Is there any REASON gay marriage is wrong?

[Totenkopf]

I don't think so.
In my opinion, homosexuals should be given the right to have a official relationship with the same benefits of a marriage, though it shouldn't be called marriage (don't worry, that wouldn't mean any loss of benefits, it just concerns the name).
I simply think that the term "marriage" should be reserved to the official man-woman-partnerships, as simple as that.

Why should the term "marriage" be specifically between a man and a woman? In common parlance it's already used to mean the joining of any number of things, or dedication to something other than a member of the opposite sex, so why not remove any sort of separation between homosexual and heterosexual unions and permit them both the same nomenclature?

That's simply a case of personal opinion and association. I think that marriage, or rather "Ehe" in my native language, is meant to describe the union of man and woman.
And since it creates no disadvantage for anyone, it seems fair to me to reserve the term that way.

 

[rc0ll]

Okay, since nobody cares for religious arguments, I'll give you a few of the non-religious.

Firstly, marriage is an institution between a man and a woman that goes back thousands of years. It's a very old tradition that in modern times seams to have lost a lot of meaning for people. The reason a lot of marriages break up is because these vows weren't taken seriously by at least one of the partners. 'In sickness and in health', 'for richer or poorer', 'for better or worse', these are not just frilly words - they actually do mean, stick together even if the shit hits the fan, whether that's a year later or ten years later.

My point is, there are three plausible reasons why gay people would want to get married:

a) Because they earnestly love each other, and want to commit themselves in a LIFELONG bond as what should be expected with straight couples
b) They want equality for equality's sake
c) They want the lavish wedding day

Everyone claims they fall under category A, and while that's true for some gay couples who do earnestly love each other, it's hard to justify undoing a thousands-old tradition to accommodate such inward, selfish motives in B and C.

Furthermore, just because there may not seem to be many plausible reasons against it, doesn't mean there's a smattering of reasons for it either. I'm not against the legal rights for same sex couples, and I believe civil unions should have the same legal standings and benefits as a marriage. Aside from that, what's so crucial for same sex couples to obtain a marriage? So they can sleep easier knowing that they're not slighted in any way?

One of the more laughable arguments not just for same sex marriage, but for just about anything, is the sentiment that all previous cultures were stupid and closed minded, and we are superior with our open-minded view. In what way is our culture more advanced really? Since when does a generation that sits down to watch the Jersey Shore and laugh at a dog who walks on two legs on America's Got Talent have the right to call itself culturally enlightened? If the ancient Egyptians, Romans and other cultures in Europe had access to the technology of our day, if more of their people were schooled and they had better medical services, believe me they wouldn't be wasting away like our culture is today. If you took the workforce that built the great pyramids and gave them a tour of our culture they'd say that we're a fat, lazy, hedonistic people overall. Just because a culture may seem primitive to you, doesn't mean they were necessarily dumber. Some of you are blind to your own blindness.

The arguments on both sides, really, are quite thin. It's symbolic of the facebook era we live in, where we can have no real firm opinions, but merely 'like' an issue. Don't give a damn? Doesn't mean you can't 'like' it. That's not the hallmark of decisive action by the populous.

 

[BKtheKITTY]

At the end of the day, the civilized world got around 'You Shall Not Steal' (Natives? Your land? What?) and pretty soon Thou Shalt Not Marry Someone With Sexybits Like Thine Own will be relegated to the not-applicable-to-modern-life column too. In a couple of years your kids'll turn around, say; "Daddies? What was it like when same sex couples were discriminated against?" and you'll sit them on your knee and say "well kids, there were buttloads of arguments on the internet."

Also, there will be hoverboards, because it's About Fucking Time.

 

[Griffolion]

I think God's word is more important than your own personal preferences.

(..) neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee. Levi 19:19

You may want to check your pants bro.

You gotta love Leviticus! Loads of weird commands in there haha

Just like the "god hates fags" one, am I right ?

If you could find the verse that specifically says that God hates fags I would be much appreciative. The slogan 'God Hates Fags' is something belonging to Westboro Baptist Church and associated people, whom I cannot wish more to be spiritually further from.

 

[Jonabob87]

I think God's word is more important than your own personal preferences.

(..) neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee. Levi 19:19

You may want to check your pants bro.

