Gay Marriage

3420 posts

Flag Post

I don’t support Gay Marriage, I am strongly against it. One of the biggest reasons for this is that it is a distinct abomination of a Christian belief. Marriage has always been a religious ceremony (unless one was to bring up Roman marriage, but are we really going to take examples from the Roman empires?)

I don’t think there are any real religions that accept homosexuality, I think all of them either reject it or do not comment on it (But not commenting does not mean they support it. Or “it is fine”)

Also, I am a strong believer that homosexuality is unnatural. If we look at it with a scientific view homosexuality literally drains on the survival of the species. (No, I am not saying the human race is in danger of dying out, but the point still stands.)

And lastly, if we legalize Gay Marriage how can we say no to things like Polygamy? Does banning polygamy not bar the beliefs of Mormons? (The main point of this sentence being, where does it end? Where do we draw the line?)

But while I do realize that not everyone believes in my religion and not everyone should be bound by it’s law I feel like legalizing Gay marriage will tread on the beliefs of billions of people.

Honestly, I could care less if they were “legally bonded” or they were “In a partnership” but it is the term. The term “marriage” that I do not want being changed. Because the bible says “Marriage is between a man and a woman for love and procreation, any other definition is an abomination.”

Which is why I believe Gay Marriage should not be legalized (I realize in some places it is being legalized)

 
Flag Post
Marriage has always been a religious ceremony

Incorrect. Marriage has always been, first and foremost, a means of determining paternity. It was a tool to ensure a man’s child was actually his child, and that he passes on his genes rather than protecting some other jackass’s genetics.

but are we really going to take examples from the Roman empires?)

Why shouldn’t we? They were only the most powerful and advanced civilization of their time.

Also, I am a strong believer that homosexuality is unnatural. If we look at it with a scientific view homosexuality literally drains on the survival of the species.

Wrong again. Homosexual behavior has been observed in many species. But I’d like to know why you think it “drains on the survival of the species.”

And lastly, if we legalize Gay Marriage how can we say no to things like Polygamy?

Why would we want to? Marriage, as far as the state is concerned, is a contract between consenting adults. Why should it be limited to just two adults?

But while I do realize that not everyone believes in my religion and not everyone should be bound by it’s law I feel like legalizing Gay marriage will tread on the beliefs of billions of people.

Treading on peoples’ beliefs is preferable to equality?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by GameCrazyKid:

I don’t support Gay Marriage, I am strongly against it. One of the biggest reasons for this is that it is a distinct abomination of a Christian belief. Marriage has always been a religious ceremony (unless one was to bring up Roman marriage, but are we really going to take examples from the Roman empires?)

I don’t think there are any real religions that accept homosexuality, I think all of them either reject it or do not comment on it (But not commenting does not mean they support it. Or “it is fine”)

Also, I am a strong believer that homosexuality is unnatural. If we look at it with a scientific view homosexuality literally drains on the survival of the species. (No, I am not saying the human race is in danger of dying out, but the point still stands.)

And lastly, if we legalize Gay Marriage how can we say no to things like Polygamy? Does banning polygamy not bar the beliefs of Mormons? (The main point of this sentence being, where does it end? Where do we draw the line?)

But while I do realize that not everyone believes in my religion and not everyone should be bound by it’s law I feel like legalizing Gay marriage will tread on the beliefs of billions of people.

Honestly, I could care less if they were “legally bonded” or they were “In a partnership” but it is the term. The term “marriage” that I do not want being changed. Because the bible says “Marriage is between a man and a woman for love and procreation, any other definition is an abomination.”

Which is why I believe Gay Marriage should not be legalized (I realize in some places it is being legalized)

Do we illegalize pot because a few people abuse while there are many others who actually need it?
Do we ban alcohol because some people abuse it, while many others just drink it to have a good time?
Where do we draw the line?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Spaghedeity:
Marriage has always been a religious ceremony

Incorrect. Marriage has always been, first and foremost, a means of determining paternity. It was a tool to ensure a man’s child was actually his child, and that he passes on his genes rather than protecting some other jackass’s genetics.

I don’t know what you are talking about. But, please, if you are going to partake in this discussion address all my points rather than just one sentence.

 
Flag Post


Do we illegalize pot because a few people abuse while there are many others who actually need it?
Do we ban alcohol because some people abuse it, while many others just drink it to have a good time?
Where do we draw the line?

