Is there any REASON gay marriage is wrong?

[Hero in a half shell]

He said exactly what you did: "some of them don't apply in modern times, because things change in 2000 years, and values change in that time too." Which I then responded to with "how come all those other ones are null and void due to changing values, but you people still stick hard and fast on the homosexuality one?"

He replied back saying "I won and I don't wanna talk to a creep like you any more". I haven't heard from him since. That was 3 days ago.

Can I just provide a better argument for this? The Levitical laws were for the Hebrew nation, to keep them seperate from the other nations, and more importantly the other nations gods, When Jesus died on the cross he created a "new covenant" (No, not the ones from Halo!) This revoked all the Levitical laws, as they were the laws for the Hebrew nation, not the Christian people, (who would consist of all nations and people groups) Now the ten commandments and all the other laws that Christians follow were all reinstated either through the teachings of Jesus, or the later books in the New Testament. The reason we are able to eat shellfish and pigs now is because Peter had the vision of a blanket filled with unclean food brought to him, and he was told by God that this food was now clean, the reason Homosexuality is still a sin, is because it was spoken out against several times in the new testament, (In newer translations it is called sexual deviancy or some similar term, but in the King James version it is outrightly called Homosexuality.)
This is a very serious subject, and as such you can be pretty sure Christians have a good reason for saying why it is wrong.

 

[Sehnsucht Engel]

No, if they love each other, no one should be able to say they can't get married.

 

[ServebotFrank]

Because people are insecure and hate the thought of anyone having a different opinion then they do. I know people who lie about accepting gay marriage but when they hear about someone close to them being gay they go apeshit. Saw it happen myself.

 

[Woodsey]

Technically marriage is a church thing. I don't see why they can't have a civil union though.

No it isn't. You can get married outside of a religious institution, and since all of our governments are supposed to be secular (well, I imagine the vast majority of people on this site will live in a country whose government is supposed to remain secular), the fact it has some religious links (I'm pretty sure marriage has existed outside of any sort of religion for a very, very long time anyway) is irrelevant. Religious bias should hold no bearing on matters of government and law.

OT: There is no reason.

Same way there's no reason to dislike gays themselves(and if you dislike them because of your religion, maybe its time you stopped taking all of your life lessons from an ambigious book written 1000s of years ago), or blacks, or Jews, or whatever the fuck else these morons come out with.

They don't have a fucking leg to stand on.

 

[chuckman1]

Short answer: No
Long answer: Well 1 sentence from a book thats been hand translated MANY times and is thousands of years old that implies being gay is bad so I guess thats their reason.

 

[CosmicCommander]

I have no real issue with Gay Marriage myself, but I have been brought up in a Catholic environment, and as of such I have a good understanding of Catholic theology that I can bring to the table- and I Catholic beliefs on the issue cross over to other Christian denominations, and probably the other Abrahamic religions.

Marriage, in Catholicism's eyes, is meant to be a bond between two people to provide an environment to bring children into the world. Hence, a marriage is essentially a state Catholics believe is the one people should have children in. However- homosexuals can't have children. This means that the state of marriage, one for a couple to procreate in, would not be applicable. Hence, there is no need for a marriage.

Of course there are a lot of smaller reasons, but that's the biggie. And I know there's adoption/sperm donorship; however, there's a lot of theological hoobaloo with that topic that I can't even be bothered to decipher. And I didn't waste my time studying every concept and idea surrounding the juncture.

Just to clarify, because I know there are a lot of assumptions on this matter; Catholics aren't homophobic like the Evangelistic/Fundamentalist Christians I hear about in the states. They actually accept homosexuality as a preference and something one is born with. But, as homosexuals, again, can't have children they are taught to live a life of chastity.

So yeah, Catholics aren't really homophobic. They just accept the limitations of homosexuals and marriage.

EDIT: I think what Britain is doing is a brilliant idea. A secular institution that acts the same as marriage, without stepping on anyone's toes. Best way to go.

Like that episode of South Park: "Instead of being married... They can be... butt buddies!"

 

[Small Waves]

No, if they love each other, no one should be able to say they can't get married.

*snip*

There aren't enough WHY.jpgs in the world for posting an MLP picture in a gay marriage debate, especially one that's thinly veiled self-insert fursona shipping. It's already borderline impossible to defend this show because of the base, and shoving it on top of everything only makes it more difficult.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

Depends on what kind of marriage.
A religious marriage.... well... religion.

Social (non-religious) marriage... yeah, there are no problems at all.

Ohh... and I support LGBT rights even though I'm kinda religious (my "own" philosophy).

Now seriously, there is no reason which could prove that SSM (same sex marriage) is wrong nor that homosexuality is wrong, bad or what ever. The main arguments against are: religion, evolution, disgusting.
1) Religion - Well, no arguing there. Religion is having faith and believing everything that is written in the holy books. Just simply ignore them.
2) Well, marriage on it's own is defying evolution. Also, humans stopped evolving since we have nothing to adapt to. Evolution is adapting to the environment. Humans adapt the environment as they like.
3) "It's disgusting" argument. My favorite one. I also find the poster of this argument disgusting, so we should ban him. Right?

Yup, I see nothing wrong in SSM and LGBT.

I would say that the problem is that people think that marriage is sacred. I dunno how they got that.

 

[kortin]

I don't give a damn. Just as long as you don't make a move on me, i'm perfectly fine with you being gay and getting married.=

 

[emeraldrafael]

Snip

Thanks, and no worries. It wasnt particularly against you, just against the argument. Its one I hear too often in a borough where divorced/unmarried/single with children couples make 80% of our some 400 people and the majority of the households hold an anti-homosexual union idea.