You gotta love Leviticus! Loads of weird commands in there haha . But if you read it contextually to the people God was giving that command to. Those individuals had only just won their freedom from the Egyptians. Up until that time they were living under the rule of the Egyptians and so did not know how to function independently as their own society. Those commands, as strange as they are, were God's (very temporary) way of helping them function as a society. Also remember that those people were only a fraction above barbaric in terms of philosophy and thought, so stuff had to be kept simple for them to understand and carry out. I'm guessing that command regarding linen and wool had something perhaps to do with the way they fabricated linen and woolen garments and mingling the two may cause an unfavourable reaction with the skin that would cause them to become ill. It's the same with the command of eating pork. It wasn't allowed for a while because it was a forbidden animal by the Lord. This probably wasn't some arbitrary rule from God, it was more than likely due to the fact that their hygiene methods meant cooking and eating pork was a death sentence in terms of infection and food poisoning. But you couldn't explain that to a barely civilised bunch of people haha .

But a lot of what was in the Old Testament is, as you say and know, quite irrelevant to modern life now. The Old Testament should only ever serve as the background story of man's separation from God through rebellion and the violence and evil that all humans are capable of. It paves the way for the beautiful rescue and reconciliation story found in the New Testament in the story of Jesus. There are many golden nuggets of philosophy and thought in there, but most of it is just irrelevant rules, wars and king bloodlines!

I agree with the gist of what you're saying dude. You put it beautifully but Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law of Moses and that not one "jot or tittle" would be changed until the end of the world.

Now I think about it he said "Until my fathers kingdom comes" in a lot of translations, which was when the Holy spirit came down after the resurrection...I must read in to this.

Yeah I know what you mean. But then again there can be many interpretations to what Jesus was saying when he said nothing would change until His father's kingdom comes. It could mean that the sinful nature of man will not change and that the natural separation that comes of this between man and God will not change until He comes to finally sort it all out. I only say this because a lot of what the Law of Moses taught was revoked in either Jesus' teachings or the teachings of blessed individuals further in the Bible. The most poignant example i can think of is when Paul told the young Christians in Corinthians that it's okay to eat meat that hasn't been sanctified at the altar because they no longer needed to do that sacrificial ritual. Also remember that the Law of Moses extended all the way through the entire Bible and even to this day, Islam and Judaism still practice a lot of what the law of Moses taught. The law did say that eventually one would come to bring man and God together and I believe that was Jesus (just my belief). The Holy Spirit is God's spirit and commune with us on earth that guides us and gives us the strength to do really good stuff for God, it was a gift to us during our time on earth.

I don't think the law of Moses does conflict with was Jesus says, he fulfilled the law and took all the punishment for the breaking of that law upon himself. Freeing us from those punishments. He didn't say "things" wouldn't change, he said that the law of Moses wouldn't be changed.

The reason that it's alright to eat pigs and such now is hygiene based, also the sacrifices don't need to be made because Jesus was the sacrifice for all mankind.

 

[Shycte]

The amount of I'm not homophobic but.... Here is lulzworthy, and sad.

So anyone who disagrees with the gay lifestyle is a homophobe in your eyes.So by that same logic anyone who uses the N word is a raciest.

No, but anyone who claims that homosexuals shoudn't have the same rights and that they are somehow diffrent beyond their sexual orientation is a homophobic yes. A ricist person is somone who thinks that their race is superior and that others shouldn't have the same rights as them, same goes for homophobes. They don't think that homosexuals should be allowed to be married in the eyes of the state because of [reason here].

What reason that is doesn't matter horse shit because you are still dividing people in an unjust and medieval way.

 

[Shycte]

The amount of I'm not homophobic but.... Here is lulzworthy, and sad.

I don't think that we should force any religous institution to bless any marrige that is against their religon, but if we are talking non-religous marriges then there no reason at all why you shouldn't allow it. Religon doesn't have a say here so Levictus can go throw itself in a bin.

No state should ever have the right to say that "Group X" can not do this, but "Group Y" can. That is a spit in the face to democracy and all the equality of men we have ever fought for. Remember, first they came for the communists...

Organized religion is technically not part of the government since according to law, they are representatives of their respective headquarters (i.e. the Vatican in terms of the Catholics). Thus, the few fanatics among them sadly give the rest horrible names by arrogantly believing that the basic tenets of democracy do not apply to them. Many fanatics of the religious right actually advocate what they would call a "benevolent dictator."

I agree, I think... What did I just agree too? That fanatics are bad? You sir is a wise man.

 

[Griffolion]

I think God's word is more important than your own personal preferences.

(..) neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee. Levi 19:19

You may want to check your pants bro.

