Is there any REASON gay marriage is wrong?

[Rascarin]

As a gay, obviously I feel that gay marriage should be allowed. I can understand the argument of those people who say that "marriage" is a religious institution and should not be changed. In that case, civil unions should be given all of the same rights as marriages between heterosexuals.

In a secular society "marriage" should have no legal weighting anyway. If its a religious thing, then why are atheists allowed to get married? All the arguments for it are outdated. Let the religious folk keep their marriage, but give the rest of us something else we can use to have the same legal standing. For that, there are no good reasons against it.

And don't anyone even bother trying to talk to me about gay people not having children as though that were ever relevant - we are perfectly capable of adopting (seems beneficial to society to me, don't you think?), not to mention the number of straight couples that don't have kids.

 

[LCP]

As a gay, obviously I feel that gay marriage should be allowed. I can understand the argument of those people who say that "marriage" is a religious institution and should not be changed. In that case, civil unions should be given all of the same rights as marriages between heterosexuals.

Civil unions do not have the same rights?

That's news to me...

 

[Hero in a half shell]

What verse(s) in the bible led to the understanding that homosexuality is a sin? I currently don't have a bible, so if anyone on the forum does and can answer my question, can you clarify? Thanks.

Oh dear, I tried to edit my response to stop this turning into a flaming match, I fear you've opened the floodgates, I suggest you google it, (and try to stay away from anything by Westboro) to avoid this becoming a federal disaster zone. I'll stop using metaphors now.

 

[Zaik]

I kind of always felt bad for the gay men that were relieved to finally be free of the bs women propagate and then BOOM, here's marriage trying desperately to enter(and ruin) their lives again. That must really, really suck.

 

[Drago-Morph]

some people tend to think that if gay marriage is legal then it would set a precedent for other "more weird" types of marriages, like polygamy. but i think that's a little far fetched.

I'm not against any kind of romantic union between people, whether they be of the same gender, or there be more than one person involved. It's up to people to choose how they want to live, and I support their choice 100%.

I do too, all I'm saying is people tend to abuse the whole "slippery slope" scenario a bit too much.

Oh, yeah, I understand that. I was more commenting on the general public for accepting that argument. What is it a slippery slope to, exactly? More freedom for more kinds of people and thus greater equality and less prejudice all around? Seems like a mighty fine destination, if you ask me.

 

[PatSilverFox]

[HEADING=3]No.[/HEADING]

 

[Drake_Dercon]

Short answer: There is none.

My country's prime minister is a total homophobe. He tried to get the law allowing gay marriage repealed, it failed because he had a minority government. That was years ago. Most have forgotten. I have not.

Harper can rot for all I care.

What verse(s) in the bible led to the understanding that homosexuality is a sin? I currently don't have a bible, so if anyone on the forum does and can answer my question, can you clarify? Thanks.

That one's easy. A single passage out of Leviticus (somewhere 'round 19-21) stating MALE homosexual INTERCOURSE to be wrong.

And Leviticus is the same book that tells you to kill everyone who works sundays, so I think it's safe to say that it should be discarded.

 

[Senrab]

Nope.

 

[Cain_Zeros]

Aside from religion, ignorance (let's face it, that's exactly what saying it'll ruin traditional marriage or "turn kids gay" is), or "it's gross", no there isn't. And none of those are things that should influence legislation.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

We aren't talking about marriage to any of those things. This is just homosexual marriage, so those points are invalid. Also 47.3% of all statistics are made up (there's a paradox for you) so I would like to know where you got that information, because it doesn't sound factual.

No, we aren't talking about those things, but the principle remains the same. It either is, or it is not. Also, a fast wiki shows there are at least half a dozen tags onto a statistic of 2-3% of the Western world for reference. Less than 10% is incredibly generous.

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."

If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and looks like a duck, it's a duck. It doesn't matter if it's really called something else, in the lexicon of the general public, it's a duck.

Similarly, if there is no difference between "marriage" and "civil union", it's marriage. It doesn't matter what the official term is, we'll still have weddings, wives, husbands, and all that stuff. Fighting for a term is meaningless.

Well, ducks lay eggs, which hatch into ducklings, and become ducks, and continue the species. Homosexual relations cannot by themselves result in children, so there is no continuation of the species. Adoption is not the same as having a child through heterosexual relationships. Heterosexual relations can result in children, which grow up into adults, which (if heterosexual) can have children themselves, and continue the species. That is a very stated difference.

If you need an analogy like the ducks, then here. If it looks like a '69 GTO, sounds like a '69 GTO, runs like a '69 GTO, but the VIN numbers don't match up as a '69 GTO, it's just a Lemans knockoff wannabe. A '69 GTO in excellent condition will sell for much more than a cloned GTO that was originally a Lemans. One significant difference changes the value greatly. This seemingly insignificant difference between being able to reproduce is very significant. If you ever look into classic cars, the little significant details, like VIN numbers, can result in VERY significant results.

