Is there any REASON gay marriage is wrong?

[Hatchet90]

It goes against science, nature, God, the works. It's not just religious people who thinks it's wrong.

 

[XHolySmokesX]

But it doesn't predate Judaism, which Christianity is an offshoot of and where it gets the 10 commandments.

So are jewish people totally against homosexual relationships??

Btw, if someone could quote the part of the old testiment that says homosexuality is wrong that would be good. I wanna be able to read the parts of the bible people get these ideas from but i dunno where to look.

 

[Lt. Vinciti]

Religion...as it makes people blind...and read the bible as they choose...


Also King James was a MASSIVE HOMOPHOBE...looks like rewriting the bible got his point to the public...

 

[CloakedOne]

"What's next? "Marriage" to a goat? "Marriage" to your left hand? Once you break the defined nature of the language, where does it end?"

This sort of logic is known as the Slippery Slope fallacy, a jumping toward extreme outcomes that has no true logical basis other than the fact that it's somewhat related.

Besides, even if someone does marry a goat, their left hand, or whatever else you want, how does that affect you at all?. Gay marriage should be legalized because the basis of it remaining illegal rests solely in the argument that it's religiously amoral and for no other reason. Even if one considers the idea of natural pairings and the idea that only men and women are compatible, even that does not hold up: there is a lizard species out there that has only one sex (that being female). They evolved from a bi-sex species that gradually phase the male out. Some scientists believe that the Y-Chromosome, being nothing more than a shriveled X Chromosome, will eventually shrivel into nothingness and leave only women. Naturally, same sex relationships might become the norm for humans just as it is for that lizard.

 

[Colonel-Commissar]

It goes against science, nature, God, the works. It's not just religious people who thinks it's wrong.

That's not necessarily the case.
There was a research done that said lesbian parents provide the best support for their child.
and that living together in a committed relationship, prolongs the lifespan.(regardless of orientation)

And please define "nature", animals have polygamous relationships or eat their spouses. Shouldn't we be doing it as well?

Plus if it's against nature an impotent man and woman should not be able to marry.

 

[Jonabob87]

My two reasons for being against it are as follows.
1. allowing gays to marry gives them the right to adopt children, something I think is wrong. If they want to do it themselves, I don't like it but I can't stop it. I think it's just wrong to allow them to screw up a childs life and steer them towards the same future just because you want to be more like a natural couple when you're not.

2. As a christian it is wrong. The bible says in multiple places that men who give into lust for each other deserve the same fate as men who give into lust for a woman, and that no homosexuals will inherit the kingdom of god.

So your opinions on the rights of other human beings, who have done nothing wrong, are taken from vastly ambigious book written by a group of men a couple of 1000 years ago (the Old Testament is about 4000 years old I think - that's the one that has passages condoning rape by the way, and holds women to be inferior to men); and I'm sure there are plenty of passages that could be interpreted to accept homosexuality.

You also seem to assert that homosexuality is a choice, or something that can be passed on to other people simply by being around them. Which, y'know, is ridiculous.

Passages condoning rape? The tribe of Benjamin was all but annihilated in retaliation to a single act of gang rape in the Bible...

" First of all, in some passages God seems to tacitly sanction rape. In the Old Testament Moses encourages his men to use captured virgins for their own sexual pleasure, i.e. to rape them. After urging his men to kill the male captives and female captive who are not virgins he says: "But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves" (Numbers 31: 18). God then explicitly rewards Moses by urging him to distribute the spoils. He does not rebuke Moses or his men (Numbers 31: 25-27)."

"Second, when rape is condemned in the Old Testament the woman's rights and her psychological welfare are ignored. For example: "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father fifty skelels of silver, and she shall be his wife, and he may not put her away all of his days" (Deuteronomy 22; 28-29). Here the victim of rape is as treated the property of the father. Since the rapist has despoiled the father's property he must pay a bridal fee. The women apparently has no say in the matter and is forced to marry the person who raped her."

http://misslink.org/chapel/askaminister/bible/rape.html

From the first answer. And whilst the second answer disputes it, it does boil down to the real issue: interpretation. Even then, you may be interpreting the wrong thing anyway (the Bible wasn't written in English after all). And then, of course, there are the hordes of contradictions that pop up anyway.

I notice how you didn't dispute my point about women either (I assume you agree that its true), and of course, the guy I quoted probably ignores that too - why? Because its ridiculous to ever think you'd treat women like that in this day and age.

But gays? Oh no, gays are (supposedly) condemned in the Bible (depending on your interpretations), IT IS THE WORD OF GOD!