You gotta love Leviticus! Loads of weird commands in there haha . But if you read it contextually to the people God was giving that command to. Those individuals had only just won their freedom from the Egyptians. Up until that time they were living under the rule of the Egyptians and so did not know how to function independently as their own society. Those commands, as strange as they are, were God's (very temporary) way of helping them function as a society. Also remember that those people were only a fraction above barbaric in terms of philosophy and thought, so stuff had to be kept simple for them to understand and carry out. I'm guessing that command regarding linen and wool had something perhaps to do with the way they fabricated linen and woolen garments and mingling the two may cause an unfavourable reaction with the skin that would cause them to become ill. It's the same with the command of eating pork. It wasn't allowed for a while because it was a forbidden animal by the Lord. This probably wasn't some arbitrary rule from God, it was more than likely due to the fact that their hygiene methods meant cooking and eating pork was a death sentence in terms of infection and food poisoning. But you couldn't explain that to a barely civilised bunch of people haha .

But a lot of what was in the Old Testament is, as you say and know, quite irrelevant to modern life now. The Old Testament should only ever serve as the background story of man's separation from God through rebellion and the violence and evil that all humans are capable of. It paves the way for the beautiful rescue and reconciliation story found in the New Testament in the story of Jesus. There are many golden nuggets of philosophy and thought in there, but most of it is just irrelevant rules, wars and king bloodlines!

I agree with the gist of what you're saying dude. You put it beautifully but Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law of Moses and that not one "jot or tittle" would be changed until the end of the world.

Now I think about it he said "Until my fathers kingdom comes" in a lot of translations, which was when the Holy spirit came down after the resurrection...I must read in to this.

Yeah I know what you mean. But then again there can be many interpretations to what Jesus was saying when he said nothing would change until His father's kingdom comes. It could mean that the sinful nature of man will not change and that the natural separation that comes of this between man and God will not change until He comes to finally sort it all out. I only say this because a lot of what the Law of Moses taught was revoked in either Jesus' teachings or the teachings of blessed individuals further in the Bible. The most poignant example i can think of is when Paul told the young Christians in Corinthians that it's okay to eat meat that hasn't been sanctified at the altar because they no longer needed to do that sacrificial ritual. Also remember that the Law of Moses extended all the way through the entire Bible and even to this day, Islam and Judaism still practice a lot of what the law of Moses taught. The law did say that eventually one would come to bring man and God together and I believe that was Jesus (just my belief). The Holy Spirit is God's spirit and commune with us on earth that guides us and gives us the strength to do really good stuff for God, it was a gift to us during our time on earth.

I don't think the law of Moses does conflict with was Jesus says, he fulfilled the law and took all the punishment for the breaking of that law upon himself. Freeing us from those punishments. He didn't say "things" wouldn't change, he said that the law of Moses wouldn't be changed.

The reason that it's alright to eat pigs and such now is hygiene based, also the sacrifices don't need to be made because Jesus was the sacrifice for all mankind.

Yeah I agree . I guess it's just a case of discerning the 'practical' things that can now be done without danger of disease or whatever, and the spiritual stuff that should always be kept because they'll always be relevant in some way. Such as loving people as yourself and being honest.

 

[WolandNYC]

Legally speaking while it is the states that legislate on marriage (reserved powers) outside of DC anyway, it is also true that the states are subject to reciprocity meaning if a marriage is valid in one state, another state has to recognize the validity of said marriage. Otherwise it would be a nightmare to administer. Any time someone moves or travels state to state or from another country, etc. So if let's say Alabama doesn't recognize a legal marriage between two people from lets say Iowa of the same sex, Iowa can stop recognizing a legal marriage from Alabama between two people of the opposite sex. This could be a problem for property division/divorce, survivorship benefits, hospital visitation, state taxes, etc.

The second more serious issue (legally) is that while you relegate the issue of marriage to the states, if one state was to define marriage as union of one man and one woman (DoMA a federal law allows them to do so) it is tantamount to taking away legal right from what civil rights lawyers call a "suspect group," suspect group is a group that can be discriminated against based on what they are (hence the whole hoopla over whether homosexuality is a behavior or a trait). Once something can be phrased into the "equal protection under the law" clause it becomes a federal issue.

As far as the civil-union-not-marriage argument, once again legally speaking "separate is not equal." If the only difference is what you call it that it is exactly that different, somehow unworthy and second class. Marriage as we know has not been around for thousands of years, it is not really in the Bible not the way people try to make it out. In most of Europe unless property rights or lands were involved most common people, had common law marriages...

But the bottom line really once you get past religion, bigotry, history, psychology, etc. This is a legal framework for a private decision between two citizens, that is taken for granted by everyone who is of decision making capacity; where reasons are not questioned or are expected to be uniform(love, money, stupidity, too much too drink, 3 months pregnant...) provided they are not of the same sex.