I'm not against homosexual relations at all. Often, they result in longer lasting relationships than heterosexual ones do, but that doesn't mean it's marriage.

And if you think that language doesn't matter, look up Aphasia. It really does.

 

[meryatathagres]

Since marriage in itself isn't right or wrong, but just an established tradition, there are some arguments that unconventional couple marriages could be wrong, in the sense of the archaic nonsensical tradition. The more interesting question is if gripping to our outlived traditions is wrong? I wonder how a bisexual polygamous marriage works...because you know there must be at least couple such in the world.

ps. Semitic religions didn't invent marriage, so it's futile to look for answers there.

 

[Epitomous Nub]

Generally the top arguments have to do with the psychological issues with raising children without both parents (I'm a psych major in university); the most stable and healthy environment to raise children in from an evolutionary and psychological standpoint is with a mother and a father.

There are also objections on the grounds that it harms religious freedom. I live in Canada, so there have already been some issues (not many though, more in the states) with churches being sued or losing their tax exempt status for "discriminating" against gay couples who wish to be married by their clergy or in their churches.

 

[emeraldrafael]

some people tend to think that if gay marriage is legal then it would set a precedent for other "more weird" types of marriages, like polygamy.

Dont tell the Mormons its not legal. There's still ones out in Carson City that like to do that.

"Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. "

-Adam Kolasinski

It's a reason, and a secular, non homophobic one at that.

This sounds more like discrimination. What real benefits do you get from being married? The whole point of marriage (and really to even living on earth) is to say, "this is my woman, she is mine, do not touch her, for I have claimed her" and reproduce without worrying about some guy walking up and doing the same thing.

OT: Because it takes all the good men/women away from the opposite gender.

Oka, actually being serious, no, Idont see anyhting wrong with it. I'm in firm belief that they should be married. And really, what does it hurt? and whats a real argument against it, besides the above mentioned ones (though I think that even the ump from homosexual to polygamy is a bit much, seeing as how you're going from one to many partners There other just sounds like discrimination). Besides, in the US atleast, around half of all marriages end in divorce, so why its so sacred (in both a secular and non secular way) I have no idea. Really straight marriage/civil unions/whatever do more damage then homosexual ones.

 

[Trolldor]

I can only imagine how many times it's been said, but biologically, male/male female/female relationships are wrong, but morally? I detect no problem greater than those the accepted heterosexual relationships may or may not provide. I'm aware that marriage doesn't necessarily mean sex, but I bring up the venereal aspect because in the words of Chris Rock; (in Dogma) "To believe a married couple never got down's just plain gullibility!"
I have little reason to doubt that theory, being that so many are evidently inclined to share a bed long before matrimony.

Going to have to debunk this. There is nothing biologically wrong with homosexual relationships. All evidence suggests the contrary, that they are quite normal and to be expected. Humans are not the only animals which practice homosexuality either.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Snip

 

[Hero in a half shell]

Just do as Britain is doing soon and allowing gay marriages and straight civil unions.

The law says gay people can get married in churches and straight people can get civil unions (literally the exact same thing).

There you go, nobody is being denied anything by the government on their sexuality now.

But what if the religious people in churches do not want to perform a gay marriage because they believe that it is against their religion? I am not trying to flame, just that whether right or wrong, that issue will come up, and what happens then when two gay people want to get married in a church, but the priest/pastor/reverent/grand wizard is against the marriage, and the gay couple have legal backing for their case if they want to sue the church for discrimination. There will be a lot of fallout and controversy.

 

[N3vans]

As mentioned above, the only issue (more slight technicality than 'issue', strictly speaking) is the terminology of the word 'marriage', which is traditionally defined in religious circles as a union between one man and one woman. Other than that, call it what you want, there's no problem with it, despite what the religious primitivists would want you to believe. Also included, a handy diagram...

 

[Aris Khandr]

Well, ducks lay eggs, which hatch into ducklings, and become ducks, and continue the species. Homosexual relations cannot by themselves result in children, so there is no continuation of the species. Adoption is not the same as having a child through heterosexual relationships. Heterosexual relations can result in children, which grow up into adults, which (if heterosexual) can have children themselves, and continue the species. That is a very stated difference.

So are we going to forbid marriage to sterile couples and those who choose to get their tubes tied? After all, they're no more "beneficial" than homosexual couples are. Funny how we don't call for them to be unable to marry.

 

[subtlefuge]

This sounds more like discrimination. What real benefits do you get from being married? The whole point of marriage (and really to even living on earth) is to say, "this is my woman, she is mine, do not touch her, for I have claimed her" and reproduce without worrying about some guy walking up and doing the same thing.

From a personal standpoint, yes.

From a government standpoint, you get tax breaks because married couples on average have at least one child.