People can do whatever they feel like I don't care" but to call the leading cause of the spread of HIV in the UK "harmless" is daft.

...And giving them the option to make a legal commitment to a single partner for life would exacerbate the spread of HIV how?

That's not what I said.

And it's still harmless as a concept (and when practising safe sex with condoms etc.). Though yes, it cannot be ruled out that the significant social oppression, stereotyping, and necessity for secrecy does contribute to make parts of the gay scene act less responsibly in terms of practising safe sex; which is one of the reasons gay marriage should be instituted.

Social oppression? You and me DEFINITELY live in different countries.