Is there any REASON gay marriage is wrong?
- Thread starter kidigus
- Start date
Yes, there is a reason that gay marriage is wrong.
Because marriage is a religiously motivated event, and as such is dictated by the cult in question.
So either make your own cult and have a marriage through it, or find a cult that allows it already.
Or, get a civil union(or something of like nature) and get 'married' through the state. Outside of whatever religious reasons you may have, I'm not sure why you'd want a marriage in the first place.
Because marriage is a religiously motivated event, and as such is dictated by the cult in question.
So either make your own cult and have a marriage through it, or find a cult that allows it already.
Or, get a civil union(or something of like nature) and get 'married' through the state. Outside of whatever religious reasons you may have, I'm not sure why you'd want a marriage in the first place.
1. It occurs in many species of animal all throughout natureDragonLord Seth said:
2. If God is against it, why did he ever create the concept in the first place?
You didn't read the news then that they found relative proof of homo- or transsexuality in ancient people then?JustusCross said:
Also: It's not that I think negroes are inferior, we found out my cousin has negro blood a year or two ago and we still treat him the same.
Basically you can put any label there in what you said instead of "gay", but what it reads like is bigotry.
It's not that I think JustusCross is inferior... etc. See what I mean?
Grammar nazi? No, I'm pointing out you do not know basic biology, yet are attempting a fallacious appeal to inherent nature. Rather than learn, say, what that is, or actually find out that fertilization is nothing more than successful merger of sperm and an ovum, you throw out "oh noes, grammar nazis!" and try the boring, old "You're a science fundie!" insult. No. I never fixed your grammar; I'm undermining your argument by showing you do not understand the field you are attempting to appeal to.LaughingAtlas said:
In this case, your argument about "correctness" was refuted by showing that sexual activity in many species - and especially humans - was not only reproductive in purpose. In addition, homosexual behavior has an extremely strong genetic component. Both of these points were already raised. Your point was understood and rejected. That's all.
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.
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.
Hehe ^_^ReservoirAngel said:
That's probably because you're right.Nimzar said:
Why do you assume it's a marriage through your cult?spacecowboy86 said:
Yes, absolutely, there is no sin that cannot be forgiven by God.PowerC said:
I would have to respectfully disagree with you on a point, I would believe that you need repentance to go to heaven (But this isn't the place to debate this, so nevermind,) and I also believe in Hell, and then eternal punishment in the Lake of Fire(from Revelation 20), however I just looked up the passage about it, and it struck me that it calls it a "second death" all my sleep deprived brain can think of is that could very well mean the death of a soul, but I have to wait until tomorrow to look into that, I must go to bed. Thanks [sub]it's 3.30 why am I still up?[/sub]meryatathagres said: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"..
No, there is no problem.
The whole religious thing started 2,000 years ago when people pointed out that making young men have sex with their teachers (masters) before they could learn anything from them wasn't right.
They "acted" immoral.
Today, since that is not the case, I see way too much good to come of it; Especially when its 2 guys.
Not only can they not have kids and not make the world's over population a bigger issue, when they want families, they adopt! Giving otherwise orphans a chance in this world! There's scripture that basically states that when you accept children into your life you accept Christ or something like that!
Gay marriage for the win!
The whole religious thing started 2,000 years ago when people pointed out that making young men have sex with their teachers (masters) before they could learn anything from them wasn't right.
They "acted" immoral.
Today, since that is not the case, I see way too much good to come of it; Especially when its 2 guys.
Not only can they not have kids and not make the world's over population a bigger issue, when they want families, they adopt! Giving otherwise orphans a chance in this world! There's scripture that basically states that when you accept children into your life you accept Christ or something like that!
Gay marriage for the win!
Depends if you want to be married in a faith, some denominations of Christianity are upset about it, as are those of other faiths, particularly the precursor to and major religion based off Christianity , Judaism and Islam, which tend to have less denominations and less leniency in regards to scripture interpretation / importance. So it would be "doing it wrong" to marry two men or two women in those faiths. It's up to you the individual to assess if it's morally wrong, ethically it's quite neutral.
Oh also if the question was "What game was the Konami code first used in?" and you gave the answer "Gay marriage". That would be wrong because it's untrue. Unless your a die-hard theoretical physicist and argue it could be.
Oh also if the question was "What game was the Konami code first used in?" and you gave the answer "Gay marriage". That would be wrong because it's untrue. Unless your a die-hard theoretical physicist and argue it could be.
Alright, so no Christian homosexuals. What about all the people in the world who don't follow Christianity?spacecowboy86 said:
None that isn't religiously based. I've never heard of a secular reason for why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.
I can't in good conscience argue your second point. You can believe whatever you want from whatever religion, I'd be an idiot for bitching you out for that. I personally believe in the Spirit of Nature (kind of a semi-druid concept) and in the idea of parallel universes, so I'm not fit to judge anyone for their beliefs since mine are coo-coo for Coco Puffs.spacecowboy86 said:
This point about adoption though...I think, to my memory, there have been no studies done that produce ANY evidence whatsoever that children raised by same-sex couples suffer any mental issues or mental damage as a result of that. Sure if the couple downright abuse the kid that's gonna cause problems, but straight people are capable of child abuse too, so that doesn't prove anything either way.
The only real 'problem' with a child being raised by same-sex parents is the bullying issue. But frankly the most obvious way to remove that problem is to teach tolerance to kids and get them used to the idea that some kinds have "two mommies" or "two daddies" and that it's not a big deal.
I often find the same people who complain about "these same-sex couples' kids will be bullied because of their parents orientation" are the exact same people who vigorously oppose the teaching of sexual tolerance in schools because "it'll turn kids gay" so they're really shooting themselves in the foot with a bazooka. They're causing the problem they complain about, while simultaneously using that to insult gay people. It's just a mish-mash of idiocy.
Sorry I appear to have turned my reply into a slander against conservatives...I do apologise.