Is there any REASON gay marriage is wrong?

[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.

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

I'm pretty sure the emotional and mental development of a child is decided by the quality of the parents and the envirourment around them. I know people raised by divorced parents and gay parents who are just as emotianally developed as someone raised by straight parents.

 

[Happy Toki Toki]

I disagree with using the term "marriage" because the idea of "marriage" as it is has been the same for thousands of years, and now we have to change it because... why exactly? Because less than 10% of the worlds population demands a change of ideas? 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?

Why not civil union? Why not a whole new word? Why must it be "marriage?"

By the way, that's Elton John's opinion, as well as mine. I'm not against civil unions, but I am against using the term "marriage."

I'm with this guy - rock on

 

[orangeban]

I disagree with using the term "marriage" because the idea of "marriage" as it is has been the same for thousands of years, and now we have to change it because... why exactly? Because less than 10% of the worlds population demands a change of ideas? 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?

Why not civil union? Why not a whole new word? Why must it be "marriage?"

By the way, that's Elton John's opinion, as well as mine. I'm not against civil unions, but I am against using the term "marriage."

I'm with this guy - rock on

Less than 10% is still roughly 600 hundred million people. How many people do you need before you consider giving in to them?

 

[djlukaluke]

(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".

I think it would be fair (here in Australia) to allow civil ceremonies so couples can have legal marriages and let different churches/temples etc decide for themselves if they would have gay marriage on their premises as well. I think this may work, not because I am religious in any way; but because any kind of social change is usually drawn-out and painful - the religious demographic seems to often voice the loudest opposition. It could be a step in the right direction to leave them out of the loop for the time being.

 

[Stevepinto3]

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

See my last post.

I support full marriage rights, not civil unions. Sure they seem like a nice middle ground where you can have the benefits of marriage without offending people, but there's still a distinction there. It still classifies homosexuals as "different" or even "inferior". It's just a cop-out to appease homophobes and bigots. Having the benefits of marriage are important, but what's more important is being respected like an equal human being.

 

[Gudrests]

In religion yes it is bad...its a sin in religion. butt uhhh seperation of church and state kinda say LOL IDGAF ABOUT YOUR FLYING SPAGETTI MONSTER....so the argument from a law perspective is null and void because the court does not recognize the religion as a reason. I say call it something else...married is what happens in a church, civil union is what happens on paper.

 

[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.

"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?

This outweighs all the other stuff somehow, does it?

I didn't say that, I gave you an example of a strong woman in the Bible. That's all.

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?

How is that open to interpretation? The Bible calls the act deplorable and leaves it at that. Jesus goes on to say that God loves all people regardless of their problems but that sin creates a barrier. Sin is disobedience.

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

"Supposed" being the key word, and let's not act like there has never been act of evil committed except on "religious" grounds.

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

You should read earlier where I said I don't care about homosexual state marriage as long as religious organisations aren't forced to perform them.

 

[Wolfwind]

Personally, I can't really think of any reason. It doesn't hurt anyone, and if it makes them happy, then go for it.

I've heard the argument "Marriage is about making families and gay people can't reproduce, so it's against nature." Who cares? They can still adopt, there are tons of kids out there that need homes. And we don't need more people, the planet's overpopulated as it is. If anything, humanity needs to reproduce LESS.

Anyways, back on topic. Gay marriage is okay in my books.

 

[The Funslinger]

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

How the hell does it go against science? There are various animals (e.g. scientifically very instinctive and not open to the same free will as humanity.) that exhibit homosexuality. For example, all male giraffes are bisexual, leaning towards gay, it's just occasionally they happen to bonk a female and that's how the species goes on, but it's mostly guy on guy.

So in conclusion, science and nature approve. God isn't a factor, as far as I'm concerned. What now?

 

[TheXRatedDodo]

No, because moralizing about such a thing is an absolute waste of time and energy.
Morality doesn't truly exist aside from what we create. As long as someone's actions in their life are not hurting others, how can there be anything "wrong" with it?
To stop homosexuals from getting married just because of how it makes a certain bunch of people feel is ludicrous. I'm not going to stop wandering around town with a smile on my face just because it makes people visibly uncomfortable to see someone who isn't miserable, so I do not see why homosexuals should not be able and allowed to get married.

I care not what the bible says and not what the traditional view of marriage is, love is love and love is a beautiful thing and if a couple wants to cement their love by making such vows to each other, then more power to them.

 

[DTWolfwood]

Not really sure what the point of marrying someone if you don't plan on having a kid with them. If they want to adopt, by all means let them get married and have all the perks that come with it.

If they never plan to have a kid, i say fuck them, they don't need to be married to be together. This goes for both sides btw.

i see marriage as nothing more than business.

