Is there any REASON gay marriage is wrong?

[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.

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"?

http://www.narth.com/docs/gendercomplementarity.html
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/social-issues/2SI0804G.pdf
http://www.narth.com/docs/optimal.html
http://www.upf.org/component/content/article/3571-gender-complementarity-relationships-and-the-family
http://www.gendermatters.org.au/Home_files/21%20Reasons%20Why%20Gender%20Matters%28low%20res%29.pdf

 

[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 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.

Yes I would say so. As long as they do not throw stones at the black people or try to burn their houses and accept them as a person with different views/skin color than they themselves have.

The simple rule is "Do not go where you are not wanted" and as long as there is no hate or open hostile actions on the either side. I simply see it as a conflict of views, and each side is allowed to advocate their own.

Now, I know that some catholics are openly taking hostile actions onto gay community like harrasing them verbally or physically. And there is no excuse for what they are doing. They are simply closed-minded individuals that should get a good smack on the head.

 

[subtlefuge]

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.

I think there are lessons that should be learned from the Bible. I mean Proverbs has as much if not more wisdom in it than any other similar books, and several of the laws and commandments are generally accepted principles for basic morality.

However, most people don't understand that we are culturally different now, and most things don't quite translate.

On the main issue, let gay people have whatever they want. Maybe it will stop them from making misinformed and asinine comparisons to the civil rights movement of the '60s.

 

[Dorkamongus]

Isn't polygamy already legal in Utah?

Well, actually, Utah was forced to make it illegal in order to be accepted as a state. The process delayed Utah becoming a state for over 30 years.

Just saying... this isn't really meant to insult you are anything. I just feel like I should defend the place I live in...

 

[Stevepinto3]

You have to assume first that there is right and wrong that applies to everyone. If not, then there is no debate. Each person decides what is right and wrong for his own self and disregards the "right/wrong" decisions of others.

So how do we decide this?

We must look to someone else, someone who can decide for everyone. I think we can all agree that no one is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. So we probably shouldn't let a single person decide. How about a group of people? Thats better, but it still leaves room for mistakes. Again, no one is perfect. Then how do we decide? Have EVERYBODY decide (popular vote)? A very cliché phrase comes to mind:

"If everyone ELSE was jumping off a cliff, would you?"

Stuff like this has happened all the time in history: Slavery, smoking, carbohydrates, ect. We (or the majority) thought it was good, but it turned out not to be. Wouldn't it be great if there was someone who knew everything and wouldn't make stupid mistakes like that...

Oh hey, God.

God gave us this handy book that tells us what is right and wrong.

The Bible.

And in the Bible it is mentioned several times that homosexuality is "Detestable to God". Leviticus 18 and 20 off the top 'o my head.

Before you hit the quote button and let the flaming pour from your fingertips, remember that God doesn't hate anyone. ANYONE! He loves ALL people, no matter what they've done.


Also, real quick, "Separation of church and state" does NOT, I repeat **NOT** mean no religion in government. I means that no church (or religion) can have power over the government and vice-versa. So the Pope cannot govern or make laws. It also means that the government can't set up a state church or enforce a certain religion.

I seriously hope this is a troll, but it doesn't seem to have the *wink* factor. You sir pushed every button on my rage control panel except killing puppies.

Interesting you mention slavery. You know that book you're talking about? The one that's about how to be a good person? It gives instructions on how to make people your slave, and it's been used as justification for such.

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis

Also, implying objective morality is necessary to establish social standards is completely misguided. Why is it that when people like you think of subjective morals you assume that means everyone can go around eating babies? Morality is way too complex of a topic for people to sum up in a couple short sentences. Books and books can be written on morality and still just scratch the surface. Stop oversimplifying everything.

