Is there any REASON gay marriage is wrong?

[PowerC]

Then pull out your King James Version and actually prove me wrong insted of you just saying you think it is.

Argh, It's two in the Morning, I still have work to do, and I have to be in a project meeting by ten, so this'll be my last post tonight.

Actually, 1 Corinthians 6:10 is translated in the NIV as Homosexuals, saying they (amongst a list of other sinful acts) will not enter the kingdom of Heaven

Romans 1:26-27 makes a pretty clear statement that woman-woman and men-men relationships are unnatural, and these relationships are stated in a negative light. (NIV: "Shameful lusts", "indecent acts" "perversion")

Thats all that wikipedia have on the matter, but those two verses are pretty clear (how many times does it have to say You shall not kill for it to be wrong?)

So you've totally forgone forgiveness and Gods absolute love then huh?

Umm, well this will be pure flame bait, but to say it crudely: forgiveness has to be asked for. And Gods absolute love comes with Gods absolute holiness, and Gods absolute justice. A sinful man cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Bible says that all have sinned, so no matter if it is through Homosexuality, lying, stealing, etc. we are all guilty of sin, and the punishment is Hell, because God is a Holy God, and he cannot abide sin in His presence. The only way for us to be cleared of our punishment, is through asking Jesus to forgive our sins, which he can do because he died on the cross as a substitute for us. and if you do that, then no matter what sin you have committed, if you are truly sorry you will be forgiven.

[sub]Now I really have to finish my work and get to bed. Waking up tomorrow will be a painful experience.[/sub]

agreed, so you can admit that even if it is a sin (which I don't believe it is) can be forgiven by god, being gay could be stealing a pencil for all it means in the face of eternity

 

[CosmicCommander]

Catholicism wants us to be high on God and nothing else is meant to make us happy. That's quite disturbing to me.

Likewise. I'm no hedonist, (hell, I'm borderline asexual and have never even touched a drop of alcohol) but the faith's lack of wish for their followers to seek enjoyment out of life has always stumped me. I'm all for clean living, but people have to actually live.

Anyway, we digress from the topic.

 

[meryatathagres]

we are all guilty of sin, and the punishment is Hell, because God is a Holy God, and he cannot abide sin in His presence. The only way for us to be cleared of our punishment, is through asking Jesus to forgive our sins, which he can do because he died on the cross as a substitute for us. and if you do that, then no matter what sin you have committed, if you are truly sorry you will be forgiven.

Theologically speaking, you don't have to be sorry or repent. You just have to accept Jesus Christ into your heart. Ofcource many a church has made their own interpretations from that very ambigious line. But Jesus says in all versions of bible, that whoever believes in him shall be saved. Jehovah's witnesses say that it should read "whoever obeys", still sinfulness isn't an issue since we're all covered with filthy sin from Adam's original sin. (For a loving god he sure carries a grudge. )

My more important point, which the tldr crowd will miss ofc, is that there is no hell in christianity. There is deletion from the book of life, there is oblivion, there is not being with God. But there is NO ETERNAL TORMENT or HELL. There is the finity of life instead of immortality, and thats basically it unless you wanna go false prophetizing. (which btw carries a rather harsh penalty in xtianity)

ps. Why don't the institutions that are so adamant on defending their own semantics of a common multicultural word like marriage instead add their own hyperlative in front of the word? Oh wait they have already...it's called "holy matrimony"..

 

[LaughingAtlas]

Your definition of fertilization is categorically wrong. I recommend a dictionary at this point before attempting your argument.

You were hardly misunderstood; you were refuted.

Now I am confused, are we talking about word choice precision more than whether or not the act of copulation can produce offspring? I still don't think you're getting the point, but that happens with a lot of people I talk to. Word choice again, maybe?

You seem more concerned with playing grammar nazi than discussing biological processes, but having thought about it, the urge people get to stick parts of themselves in things or have things stuck into them is largely controlled by hormones and such, yes? Chemicals in the brain, I'm told. I'm no expert on the human body, but that impulse would be considered biologically natural, wouldn't it? In the thought it is only natural to make use of the opposite gender's parts, I was apparently mistaken.

Spoiler: Possibly unrelated thought

Isn't saying "no, I understand what was said and am right in my assumption" the same as not thinking about it, just assuming you have the whole picture like so many self-righteous bible-thumpers that have seldom opened the book? Perhaps I'm not looking at that one correctly.

This is an interesting, if slightly unfocused discussion, but I'm out of time for tonight and must leave you with whichever assumption you've deemed most grammatically valid.

 

[Lim3]

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!

Nice post, a lot of the posts keep going on about how marriage is spiritual, but there should be no law against civil union. You've reminded us that Christians didn't invent marriage, so why should their biblical laws have any impact on it?

Also i read a post last night on a different thread that pointed out the bible doesn't actually forbid girl on girl homosexuals. Thought that was pretty funny.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Put it this way.

I'm not gonna go out of my way to see to it they get to marry, but if it comes to a vote I shan't vote against it.

 

[Woodsey]

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!

Nice post, a lot of the posts keep going on about how marriage is spiritual, but there should be no law against civil union. You've reminded us that Christians didn't invent marriage, so why should their biblical laws have any impact on it?

Also i read a post last night on a different thread that pointed out the bible doesn't actually forbid girl on girl homosexuals. Thought that was pretty funny.

Even if marriage did initially come from religion and it then also became a legal institution, their beliefs are still irrelevant. We live in secular societies. Religion is a personal issue.