The whole thing is fucking ludicrous - the only life lessons people should be taken from the Bible are the things like "do not kill", and "don't be a dick". And if they can't work that sort of thing out for themselves then there really is a problem.

I still like the idea of just renaming it for gay people. Just give it a new name so the religious freaks will shut up about it. South Park absolutely nailed it!

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155043/butt-buddies

The problem then is that you're allowing religion to have an influence over law-making; a superficial one, perhaps, but one that should not exist.

They were saved for marriage, as was the law at the time. There is no reason to assume that when he said "For yourselves" that he meant "strictly for sexual purposes". It isn't written that God rebuked David when he slept with Bathsheba and got her husband killed, but we know that it was wrong, right?

No I don't think God himself is sexist, I think the Hebrews had a very male dominated society and God works with what he has. There was a woman who became a Judge of Israel later on who was one of the greatest wisest and most revered of the Judges. That, if you ask me, is Gods way of saying "Look what women can also do." She was greatly blessed, I think it says.

The Bible condemns homosexual sex, not homosexuals themselves.

I think it's fairly well established that humanity does have a big problem with not killing and not acting like a dick.

There should be literally NO correlation between state and religion. There doesn't and shouldn't have to be one either.

 

[Jonabob87]

It goes against science, nature, God, the works. It's not just religious people who thinks it's wrong.

That's not necessarily the case.
There was a research done that said lesbian parents provide the best support for their child.
and that living together in a committed relationship, prolongs the lifespan.(regardless of orientation)

And please define "nature", animals have polygamous relationships or eat their spouses. Shouldn't we be doing it as well?

Plus if it's against nature an impotent man and woman should not be able to marry.

Every single study I have EVER read has stated that a child develops best emotionally and mentally by having both parents (assuming they are healthy in those ways themselves).

 

[orangeban]

It goes against science, nature, God, the works. It's not just religious people who thinks it's wrong.

I'm sure I read something on this website saying that the scientific reason for homosexuality was to provide some sort of second parent for the children of the heterosexuals. So you have some people who can't/don't want to have kids and therefore help look after the others (remembering this is stone age type era)

For the nature thing, homosexuality is present in animals + see my above point

And for the god thing. You say that the god you believe in condemns it, but that doesn't make it true. A god who hates it is no more likely to exist than one who doesn't mind it, encourages it or just doesn't exist at all.

 

[orangeban]

It goes against science, nature, God, the works. It's not just religious people who thinks it's wrong.

That's not necessarily the case.
There was a research done that said lesbian parents provide the best support for their child.
and that living together in a committed relationship, prolongs the lifespan.(regardless of orientation)

And please define "nature", animals have polygamous relationships or eat their spouses. Shouldn't we be doing it as well?

Plus if it's against nature an impotent man and woman should not be able to marry.

Every single study I have EVER read has stated that a child develops best emotionally and mentally by having both parents (assuming they are healthy in those ways themselves).

Umm, "both parents" could mean two guys, gals or a mixture.

 

[Jonabob87]

It goes against science, nature, God, the works. It's not just religious people who thinks it's wrong.

That's not necessarily the case.
There was a research done that said lesbian parents provide the best support for their child.
and that living together in a committed relationship, prolongs the lifespan.(regardless of orientation)

And please define "nature", animals have polygamous relationships or eat their spouses. Shouldn't we be doing it as well?

Plus if it's against nature an impotent man and woman should not be able to marry.

Every single study I have EVER read has stated that a child develops best emotionally and mentally by having both parents (assuming they are healthy in those ways themselves).

Umm, "both parents" could mean two guys, gals or a mixture.

I think it's fairly obvious that I mean a mother and father, you know, the archetypal "parents"?

 

[The Funslinger]

I don't know is there any reason it is be wrong?

Hard to argue rationally when your grammar is atrocious.

OT: People believe what they believe. I'm of the mentality that you shouldn't force your beliefs on other people, but some people really do believe that gay marriage is wrong. They may also believe that allowing it is akin to ruining the world and is a "slippery slope". I don't agree with that, but then again, it's legal here and I've yet to see my corner of the world come to an end.

Silence, fool! His grammar isn't atrocious! He's merely a pirate! XD

OT: It's just a sort of relic attitude from a time when religion was law. In a generation or so, it'll hopefully disappear, but then again with all the homophobic prick children in the world now, maybe not. There's a lot of atheists (including myself) and the really militant ones can be among the worst. Damn kids. :/

 

[subtlefuge]

" First of all, in some passages God seems to tacitly sanction rape. In the Old Testament Moses encourages his men to use captured virgins for their own sexual pleasure, i.e. to rape them. After urging his men to kill the male captives and female captive who are not virgins he says: "But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves" (Numbers 31: 18). God then explicitly rewards Moses by urging him to distribute the spoils. He does not rebuke Moses or his men (Numbers 31: 25-27)."