….? Are you agreeing with me? Or not…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by GameCrazyKid:


Do we illegalize pot because a few people abuse while there are many others who actually need it?
Do we ban alcohol because some people abuse it, while many others just drink it to have a good time?
Where do we draw the line?


….? Are you agreeing with me? Or not…

No. I’m creating a valid counter argument.
Trust me, we’re much more likely to illegalize alcohol than legalize polygamy. Also, not all Mormons believe in polygamy. In fact, only a small faction (no spelling error) of the LDS church practice it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by zwinkey98:
Originally posted by GameCrazyKid:


Do we illegalize pot because a few people abuse while there are many others who actually need it?
Do we ban alcohol because some people abuse it, while many others just drink it to have a good time?
Where do we draw the line?


….? Are you agreeing with me? Or not…


No. I’m creating a valid counter argument.
Trust me, we’re much more likely to illegalize alcohol than legalize polygamy. Also, not all Mormons believe in polygamy. In fact, only a small faction (no spelling error) of the LDS church practice it.

Im not sure what the counter argument is… Could you please explain without the use of metaphors.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by GameCrazyKid:
Originally posted by Spaghedeity:
Marriage has always been a religious ceremony

Incorrect. Marriage has always been, first and foremost, a means of determining paternity. It was a tool to ensure a man’s child was actually his child, and that he passes on his genes rather than protecting some other jackass’s genetics.

I don’t know what you are talking about. But, please, if you are going to partake in this discussion address all my points rather than just one sentence.

He’s saying marriage isn’t necessarily religious. It isn’t, it’s legal. No one is saying “Catholicism must marry gays” but rather “Gays must be able to get married”, purely in the legal sense, so that both parents have equal custody, even if only one is the true parent.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Winnabago:
Originally posted by GameCrazyKid:
Originally posted by Spaghedeity:
Marriage has always been a religious ceremony

Incorrect. Marriage has always been, first and foremost, a means of determining paternity. It was a tool to ensure a man’s child was actually his child, and that he passes on his genes rather than protecting some other jackass’s genetics.

I don’t know what you are talking about. But, please, if you are going to partake in this discussion address all my points rather than just one sentence.

He’s saying marriage isn’t necessarily religious. It isn’t, it’s legal. No one is saying “Catholicism must marry gays” but rather “Gays must be able to get married”, purely in the legal sense, so that both parents have equal custody, even if only one is the true parent.

His argument is custody of children…?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by GameCrazyKid:
Originally posted by Winnabago:
Originally posted by GameCrazyKid:
Originally posted by Spaghedeity:
Marriage has always been a religious ceremony

Incorrect. Marriage has always been, first and foremost, a means of determining paternity. It was a tool to ensure a man’s child was actually his child, and that he passes on his genes rather than protecting some other jackass’s genetics.

I don’t know what you are talking about. But, please, if you are going to partake in this discussion address all my points rather than just one sentence.

He’s saying marriage isn’t necessarily religious. It isn’t, it’s legal. No one is saying “Catholicism must marry gays” but rather “Gays must be able to get married”, purely in the legal sense, so that both parents have equal custody, even if only one is the true parent.

His argument is custody of children…?

His argument is that gay marriage is in a purely legal, not religous, sense, you numbskull.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by GameCrazyKid:

I don’t support Gay Marriage, I am strongly against it. One of the biggest reasons for this is that it is a distinct abomination of a Christian belief. Marriage has always been a religious ceremony (unless one was to bring up Roman marriage, but are we really going to take examples from the Roman empires?)

Could you please show how marriage has always been a religious ceremony, please? Especially as it is a legal concept, recognised outside of any individual religion. Could you also show how it is a direct abomination of Christian beliefs and ideals, please?

I don’t think there are any real religions that accept homosexuality, I think all of them either reject it or do not comment on it (But not commenting does not mean they support it. Or “it is fine”)

Hinduism allows it, and in fact the kama sutra, that much vaulted book of sexual methods, comes from hinduism, and has passages permitting eunuch on fertile male sex. In fact the phrase ‘Vikruti Evam Prakriti’ or “what seems unnatural is also natural” also has its roots in the holy texts of this religion.

Buddhism allows it, their tenets include the acceptance of any sexual behavior that does not force oneself upon another.

