The only real reasons are religious in nature. God smiting and all that. Don't put much faith in it myself, but most religions don't make sense to me.kidigus said:
Is there any REASON gay marriage is wrong?
- Thread starter kidigus
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Marriage is both a legal and a religious thing (at least here in the States). It's perfectly possible to be married in the eyes of your religion, but not in the eyes of the law (and vice versa). The people against it are against it in the religious sense, and believe it should extend into the legal realm because the government here is basically a nondenominational but wholly Christian affair for better or worse (mostly worse). It's also possible to get your marriage dissolved in Divorce Court and not have your church recognize it (and therefore have them refuse to remarry you).
I can only speak for moderate Christians but there is nothing in the new testament that is against gay marriage. The fundies get all of their ant-gay talking points from the old testament, which is an interesting read and important to know where we come from but is for the most part rendered moot by the new testament.Aris Khandr said:
I've actually wondered myself why it is that homosexuality has historically been considered inherently bad. The only explanation I could come up with comes down to simple reproduction. In a growing population of people heterosexual mating is far more advantageous than homosexual mating. When the population of a group of people is continuously at risk of becoming extinction (which humans have been historically) nature favors heterosexuality to give the population the greatest change of survival. It might be that most people are simply "hardwired" to discourage homosexuality in order to maximize the species survivability.
The thing is the human race no longer seems to be in serious danger of extinction, so there's no homosexual necessity. We as intelligent beings should be able to overide basic instincts when they're no longer applicable.
The thing is the human race no longer seems to be in serious danger of extinction, so there's no homosexual necessity. We as intelligent beings should be able to overide basic instincts when they're no longer applicable.
Respectfully, you've misused the word objective. Objective morality is only possible provided there is some law giver capable of definitely stating what that morality should be. The most common nominee is god, small g, god as the word is used by philosophers and not as it is used by religious folks. All attempts to ground an objective morality in any other base have failed spectacularly to hold water. Natch, as the whole god thing (let alone the God thing) still has a hung jury, no universally accepted account of the possibility of objective morality exists.kidigus said:
You should ask for a "rational" reason to deny gays marriage. Some folks have thrown out their beliefs (which I disagree with, though that's not relevant). If you're American, I suggest you check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas and O'Conner's argument, which challenges individuals to establish the government has a legitimate state interest in deny gays the same treatment as heterosexuals. I'd challenge any American - especially a small-state conservative - to give me ONE reason, based on the responsibilities of the federal government (as defined in Article I of the Constitution) that the government should treat gay marriage differently than heterosexuals. I don't believe there is any such ground, though admittedly my studies are medical and not law.
Don't hold your breath for reasoned debate, however. Ain't happenin'. For every person who has some idea of the actual controversies involved about a thousand are just shouting each other down.
edit: blanking all of my responses. I said I wanted to provoke discussion, but I guess all I ended up provoking was people flaming me that agreed with me. I know this is "taking my ball and going home" but I can't field 30 pms and more thread replies about a view that I explicitly said that I don't share. Thanks guys.
i don't know, maybe they're just not past this whole "hate because the book tell us to" mentality. it's really strange, gays are by no means bad people, i guess it's more of a phobia of sexuality in general.omniscientostrich said:Isn't polygamy already legal in Utah?godfist88 said:. Seriously this is actually part of the problem since seperate states are able to enforce their own laws on this matter. Unfortunately meaning you're not likely to see gay marriage legalised in places like Alabama anytime soon. As for the whole religious thing, Churches don't seem mind housing weddings for Atheists, Agnostics and people of non-christrian religion so why carry on with such a sanctimonious attitude?
Yeah, I was going to say pretty much the same thing (about religion), which brings up another question. 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.Hero in a half shell said:
Honestly, it's not mine to stick my nose. I'm not gay, so it's something of a non issue for me.
That said, I think part of the reason people are so against it is because marriage is primarily a religious thing, with the legal socio-economic part just being tacked on for convenience.
If a gay couples could find a new term for the act, I think that there would be less objections. Most gay people I know in this position are less concerned about the spiritual aspect of marriage than they are about receiving the legal advantages that come with being recognized as "official" partners.
Not they shouldn't get actually married, if that's what they want, but like I said, many would be content simply to be official.
That said, I think part of the reason people are so against it is because marriage is primarily a religious thing, with the legal socio-economic part just being tacked on for convenience.
If a gay couples could find a new term for the act, I think that there would be less objections. Most gay people I know in this position are less concerned about the spiritual aspect of marriage than they are about receiving the legal advantages that come with being recognized as "official" partners.
Not they shouldn't get actually married, if that's what they want, but like I said, many would be content simply to be official.
There is no reason as to why gay marriage should be wrong. Religion has no impact on a good number of marriages these days, and so it should not be a stopping point.
I've heard arguments against gay couples raising children though...which to me is the more interesting debate. While I'm fully in favor of equal rights...the argument mainly suggests that the child of a gay couple will 'suffer' in their upbringing through various social hardships along with lacking aspects of proper development. I have no way of debating this argument myself..as I've not seen the effects of this situation in real life and been aware of it.
I've heard arguments against gay couples raising children though...which to me is the more interesting debate. While I'm fully in favor of equal rights...the argument mainly suggests that the child of a gay couple will 'suffer' in their upbringing through various social hardships along with lacking aspects of proper development. I have no way of debating this argument myself..as I've not seen the effects of this situation in real life and been aware of it.
Well, the obvious answer would be that many humans are instinctively afraid of things they don't immediately recognize--and if you rewind to caveman days, you might even see where that trait could help you survive.
The civilized world is on a slow but steady path to transcend our baser instincts. At least in America, we've given rights to women, African-Americans, Immigrants, and eventually people will move past their concerns against gays.
Such prejudice is already frowned upon. It's coming.
The civilized world is on a slow but steady path to transcend our baser instincts. At least in America, we've given rights to women, African-Americans, Immigrants, and eventually people will move past their concerns against gays.
Such prejudice is already frowned upon. It's coming.
edit: blanking all of my responses. I said I wanted to provoke discussion, but I guess all I ended up provoking was people flaming me that agreed with me. I know this is "taking my ball and going home" but I can't field 30 pms and more thread replies about a view that I explicitly said that I don't share. Thanks guys.
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.
I have little reason to doubt that theory, being that so many are evidently inclined to share a bed long before matrimony.
But it's not, and there are churches who would marry them anyway.Sarge034 said:
Actually, in some places heterosexual couples are denied civil unions as well, which is just as much of an act of bigotry.
The whole appeal to tradition nonsense, the religious groundings, are absurd. If we'd stuck with tradition we wouldn't have no fault divorce, there would be no such thing as rape within marriage.
edit: blanking all of my responses. I said I wanted to provoke discussion, but I guess all I ended up provoking was people flaming me that agreed with me. I know this is "taking my ball and going home" but I can't field 30 pms and more thread replies about a view that I explicitly said that I don't share. Thanks guys.