 

[whitewolf35]

The consequences of gay people getting married:

- gay people can get married
- .....
- that's all I got

 

[Woodsey]

" 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.

Is that a definitive? Or an interpretation?

"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies." Deuteronomy 20:10-14


"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." Deuteronomy 22:28-29

What about these? I can see the first being open to interpretation as to just what you can use them for, but the second is a little less ambigious. Whilst he's "punished", the woman is hardly taken into account. Not a condoning of rape, but not exactly a condemnation.

Again, its all skirting around the real issue. Its an old fucking book written by a bunch of men 1000s of years ago, that has very, very little application today.

 

[Stevepinto3]

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

>Science

Science doesn't say one way or the other what's morally right or wrong.

>Nature

Homosexuality occurs in other species. It does not lead to reproduction but then marriage is not simply about reproduction is it? Heck, marriage could be considered unnatural, many species don't mate for life.

>God

Depends on your interpretation. I've met lots of Christians that fully support gay marriage, and people of other faiths have their own opinions on it. Even if every religious person was in agreement that wouldn't change the fact that it should have no bearing on the discussion.

 

[CommanderKirov]

DISCLAIMER: The person writing this post is not advocating for/against gay marriages and has no animosty towards the gay community.


Well if you are speaking of a marriage in a catholic tradition than the question is why would gay people want to do it?

Civil union, sure knock yourself out. Bonding ceremony? Be my guest. Mayan ritual of ceremonial partnership, why not?

But idea of homosexual marriage in a catholic tradition is simply idiotic because such thing is not accepted by them.

It's on the par of a retarded person whining he did not get into mensa, or women crying because they cannot be Masons.

Why do you want to go where you are not wanted? Tolerance is not the same as acceptance and it seems to me some people must understand it.

There are plenty of other religions/associations/countries/cults that welcome such things. Go to them and express your love in the way that is comfortable to you. But please do not go up to a person that is against your ideas, and demand of him to abandon his own beliefs just because you say so.

 

[orangeban]

DISCLAIMER: The person writing this post is not advocating for/against gay marriages and has no animosty towards the gay community.


Well if you are speaking of a marriage in a catholic tradition than the question is why would gay people want to do it?

Civil union, sure knock yourself out. Bonding ceremony? Be my guest. Mayan ritual of ceremonial partnership, why not?

But idea of homosexual marriage in a catholic tradition is simply idiotic because such thing is not accepted in the sence.

It's on the par of a retarded person whining he did not get into mensa, or women crying because they cannot be Masons.

Why do you want to go where you are not wanted? Tolerance is not the same as acceptance and it seems to me some people must understand it.

There are plenty of other religions/associations/countries/cults that welcome such things. Go to them and express your love in the way that is comfortable to you. But please do not go up to a person that is against your ideas, and demand of him to abandon them just because you say so.

Would you say that if, say, the catholics didn't want to let black people get married then we should let them make that choice? If so, then fair enough, otherwise then I might just call you a hypocrit.

 

[Beliyal]

I find it funny how they say that it'll ruin "traditional" marriages.

As if the 53% divorce rate is caused by people going - "You know that Jim and John across the street? They're gay. Therefore, we can't do this anymore".

First of all, this made my day. I lol'd hard.

Gay people cannot reproduce, therefore they shouldn't get married or have sex ever.

Second; pardon me, what? I'm not sure whether this was a random troll-bomb or something, but it's so ridiculous I just can't do anything but stare at that sentence.

I disagree with using the term "marriage" because the idea of "marriage" as it is has been the same for thousands of years, and now we have to change it because... why exactly? Because less than 10% of the worlds population demands a change of ideas? 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?

Why not civil union? Why not a whole new word? Why must it be "marriage?"

By the way, that's Elton John's opinion, as well as mine. I'm not against civil unions, but I am against using the term "marriage."

I didn't realise this before, honestly. This problem with the term "marriage". My parents are atheists and were not married in church; they have a legal marriage, completely unrelated to religious rituals, but they still had a ceremony, pompous dresses, millions guests, wild parties (?) afterwards and whatever else is a party of a marriage ceremony these days. They just didn't sign anything in a church, but in front of a register (I'm not sure what's the term in English, this is basically a blunt translation) and their marriage is a completely genuine type of marriage, just without religion getting into it. They have all the normal rights and it's not just a "civil union". So I kinda don't get it. I'm sure my country is not that advanced to be the only one to have this option for non-religious people, so is there this kind of marriage available for gay people? Because, it's still referred to as "marriage", the term is the same, despite this kind not being religious. So, what's the problem with the term? Is it because it should only be reserved for an union between a man and a woman? Who says so? Just as you, and many others have said, it's a thousands of years old tradition. What does it mean? That's it's an unchangeable dogma? Physical law? Traditions changed a lot of times, traditions you didn't even knew existed; hundreds of traditions are now gone, changed or modified in some way because of the development of our society. And every time some tradition was put to the test, there was an outrage in the society, because something people believed in was on the verge of extinction due to being completely outdated and ridiculous. People don't generally love changes and they are too attached to something familiar. Clinging to traditions too much is harmful to the society, not two men or two women that love each other and want to have a family.