"Second, when rape is condemned in the Old Testament the woman's rights and her psychological welfare are ignored. For example: "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father fifty skelels of silver, and she shall be his wife, and he may not put her away all of his days" (Deuteronomy 22; 28-29). Here the victim of rape is as treated the property of the father. Since the rapist has despoiled the father's property he must pay a bridal fee. The women apparently has no say in the matter and is forced to marry the person who raped her."

http://misslink.org/chapel/askaminister/bible/rape.html

From the first answer. And whilst the second answer disputes it, it does boil down to the real issue: interpretation. Even then, you may be interpreting the wrong thing anyway (the Bible wasn't written in English after all). And then, of course, there are the hordes of contradictions that pop up anyway.

I notice how you didn't dispute my point about women either (I assume you agree that its true), and of course, the guy I quoted probably ignores that too - why? Because its ridiculous to ever think you'd treat women like that in this day and age.

But gays? Oh no, gays are (supposedly) condemned in the Bible (depending on your interpretations), IT IS THE WORD OF GOD!

The whole thing is fucking ludicrous - the only life lessons people should be taken from the Bible are the things like "do not kill", and "don't be a dick". And if they can't work that sort of thing out for themselves then there really is a problem.

I agree with your ideals, but your argumentation is faulty.

You misinterpreted the Numbers passage. It refers to assimilation, not rape or sexual gratification. I can see how taking verses out of context could potentially help your argument, but you should know that it was also a tactic employed by fascists and slave owners.

Those not "corrupted" by the Midianites, were considered acceptable to be assimilated into the Jewish people. Most Jews consider it as a historical act of mercy by God, and it has nothing at all to do with rape.

 

[Firehound]

Is there any REASON gay marriage is wrong?

Dude, I'm still trying to wrap my head around why anyone would want to get married in the first place.

Well, beyond the tax benefits anyway.

This.

 

[ziggy161]

I think it's fine, the best reason being that if they want children they will most likely adopt, and I for one think adoption is a great thing as we have so many children who need parents that we dont need to keep spawning more :/

 

[The Funslinger]

It goes against science, nature, God, the works. It's not just religious people who thinks it's wrong.

That's not necessarily the case.
There was a research done that said lesbian parents provide the best support for their child.
and that living together in a committed relationship, prolongs the lifespan.(regardless of orientation)

And please define "nature", animals have polygamous relationships or eat their spouses. Shouldn't we be doing it as well?

Plus if it's against nature an impotent man and woman should not be able to marry.

Every single study I have EVER read has stated that a child develops best emotionally and mentally by having both parents (assuming they are healthy in those ways themselves).

Umm, "both parents" could mean two guys, gals or a mixture.

Unless you want to follow the "Bullet storm = rapists" woman, I'm going to need citation of these so-called studies.

I think it's fairly obvious that I mean a mother and father, you know, the archetypal "parents"?

 

[zombiejoe]

I'm a part of a religion we will not name which may or may not look to kindly on gay marrige.

I, however, do think it's ok if they get married.

But I don't really see anything wrong with it.

 

[spartandude]

Is there any REASON gay marriage is wrong?

Dude, I'm still trying to wrap my head around why anyone would want to get married in the first place.

Well, beyond the tax benefits anyway.

This.

i agree

 

[Woodsey]

My two reasons for being against it are as follows.
1. allowing gays to marry gives them the right to adopt children, something I think is wrong. If they want to do it themselves, I don't like it but I can't stop it. I think it's just wrong to allow them to screw up a childs life and steer them towards the same future just because you want to be more like a natural couple when you're not.

2. As a christian it is wrong. The bible says in multiple places that men who give into lust for each other deserve the same fate as men who give into lust for a woman, and that no homosexuals will inherit the kingdom of god.

So your opinions on the rights of other human beings, who have done nothing wrong, are taken from vastly ambigious book written by a group of men a couple of 1000 years ago (the Old Testament is about 4000 years old I think - that's the one that has passages condoning rape by the way, and holds women to be inferior to men); and I'm sure there are plenty of passages that could be interpreted to accept homosexuality.

You also seem to assert that homosexuality is a choice, or something that can be passed on to other people simply by being around them. Which, y'know, is ridiculous.

