Is there any REASON gay marriage is wrong?

[PowerC]

Bah devolved into a christian debate. What did I write earlier that marriage isn't a christian or even jewish concept.
But for christians:
- thou shalt not judge lest thee be judged
Besides, whether you're wicked or a saint, you get into heaven if you believe and accept Christ into your heart. So isn't this all moot from xtian point of view?

agreed, good man

 

[meryatathagres]

The planet is vastly overpopulated anyways, so procreation isn't exactly a good thing nowadays.
Well overpopulated because of the way the powerful have chosen the world will run, but that's another topic. (We have enough food to feed everyone, we just don't want to.)

 

[GeeksUtopia]

Honestly, in my opinion, who gives a damn. People who actually argue against stuff like gay marriage just have nothing better to do in their life. Seriously, if people can work up enough energy to go out there and argue a pointless argument, I am pretty sure they can generate some kind of work that can help solve problems that really matter (budget cuts, dieing economy)

 

[thedoclc]

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.

1. I may have worded that wrongly, but yes, my first thought when reproductive acts are brought up is reproduction. Was that wrong? Without contraceptives, the process can be reffered to as fertilization, can it not? To my understanding, this can produce a new human life.

2. I realize that's not the only thing people use it for and never said it was, your apparent assumption of understanding of my arguement has led to misconstruing my point. Bad form.

3. How exactly is one to quote someone, type a message, and not have a great quote clutter without snipping? That's kind of the point of a snip, I'd say.

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.

 

[CosmicCommander]

Ummm... isn't saying that homosexual behavior is an immoral acivity that one should refrain from pretty much the definition of "homophobia"?

Catholics are fine with homosexual feelings, and more many liberal ones tend to be fine with chaste homosexual relationships. But as sex in Catholicism is an act meant solely to produce children, and homosexual sex cannot do this, it is immoral.

This isn't targeted at homosexuals, it's an application of general dogma. You have to at least respect their consistency.

What would they have to do to be considered truly homophobic, put them in gas chambers?

Go the fundamentalist route and declare homosexuality in itself is immoral. But they don't, thankfully.

 

[Tddawg25]

Of course not, pretty much everyone's argument is like my opinion on the subject they say that they don't want to be gay and that they think it's kinda gross. I agree with not wanting to be gay and i do think it's gross but hell it's their choice, if I'm not effected by it i don't care and i don't see why other should or would care about it.

 

[Cliff_m85]

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."

Because in states like Arkansas, one must be MARRIED to adopt children. Or atleast had to be, it was finally overturned just a few days ago. But that's one example to why the above = it just isn't that simple.

 

[Duskflamer]

the thread is getting a bit long to read everything so feel free to shout me down if my comments here have been addressed already. The main arguments I hear against gay marriage are the following:

"The bible says gays are bad therefore they are bad!" First off, the only remotely related passage says, approximately, 'A man shall not lay with a man as he would a woman, it is a sin.' this doesn't mention female homosexuals at all, and it's in the same section of the bible that has such "laws" as selling disobedient daughters into slavery and stoning people who work on Sundays. These days, you're going to jail for a long, long time if you follow through on either of those, so why should we follow through on anything in that section of the bible?

The other one I hear is "Gays can't reproduce, therefore they should not have the benefits of marriage." This one seems a bit more valid on its face, but consider this, what about a sterile heterosexual couple getting married? They cannot have any children, yet nobody objects to their getting married. If they're allowed to get married, then the 'Gays can't have kids' argument loses weight.

As for the "it's a religious thing," Heterosexual Atheists can and have gotten (in the legal sense) married, so that argument is out the window.

 

[Dragonclaw]

I wish for my straight friends the same things as my gay friends, the ability to be HAPPY. If that means that they love each other and wish to stand in front of a gathering of friends and have their relationship recognised then bless them both. Too many people seem to give too much attention to what goes on in bedrooms that they aren't part of If gay marriage is finally legal in the U.S....and quite frankly there are no legal grounds to prevent it from becoming so, it's just a matter of time....homosexuals will not be out in the streets gathering mates from the heterosexual community "caveman style". If anyone's mate leaves them to enter a same sex marriage there were CLEARLY some issues that needed to be addressed.

Marriage ceased to be a religious thing once the government started to recognise it and base taxes, insurance, support, and property laws. There is no reason to call a marriage anything different. The fact that the government issues "marriage licenses" pretty much squashes the "it's just about religion". If your church does not wish to allow gay ceremonies I'm sure the couple would be offended, but will just go somewhere else where they are weclomed to hold their ceremony...

I can't understand anybody that talks about the "value" of marriage. The value of MY marriage is set by exactly 2 people....my wife and I Anybody who sets the value of their relationship by who ELSE can have one may need to rethink how close they and their spouse really are.

But if they REALLY want to protect marriage and help reduce the number of divorce statistics they need ot allow GAY marriage, but outlaw CELEBRITY marriages

 

[Hero in a half shell]

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]

 

[meryatathagres]

You forgot

 

[chowderface]

Gay marriage is wrong because Leviticus, a book Jesus implicitly calls outdated any time he talks to a Pharisee, says so.

Sarcasm? What? I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Woodsey]

DISCLAIMER: READ MY WHOLE POST BEFORE COMMENTING

Marriage is a religious institution, a "sacrament" if you will of many faiths and cultures. Marriages were performed by individuals with spiritual authority. This being the case, one would have to be religious to marry at all. THAT BEING THE CASE: we can redefine the word marriage to ultimately MEAN a civil union, and consider religious marriages their own class apart with religious protection. Both kinds would have the same rights under the law, but semantics mean a lot to people. So am I opposed to gay marriage? Yes in the traditionalist sense, no in the modernist sense. So either stop calling it "gay marriage" or outright change what defines marriage.

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!

 

[Choppaduel]

Its against the will of dog hurrrr durrrr

No, theres no legitimate reason. Additionally, theres no legitimate reason to keep gay couples from adopting either. Categorically speaking of course. (there may be a reason to a allow a specific couple like if Charles Manson & David Berkowitz walked into an adoption agency)

 

[Darkauthor81]

The same reason that I get criticized for having a vasectomy so that I'll never have children. It's outside the norm and people react to things outside the norm with disgust and anger.

 

[Zaverexus]

Simply, no. No reason at all the way I see it.
Feel free to argue that. Homosexual people have just much a right to be happy as the rest of us

 

[automatron]

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."

This makes sense, and is the most logical reason against it, but I disagree with it.
If they do this, and change it to 'civil union', while it might be the same, it won't feel the same.
And it's not changing the term at all.
Marriage isn't defined as man and woman, it's defined as two individuals. It won't be changing it at all if gays can marry, in fact enforcing what it actually means.