 

[thelastgentleman]

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q6q2180250341315/

I'm just going to leave this here...Doesnt really have to do with marriage but does explain alot

Just going to put this out there...if your gay blame your mom. SCIENCE DOES NOT LIE!!! (often)
A buddy of mine is actually heading this up at a local University its really interesting. Basically stress hormones mostly IGg are passed from a mother's placenta to her child. Depending on her environment this could alter the child's codon structure to either A. Alter Phenotype, but keep Genotype (i.e look like a girl but really be a man) or B. Change the chemical structure of the brain to well...like men. Most data comes from the U.S and Ireland during drought and famine times, but it consists of statistics stating that when food and supply shortages are prevelant more gay individuals are produced therefore lightening up the population. Sooo...yeah this might make a few people rage but, meh read it for yourselves. There is a lot more to it but unless someone asks ill just leave it at this.

 

[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.

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"?

http://www.narth.com/docs/gendercomplementarity.html
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/social-issues/2SI0804G.pdf
http://www.narth.com/docs/optimal.html
http://www.upf.org/component/content/article/3571-gender-complementarity-relationships-and-the-family
http://www.gendermatters.org.au/Home_files/21%20Reasons%20Why%20Gender%20Matters%28low%20res%29.pdf

Now, I didn't read all of these, and I read none of them the whole way through so you may say that this disqualifies me from saying the things I'm about to say, but I suspect that they are all rather similar in what they say.

They generally seem pretty damn sexist those articles and seem to believe that families either follow the 1930's style of having the mother coo over the child and the father grunt from behind his newspaper or they have it that womem are the caring part of the family and it is the mans job to play rough and tumble. Need I say how wrong this is? It enforces gender roles and says that men and women always conform to this role, therefore no man could ever play the caring parent. I personally hate rough-and-tumble games and would detest it if my father attempted to play them with me, but I am most definetly a man and am confident in my sexuality. You may have read many articles but frankly, the ones you've mentioned seem a bit crap.

 

[Someone Depressing]

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

So, you're basically saying the same thing for people who wear condums.
So, you can't marry someone who wears a condom?

 

[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"?

http://www.narth.com/docs/gendercomplementarity.html
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/social-issues/2SI0804G.pdf
http://www.narth.com/docs/optimal.html
http://www.upf.org/component/content/article/3571-gender-complementarity-relationships-and-the-family
http://www.gendermatters.org.au/Home_files/21%20Reasons%20Why%20Gender%20Matters%28low%20res%29.pdf

I see, and I'm going to go ahead and counter with this: If you're going to counter with the Freudian theory that a child needs a mother and father figure to develop properly, you need to acknowledge the fact that a father/mother figure can exist outside of parenthood. It can be a close family friend, a sibling of one of the parent/guardians, a grandparent, anybody. The whole parenthood matter isn't really an issue. I mean with the argument that only a functional family works for the child, technically orphanages shouldn't exist, by your logic. There's no way an orphanage provides the proper bonding and attention for each child.

 

[The Rockerfly]

The only reason I can think is because it originated from religion and most religions while accepting of it, don't support gay marriage.

I think gay marriage should be allowed, hell if two people want to be together who am I to stop them but they shouldn't be allowed in a church unless the religion accepts homosexual marriage. I dislike religion but to a lot of people it still means a lot and there is little to support gay marriage (the old testament actually encourages you to kill homosexuals).

But in the eyes of the government and your country I think you should be allowed to marry, religion. You guys/gays/girls (I'm messing with you) deserve a tax break that straight married couples get and it might even help lower the divorce rate

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

So, you're basically saying the same thing for people who wear condums.
So, you can't marry someone who wears a condom?

I don't agree with his view but that's a flawed comparison, you can take he condom off, homosexual couples can never biologically reproduce

I stress that I do not agree with his view

 

[b3nn3tt]

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q6q2180250341315/

I'm just going to leave this here...Doesnt really have to do with marriage but does explain alot

Just going to put this out there...if your gay blame your mom. SCIENCE DOES NOT LIE!!! (often)
A buddy of mine is actually heading this up at a local University its really interesting. Basically stress hormones mostly IGg are passed from a mother's placenta to her child. Depending on her environment this could alter the child's codon structure to either A. Alter Phenotype, but keep Genotype (i.e look like a girl but really be a man) or B. Change the chemical structure of the brain to well...like men. Most data comes from the U.S and Ireland during drought and famine times, but it consists of statistics stating that when food and supply shortages are prevelant more gay individuals are produced therefore lightening up the population. Sooo...yeah this might make a few people rage but, meh read it for yourselves. There is a lot more to it but unless someone asks ill just leave it at this.