Also, you'll probably like this: http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c115/milo1047/batmanvjesus-1.jpg

Found it yesterday, Ronald really knows his stuff!

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

(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)

There is absolutely no good reason for trying to stop gay marriage. I am very much in support of it.

Also, plenty of religions have no problem with homosexuals or gay marriage. Just because a few (not even most) Christian sects have an issue is no reason not to legalize it everywhere.

Marriage is a STATE institution, not a religious institution. Some people like to make it both (I got married in a church - a pagan church) but at the end of the day it's the government that controls marriage, so it's a government issue, not a religious issue.

Edit: clarified a pronoun

 

[MrFluffy-X]

I think its wrong because I believe its unnatural, that is all.

 

[chowderface]

Also i read a post last night on a different thread that pointed out the bible doesn't actually forbid girl on girl homosexuals. Thought that was pretty funny.

Well, it's actually kind of sexist when you think about it. It doesn't forbid it because when it was written the very idea was preposterous to the point of literal unthinkability (sort of like that joke about how the only states that actually have laws forbidding marriage between cousins are in the Deep South, because they're the only ones that actually need them). At the time women were considered to only be good for being baby machines and obeying their male husbands, and being a good woman meant being happy about that, so the idea of girls getting with girls never occurred to anyone, because a woman not wanting to be a good woman was laughable in and of itself.

I think I just found Disney's next princess movie.

 

[Duskflamer]

I think its wrong because I believe its unnatural, that is all.

Can you please explain this one? How could something that happens in nature be unnatural? I'm not talking about humans either, same-sex couples have been observed and documented in various species both in captivity and in natural environments. IIRC, the bible says that Man is the only species that has the free will/intelligence/God's blessing/whatever it is that makes Man capable of "unnatural" acts, so if homosexuality is evident in non-human species, what does that say about how natural it is?

 

[Johann610]

From a comedy standpoint, I think it's because the best wedding consultants--dressmakers, pastry-people, florists, party planners, and D.J.'s--are all gay. These people have been working shoulder-to shoulder for YEARS--making weddings, celebrating others' weddings, crying that they can't wed--and are now in some variety of love. Do you see where this is going?! The day after, the WHOLE wedding industry will be shut down--perhaps for WEEKS--as they all get married to each other!

But that's just a comedy idea. Probably NOT going to happen.

 

[UnkeptBiscuit]

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."

You and Elton John are entitled to your opinion, but to me, not allowing them to use the term 'marriage' treats homosexuals as inferior. To me, marriage has always expressed the ultimate feeling of love, and to say that you can't have that because you're gay is saying that that love isn't true.

 

[ReservoirAngel]

I think its wrong because I believe its unnatural, that is all.

The entire definition of "unnatural" in the context of this argument is "it doesn't happen in nature" but there are dozens of species of animal that have been shown to exhibit homosexual behaviour. So if it occurs in nature, how can I suddenly be unnatural when applied to humans?

If you ask me, religion is the unnatural thing, since it's a set of pointless boundaries we, as free-thinking beings, have decided to slap ourselves with. No other species is influenced by that. Maybe that's why you never hear of wars between them; they just go about their lives according to their natural instincts, they never ideologically challenge one another, or kill one another over the results of it.

 

[Karoline Dianne]

There is absolutely no valid reason at all whatsoever to deny same-sex marriage. Period.

That is all.

 

[JustusCross]

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."

You and Elton John are entitled to your opinion, but to me, not allowing them to use the term 'marriage' treats homosexuals as inferior. To me, marriage has always expressed the ultimate feeling of love, and to say that you can't have that because you're gay is saying that that love isn't true.

I agree with the person above, the term marriage is indicative of a definition, a definition set out before people were even gay. The union of man and women, not man and man or woman and woman. Though I suppose i'm not against the civil union of gays, I don't think you can call it marriage. It's not that i think gay people are inferior, we found out my cousins gay a year or two ago and we still treat him the same. But the definition set out would not imply that when gays have a union that it is marriage.

 

[Lim3]

Nice post, a lot of the posts keep going on about how marriage is spiritual, but there should be no law against civil union. You've reminded us that Christians didn't invent marriage, so why should their biblical laws have any impact on it?

Also i read a post last night on a different thread that pointed out the bible doesn't actually forbid girl on girl homosexuals. Thought that was pretty funny.

Even if marriage did initially come from religion and it then also became a legal institution, their beliefs are still irrelevant. We live in secular societies. Religion is a personal issue.

Also, you'll probably like this: http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c115/milo1047/batmanvjesus-1.jpg

Found it yesterday, Ronald really knows his stuff![/quote]

Haha, that was quite a hilarious conversation, i read through all of it.

My two comebacks would have been:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA50dwXKJcc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik0yz5Jo4Os&NR=1

I love provoking religious nutters... like my parents.

 

[Donttazemehbro]

The best anti-gay movements has is 'it is against gods wishes" thus it is BS because god has no direct ruling over the USA; and separation of church and state blocks that excuse i would think.

I have no problem with it but i do have a problem with religions forcing their beliefs on everyone; and that is EXACTLY what is going on.

Before i play the religion card, id just like to say that i do not hate anyone, i disagree strongly with homosexuality but i don't hate them. Leviticus 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one does with a woman, to do so is an abomination." Im a conservative republican christian, you cant get much more biased than that.

 

[Feralcentaur]

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

So the only point of marriage and sex is to have children? Does that mean that people should only be allowed to get married if they have a child and people shouldn't be allowed to use things like condoms which allow people to have sex for fun?