I am conservative enough to say it's none of the government's business and liberal enough to say equality under the law matters not because of who it protects, but rather because of who else we can exclude from that protection when we do not like what they are, or what they say, or how they worship/or don't worship. Forty some years ago (for most readers here I am assuming in their parents lifetime) it was illegal for two people of different races to be legally married, and the rationale that the Commonwealth of Virginia gave was it was to protect the mixed race kids from being ostracized by both white and black... (Loving vs. Virginia)... sorry this is much longer than I expected it to be but hope this helps...

 

[Skratt]

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?!?!?

 

[Dana22]

I think God's word is more important than your own personal preferences.

(..) neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee. Levi 19:19

You may want to check your pants bro.

You gotta love Leviticus! Loads of weird commands in there haha

Just like the "god hates fags" one, am I right ?

If you could find the verse that specifically says that God hates fags I would be much appreciative. The slogan 'God Hates Fags' is something belonging to Westboro Baptist Church and associated people, whom I cannot wish more to be spiritually further from.

You know really well which verse I am talking about. I used the "slogan" because I didn't wanted to search through my bible again, but I decided to do that just for you:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Levi 18:22.

"Abomination" is the worst sin unto lord. I bet he hates it.

 

[Jonabob87]

I think God's word is more important than your own personal preferences.

(..) neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee. Levi 19:19

You may want to check your pants bro.

You gotta love Leviticus! Loads of weird commands in there haha

Just like the "god hates fags" one, am I right ?

If you could find the verse that specifically says that God hates fags I would be much appreciative. The slogan 'God Hates Fags' is something belonging to Westboro Baptist Church and associated people, whom I cannot wish more to be spiritually further from.

You know really well which verse I am talking about. I used the "slogan" because I didn't wanted to search through my bible again, but I decided to do that just for you:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Levi 18:22.

"Abomination" is the worst sin unto lord. I bet he hates it.

The act is an abomination, the person isn't.

 

[Jonabob87]

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 can only speak for moderate Christians but there is nothing in the new testament that is against gay marriage. The fundies get all of their ant-gay talking points from the old testament, which is an interesting read and important to know where we come from but is for the most part rendered moot by the new testament.

It's not rendered moot. Jesus said that he does not intend to change a single coma or a single letter in the law. Without the Old Testament Jesus is just a wandering philosopher, his divinity stems from the fact that he's an heir to Adam, Abraham and David, has been foretold by the prophets and so on. I'm sorry to say that, but when you take time to study the Bible it seems that Jesus in fact did "hate fags". (Well, he would forgive them if they were seeking redemption, but he was capable of anger)

Not that I believe this.

I would like to point out that the New testament actually does speak about homosexuality in numerous places, Romans 1:25-27 being one. Other than that I will refrain from taking part in this discussion other than to say that the whole 'Jesus hates Fags' argument is completely unsupported by the bible.

I don't get it. You admitt and even prove that Jesus' students were fiercely opposed to homosexuality as well as his supposed father, yet find it completely unspported that he was anti-gay himself?

I don't think he's saying he wasn't anti-gay, just that he doesn't HATE gay people.

 

[Hellsen]

Morality is determined by the majority

 

[blank0000]

The best argument against gay marriage is the way it muddles the line between church and state. It's the government telling a religious group how to behave.

This argument loses some steam when you consider a lot of the financial benefits of being legally married "which in fact does muddle the line between church and state", as well as the fact that a priest would always have final say over who they marry vs who they don't.

 

[Jonabob87]

I think God's word is more important than your own personal preferences.

(..) neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee. Levi 19:19

You may want to check your pants bro.

You gotta love Leviticus! Loads of weird commands in there haha . But if you read it contextually to the people God was giving that command to. Those individuals had only just won their freedom from the Egyptians. Up until that time they were living under the rule of the Egyptians and so did not know how to function independently as their own society. Those commands, as strange as they are, were God's (very temporary) way of helping them function as a society. Also remember that those people were only a fraction above barbaric in terms of philosophy and thought, so stuff had to be kept simple for them to understand and carry out. I'm guessing that command regarding linen and wool had something perhaps to do with the way they fabricated linen and woolen garments and mingling the two may cause an unfavourable reaction with the skin that would cause them to become ill. It's the same with the command of eating pork. It wasn't allowed for a while because it was a forbidden animal by the Lord. This probably wasn't some arbitrary rule from God, it was more than likely due to the fact that their hygiene methods meant cooking and eating pork was a death sentence in terms of infection and food poisoning. But you couldn't explain that to a barely civilised bunch of people haha .