Passages condoning rape? The tribe of Benjamin was all but annihilated in retaliation to a single act of gang rape in the Bible...

" First of all, in some passages God seems to tacitly sanction rape. In the Old Testament Moses encourages his men to use captured virgins for their own sexual pleasure, i.e. to rape them. After urging his men to kill the male captives and female captive who are not virgins he says: "But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves" (Numbers 31: 18). God then explicitly rewards Moses by urging him to distribute the spoils. He does not rebuke Moses or his men (Numbers 31: 25-27)."

"Second, when rape is condemned in the Old Testament the woman's rights and her psychological welfare are ignored. For example: "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father fifty skelels of silver, and she shall be his wife, and he may not put her away all of his days" (Deuteronomy 22; 28-29). Here the victim of rape is as treated the property of the father. Since the rapist has despoiled the father's property he must pay a bridal fee. The women apparently has no say in the matter and is forced to marry the person who raped her."

http://misslink.org/chapel/askaminister/bible/rape.html

From the first answer. And whilst the second answer disputes it, it does boil down to the real issue: interpretation. Even then, you may be interpreting the wrong thing anyway (the Bible wasn't written in English after all). And then, of course, there are the hordes of contradictions that pop up anyway.

I notice how you didn't dispute my point about women either (I assume you agree that its true), and of course, the guy I quoted probably ignores that too - why? Because its ridiculous to ever think you'd treat women like that in this day and age.

But gays? Oh no, gays are (supposedly) condemned in the Bible (depending on your interpretations), IT IS THE WORD OF GOD!

The whole thing is fucking ludicrous - the only life lessons people should be taken from the Bible are the things like "do not kill", and "don't be a dick". And if they can't work that sort of thing out for themselves then there really is a problem.

I still like the idea of just renaming it for gay people. Just give it a new name so the religious freaks will shut up about it. South Park absolutely nailed it!

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155043/butt-buddies

The problem then is that you're allowing religion to have an influence over law-making; a superficial one, perhaps, but one that should not exist.

They were saved for marriage, as was the law at the time. There is no reason to assume that when he said "For yourselves" that he meant "strictly for sexual purposes". It isn't written that God rebuked David when he slept with Bathsheba and got her husband killed, but we know that it was wrong, right?

No I don't think God himself is sexist, I think the Hebrews had a very male dominated society and God works with what he has. There was a woman who became a Judge of Israel later on who was one of the greatest wisest and most revered of the Judges. That, if you ask me, is Gods way of saying "Look what women can also do." She was greatly blessed, I think it says.

The Bible condemns homosexual sex, not homosexuals themselves.

I think it's fairly well established that humanity does have a big problem with not killing and not acting like a dick.

There should be literally NO correlation between state and religion. There doesn't and shouldn't have to be one either.

"They were saved for marriage, as was the law at the time. There is no reason to assume that when he said "For yourselves" that he meant "strictly for sexual purposes". "

That still feeds into the women issue, at least. And like I said: interpretation. True, there's no real need to fully assume that's what it means. There's no reason don't assume it doesn't mean that in part, either. And he may not have rebuked that, but it seems that the passage from my quote is not a non-involvement.


"No I don't think God himself is sexist, I think the Hebrews had a very male dominated society and God works with what he has. There was a woman who became a Judge of Israel later on who was one of the greatest wisest and most revered of the Judges. That, if you ask me, is Gods way of saying "Look what women can also do." She was greatly blessed, I think it says."

This outweighs all the other stuff somehow, does it?

"The Bible condemns homosexual sex, not homosexuals themselves."

Technicality; and one that is yet again open to interpretation. If God doesn't care if they're gay and love each other, why does he care if they have sex?

"I think it's fairly well established that humanity does have a big problem with not killing and not acting like a dick."

Much of which has been done in the name of varying religions, or with God's supposed blessing.

"There should be literally NO correlation between state and religion. There doesn't and shouldn't have to be one either."

Well of course not, so why are personal beliefs standing in the way of equality?

 

[Jonabob87]

But it doesn't predate Judaism, which Christianity is an offshoot of and where it gets the 10 commandments.

So are jewish people totally against homosexual relationships??

Btw, if someone could quote the part of the old testiment that says homosexuality is wrong that would be good. I wanna be able to read the parts of the bible people get these ideas from but i dunno where to look.

Easy.

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." - Leviticus 18:22

"Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolator, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers of drunkards of slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God." - Romans 1:26

"Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolator, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers of drunkards of slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God." - I Corinthians 6:9

Hope that helps.