The argument that people would start making ridiculous marriages is somewhat ridiculous itself. Yeah, some people would probably do it because they are IRL trolls, but 99% of people are not into marriage with goats. Saying "Let's ban gay marriage because someone might want to marry a goat!" is just about like saying "Let's not reproduce because someone might give birth to a new Hitler!"

So, is there any reason gay marriage is wrong? I don't think so.

Biological? No, not really. There are thousands of people who won't or can't reproduce, but they are still married anyway, so reproduction is not the highlight of marriages. Homosexuality per se is not reserved only for humans, so we can't speak of it being a choice or something the devil wants us to do. Biologically, it's a completely normal state of a living being (it being a minority doesn't make it being wrong).
Moral? What is immoral about homosexuality? Two men/two women that love each other? Anal/oral sex? Heterosexual couples do it too, so what's the problem? Is it strange? Yes, it might be strange because we're not used to it and because it's "new" in terms of being generally accepted in the society, visible in media and other. You know what else was strange once? Black people and women having actual rights as human beings. Is it strange 100-50 years afterwards? Not so much, practically not at all.
Legal? It doesn't affect the law or the state in any way whatsoever. Seeing as it's not a choice, gay people adopting children cannot affect the kid's natural preference for some gender, so it will not affect the birth rate by suddenly "turning" all adopted children into homosexuals. Again, it will be strange at first, but fully accepted in a few decades. It's kinda futile to battle against it and it's only harming the children that wait for adoption; they don't care if their parents are the aforementioned Jim and John from across the street or John and Mary, the traditional couple from the other side of the street. If the kid will be given a home, good, loving family and the care for his or her well-being, we should not argue over the semantics of having two "dads" or two "moms" while children spend years of their most fragile parts of life in adoption centres.
Economical? Do I even have to do this? Gay marriage cannot disrupt or cause damage to the economy of a state.
Marital? Will gay marriage in any way damage the regular, traditional marriage? Will heterosexual marriage somehow lose value? No, it won't. The definition of the term will be broadened and that's it. Let's not act like hipsters and look for exclusivity in something like marriage and say things like "I was married before it was mainstream."
Religious? I honestly don't know how it could possibly affect religion (if someone gay and Catholic wants to marry, fully knowing he or she risks going to hell, should we violently stop him or her from doing so?), but if the religion strictly forbids gay people from even existing, why would anyone gay want to be a part of that religion? I'm just curious on how this works. But anyway, if that's the case, that should be discussed by the individual and his or her local priest or however this is being settled. It should in no way affect the law of a state, because it's a personal thing and related to religion (unless you live in a Papal state, religion should not influence the law).

The marriage of Jim and John will not, in any way, make you lose your job, destroy your marriage, turn your child into a depraved homosexual that participates in orgies, lead humanity to extinction or cause any kind of damage to either you personally, or humankind globally.

 

[Woodsey]

This outweighs all the other stuff somehow, does it?

I didn't say that, I gave you an example of a strong woman in the Bible. That's all.

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?

How is that open to interpretation? The Bible calls the act deplorable and leaves it at that. Jesus goes on to say that God loves all people regardless of their problems but that sin creates a barrier. Sin is disobedience.

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

"Supposed" being the key word, and let's not act like there has never been act of evil committed except on "religious" grounds.

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

You should read earlier where I said I don't care about homosexual state marriage as long as religious organisations aren't forced to perform them.

Why bring it up if its not going to counter any sort of point?

And yes, it is open to interpretation. As in, I would interpret that the condemning of sex is a condemning of all the stuff that comes with it.

"Much of which". I never said it hadn't been done outside of the name of religion, but with all the stuff that has been done in the name of religion, its obviously not working very well. And "supposed" being the key word in that its either been people's justification, or they really actually believe it.

And fair enough, but all this discussion does is open up how useless the whole idea of bringing religion into this debate is. I'm sure that with enough time and some 'carefulness' with my quotations, I could make it seem like Jesus was a gay.

Claiming that parts of it aren't open to interpretation is not true, considering Christians can't even decide amongst themselves what's true, what's a metaphor, what way this should be interpreted, which way that should be interpreted.

As for your point about the Bible leaving its condemnation of gays to sex only, the guy I quoted didn't seem to think that, did he?