But a lot of what was in the Old Testament is, as you say and know, quite irrelevant to modern life now. The Old Testament should only ever serve as the background story of man's separation from God through rebellion and the violence and evil that all humans are capable of. It paves the way for the beautiful rescue and reconciliation story found in the New Testament in the story of Jesus. There are many golden nuggets of philosophy and thought in there, but most of it is just irrelevant rules, wars and king bloodlines!

I agree with the gist of what you're saying dude. You put it beautifully but Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law of Moses and that not one "jot or tittle" would be changed until the end of the world.

Now I think about it he said "Until my fathers kingdom comes" in a lot of translations, which was when the Holy spirit came down after the resurrection...I must read in to this.

Yeah I know what you mean. But then again there can be many interpretations to what Jesus was saying when he said nothing would change until His father's kingdom comes. It could mean that the sinful nature of man will not change and that the natural separation that comes of this between man and God will not change until He comes to finally sort it all out. I only say this because a lot of what the Law of Moses taught was revoked in either Jesus' teachings or the teachings of blessed individuals further in the Bible. The most poignant example i can think of is when Paul told the young Christians in Corinthians that it's okay to eat meat that hasn't been sanctified at the altar because they no longer needed to do that sacrificial ritual. Also remember that the Law of Moses extended all the way through the entire Bible and even to this day, Islam and Judaism still practice a lot of what the law of Moses taught. The law did say that eventually one would come to bring man and God together and I believe that was Jesus (just my belief). The Holy Spirit is God's spirit and commune with us on earth that guides us and gives us the strength to do really good stuff for God, it was a gift to us during our time on earth.

I don't think the law of Moses does conflict with was Jesus says, he fulfilled the law and took all the punishment for the breaking of that law upon himself. Freeing us from those punishments. He didn't say "things" wouldn't change, he said that the law of Moses wouldn't be changed.

The reason that it's alright to eat pigs and such now is hygiene based, also the sacrifices don't need to be made because Jesus was the sacrifice for all mankind.

Yeah I agree . I guess it's just a case of discerning the 'practical' things that can now be done without danger of disease or whatever, and the spiritual stuff that should always be kept because they'll always be relevant in some way. Such as loving people as yourself and being honest.

Most definitely

 

[Woodsey]

Marriage is religious, so it should be up to the relevant church if they want to offer that service, or if it goes against their beliefs, though I'm not opposed personally.

Marriage isn't religious, at least not any more. I'm an atheist and I can get married to an atheist if I want to, but only provided they're of the opposite sex. Marriages are made official when they are sanctioned by the state, not by the church. If a homosexual couple wants a church to sanction their union then it's up to the church to decide whether to do so or not, but that approval is not required for marriage.

Which part of the ceremony of "Holy Matrimony" isn't religious?! The bit with the prayers, the Vicar or God's blessing? I guess you're referring to going to a registrar and getting legally married without the ceremony. Fair 'nuff. Didn't really consider that much, thought 'civil partnerships' would give the same legal status as one of those.

Let me dig up my extraordinarily well researched post from earlier (if only I put this much effort into my revision right now):

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.

Just going by Wikipedia here:

"Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony."

"People marry for many reasons, including one or more of the following: legal, social, emotional, economical, spiritual, and religious."

The impression I get is that marriage plays a big part in a lot of religions. It is not, in and of its self, a wholly religious practice; nor has it ever been.

On the Ancient Greeks and marriage:

"In Ancient Greece, no specific civil ceremony was required for the creation of a marriage ? only mutual agreement and the fact that the couple must regard each other as husband and wife accordingly."

I can't see any mention of religion in the rest of the passage concerning Greece either (its under 'Marriage' on Wikipedia).

Likewise:

"Marriage, as we know it in our Western civilization today, has a long history with roots in several very different ancient cultures, of which the Roman, Hebrew, and Germanic are the most important. Western marriage has further been shaped by the doctrines and policies of the medieval Christian church, the demands of the Protestant Reformation, and the social impact of the Industrial Revolution."

"Further been shaped" - not created by.

Furthermore: "In ancient Greece marriage was seen as a fundamental social institution."

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html

From my understanding, religion is not a wholly religious practice, nor has it ever been, but that seems to be what you're basing your opinion on. I see no reason to change the word marriage then!

 

[Dana22]

The act is an abomination, the person isn't.

But the question is, do YOU think it is wrong or bad. Do you use this verse to justify your position on that matter. Like that other guy did.