And have fun on that, I'm searching for my Hydration Vaporeon right now.

 

[ReservoirAngel]

He said exactly what you did: "some of them don't apply in modern times, because things change in 2000 years, and values change in that time too." Which I then responded to with "how come all those other ones are null and void due to changing values, but you people still stick hard and fast on the homosexuality one?"

He replied back saying "I won and I don't wanna talk to a creep like you any more". I haven't heard from him since. That was 3 days ago.

Can I just provide a better argument for this? The Levitical laws were for the Hebrew nation, to keep them seperate from the other nations, and more importantly the other nations gods, When Jesus died on the cross he created a "new covenant" (No, not the ones from Halo!) This revoked all the Levitical laws, as they were the laws for the Hebrew nation, not the Christian people, (who would consist of all nations and people groups) Now the ten commandments and all the other laws that Christians follow were all reinstated either through the teachings of Jesus, or the later books in the New Testament. The reason we are able to eat shellfish and pigs now is because Peter had the vision of a blanket filled with unclean food brought to him, and he was told by God that this food was now clean, the reason Homosexuality is still a sin, is because it was spoken out against several times in the new testament, (In newer translations it is called sexual deviancy or some similar term, but in the King James version it is outrightly called Homosexuality.)
This is a very serious subject, and as such you can be pretty sure Christians have a good reason for saying why it is wrong.

See, I like you. Even if you are religious (not saying you are, just not sure since you know an eery amount) and/or anti-gay in some way (again, not saying you are or not). I wish all people who oppose homosexuality (you get the idea by now, just an assumption) could actually argue their point properly with knowledge like this.

Don't get me wrong I still think the Bible is nonsense (if it isn't, I am so doomed) but it's so dull to hear every religious anti-gay person just spout "Leviticus says it's wrong, end of argument".

I reckon if I had my full faculties about me, you and I could get a good discussion out of this issue. But I'm busy popping cold medicine pills like they're fucking Tic Tacs, and watching wrestling so I'm in no shape to hold a fully intellectual debate. I'm amazed I can even find the correct keys right now actually.

 

[LCP]

Because people are insecure and hate the thought of anyone having a different opinion then they do. I know people who lie about accepting gay marriage but when they hear about someone close to them being gay they go apeshit. Saw it happen myself.

That little fact goes both ways...

If I refuse to jump on the "gays are normal and should be accepted" bandwagon i get called a homophobe.

Which when you think about it, makes not sense. And it's pretty much bigotry

WHat I don't get is why marriage is even related to the gov't... it shouldn't be. If anything, everything should be a civil union, and marriages hold no power in law.

 

[thedoclc]

*snip*

*snip*

Not biologically correct for humans, I mean. Neither the asshole nor the mouth are made for reproductive purposes as far as I know. I'm not certain the desire to "misuse" (for lack of a better way to say plug A not connecting to slot B) one's organs is natural in the nature sense, I've never seen convincing evidence that two men or two women can produce a child within their bodies without outside aid, but I've been wrong before.

The fact that you used "biologically correct" in this sense means you may need to hit a few biology texts. Your argument assumes the purpose of sexual acts is ONLY to reproduce, which is not the case in humans nor in several other species. Many primates engage in sexual behaviors with no intention or even capacity to reproduce, but rather for social cohesion or other purposes. Sorry. You're attempting to confuse teleology (and a very confused teleology at that) with science; biology describes living systems "as is," without saying whether it is good or bad.

Likewise, just after a discussion of the appeal to inherent nature and how it is a fallacy, you've committed just such a fallacy, then snipped everyone's points but your own. Bad form.

 

[Woodsey]

I have no real issue with Gay Marriage myself, but I have been brought up in a Catholic environment, and as of such I have a good understanding of Catholic theology that I can bring to the table- and I Catholic beliefs on the issue cross over to other Christian denominations, and probably the other Abrahamic religions.

Marriage, in Catholicism's eyes, is meant to be a bond between two people to provide an environment to bring children into the world. Hence, a marriage is essentially a state Catholics believe is the one people should have children in. However- homosexuals can't have children. This means that the state of marriage, one for a couple to procreate in, would not be applicable. Hence, there is no need for a marriage.

Of course there are a lot of smaller reasons, but that's the biggie. And I know there's adoption/sperm donorship; however, there's a lot of theological hoobaloo with that topic that I can't even be bothered to decipher. And I didn't waste my time studying every concept and idea surrounding the juncture.

Just to clarify, because I know there are a lot of assumptions on this matter; Catholics aren't homophobic like the Evangelistic/Fundamentalist Christians I hear about in the states. They actually accept homosexuality as a preference and something one is born with. But, as homosexuals, again, can't have children they are taught to live a life of chastity.

So yeah, Catholics aren't really homophobic. They just accept the limitations of homosexuals and marriage.

But what do Catholic beliefs have to do with a secular matter? You can be married outside of a church.

 

[NotSoNimble]

The same reason why all marriage is wrong. Tax breaks. Why the hell shouldn't married people pay as much in taxes?

Now if you have a child, that's another story. But you don't need marriage for that.

(That's all I could come up with)

 

[CosmicCommander]

But what do Catholic beliefs have to do with a secular matter? You can be married outside of a church.

Of course. I was just clarifying their position to why they don't let gays marry in the faith- and why they encourage gays not to marry secularly.

 

[Dags90]

I think my favorite argument comes from Michael Steele. Gays getting married means gays giving their spouses health benefits, and getting tax breaks. And we're in a recession! So gays get to bear that burden because they're like, way richer than normal folk.