Just from reading the abstract of that paper your argument seems flawed

For males, neither between-family nor within-family analyses revealed a maternal stress effect for either sexual orientation or childhood gender nonconformity

There are also a few problems with the methodology; self-report is not the best way to measure stress, and the stress reported for the heterosexual sibling were done from memory, which is even less accurate

OT: Can't think of any feasible reason why gay marriage wouldn't be ok

 

[GenericPCUser]

To everyone still using religion as a defense for bigotry allow me to direct you to a previous post of mine.

I find that any time anyone brings religion into a debate that is easily solved by reason they are only trying to complicate things.

Let's define religion. "A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny" is the first thing that popped up for me.

Now let's dissect that. "A strong belief"- a belief being a personally held sentiment that one specific person holds to be true regardless of whether it's right or wrong.

Off to a great start already. "In a supernatural power or powers"- supernatural means beyond what is natural, natural being what is true, so this meaning beyond the truth, or more simply 'not true.'

Now let's see just how this ends. "That control human destiny"- Now isn't that another way of absolving yourself of responsibility? If you aren't in control then it can't be your fault, right?

Hopefully you can see why I find religion to be a pathetic cop-out to a debate that has grown too difficult.

 

[Asher1991]

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"?

http://www.narth.com/docs/gendercomplementarity.html
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/social-issues/2SI0804G.pdf
http://www.narth.com/docs/optimal.html
http://www.upf.org/component/content/article/3571-gender-complementarity-relationships-and-the-family
http://www.gendermatters.org.au/Home_files/21%20Reasons%20Why%20Gender%20Matters%28low%20res%29.pdf

I see, and I'm going to go ahead and counter with this: If you're going to counter with the Freudian theory that a child needs a mother and father figure to develop properly, you need to acknowledge the fact that a father/mother figure can exist outside of parenthood. It can be a close family friend, a sibling of one of the parent/guardians, a grandparent, anybody. The whole parenthood matter isn't really an issue. I mean with the argument that only a functional family works for the child, technically orphanages shouldn't exist, by your logic. There's no way an orphanage provides the proper bonding and attention for each child.

If you're going to quote using Freudian theory at all, you should probably be taken out back to the shed... Seriously, though. There's nothing wrong with gay marriage. As far as the ignorant Bible-lovers go, (don't get me wrong, I love me some Bible, I just like to use cool things like "reading" and "comprehension" whenever I try to tackle it) haven't we already decided that the Leviticus passages "don't count"? Or should we start stoning people to death for wearing different types of cloth... again...

 

[Pills_Here]

It's wrong because it's an abomination before the Lord, like poly-cotton fabrics. Yall need to read Leviticus.

 

[orangeban]

I disagree with using the term "marriage" because the idea of "marriage" as it is has been the same for thousands of years,

No, no it has not.

Historically, marriage has included:

Buying your wife from her family
STEALING your wife from her family
Arranged marriages at early ages
Polygamy
Polyandry
Marrying your own sister (Popular with Egyptian royalty at one point)
And even same-sex marriages!

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12132003.html

Learn some history. It's good for your perspective.

And remember that marrying inside your own family was incredibly popular with the deities of the Romans and many other polytheistic societies (noting that their religion is just as likely to be true as yours).

 

[DonMartin]

I think it's important to note that there is a difference between getting married and getting married in CHURCH.

I don't see anything wrong with gay people marrying in church, but if the church objects to it I can respect that. It seems strange to tell a religion that they're wrong and force them to change their rules. It's not a political question, or atleast it shouldn't be. The church should not have any saying in the politics of a country.