Wiccans and other pagan religions, openly welcome homosexuality. Occultism does not give a damn either way.

Also, I am a strong believer that homosexuality is unnatural. If we look at it with a scientific view homosexuality literally drains on the survival of the species. (No, I am not saying the human race is in danger of dying out, but the point still stands.)

If it is unnatural, how come we find instances in every mammal species on Earth? For that matter, some species such as snails say, are asexual, in that both copulating partners fertilise the other. Since this is the ultimate of same-sex reproduction, should this not be unnatural too?

And lastly, if we legalize Gay Marriage how can we say no to things like Polygamy? Does banning polygamy not bar the beliefs of Mormons? (The main point of this sentence being, where does it end? Where do we draw the line?)

I have no problem with polygamy, provided all partners to the union are in it of their own love and free choice. But polygamy is not homosexuality, and that my friend, is a slippery slope argument you are employing.

But while I do realize that not everyone believes in my religion and not everyone should be bound by it’s law I feel like legalizing Gay marriage will tread on the beliefs of billions of people.

This seems to be you saying that because the Abramic religions make up a large segment of the populace, we should base all laws on their tenets. Hang the very concept of ‘separation of church and state’, for to do otherwise ruuns the risk of offending a great many people. To the people who are not members of a religion that believes in these things? To heck with them, their views and beliefs do not matter.

Honestly, I could care less if they were“legally bonded” or they were “In a partnership” but it is the term. The term “marriage” that I do not want being changed. Because the bible says “Marriage is between a man and a woman for love and procreation, any other definition is an abomination.”

I am fine with that too, so long as we deny all legal rights to those who are married. Make marriage a religious thing only, and if someone wishes their union recognised in any business or legal manner whatsoever, they must go through a separate ‘legally bonded’ ceremony at another time, with no connection to the marriage.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by GameCrazyKid:

I don’t support Gay Marriage, I am strongly against it. One of the biggest reasons for this is that it is a distinct abomination of a Christian belief. Marriage has always been a religious ceremony (unless one was to bring up Roman marriage, but are we really going to take examples from the Roman empires?)

Could you please show how marriage has always been a religious ceremony, please? Especially as it is a legal concept, recognised outside of any individual religion. Could you also show how irt is a direct abomination of christian beliefs and ideals, please?

I don’t think there are any real religions that accept homosexuality, I think all of them either reject it or do not comment on it (But not commenting does not mean they support it. Or “it is fine”)

Hinduism allows it, and in fact the kama sutra, that much vaulted book of sexual methods, comes from hinduism, and has passages permitting eunuch on fertile male sex. In fact the phrase ‘Vikruti Evam Prakriti’ or “what seems unnatural is also natural” also has its roots in the holy texts of this religion.

Buddhism allows it, their tenets include the acceptance of any sexual behavior that does not force oneself upon another.

Wiccans and other pagan religions, openly welcome homosexuality. Occultism does not give a damn either way.

Also, I am a strong believer that homosexuality is unnatural. If we look at it with a scientific view homosexuality literally drains on the survival of the species. (No, I am not saying the human race is in danger of dying out, but the point still stands.)

If it is unnatural, how come we find instances in every mammal species on Earth? For that matter, some species such as snails say, are asexual, in that both copulating partners fertilise the other. Since this is the ultimate of same-sex reproduction, should this not be unnatural too?

And lastly, if we legalize Gay Marriage how can we say no to things like Polygamy? Does banning polygamy not bar the beliefs of Mormons? (The main point of this sentence being, where does it end? Where do we draw the line?)

I have no problem with polygamy, provided all partners to the union are in it of hteir own love and free choice. But polygamy is not homosexuality, and that my friend, is a slippery slope argument you are employing.

But while I do realize that not everyone believes in my religion and not everyone should be bound by it’s law I feel like legalizing Gay marriage will tread on the beliefs of billions of people.

This seems to be you saying that because the Abramic religions make up a large segment of the populace, we should base all laws on their tenets. Hang the very concept of ‘separation of church and state’, for to do otherwise ruuns the risk of offending a great many people. To the people who are not members of a religion that believes in these things? To heck with them, their views and beliefs do not matter.

Honestly, I could care less if they were“legally bonded” or they were “In a partnership” but it is the term. The term “marriage” that I do not want being changed. Because the bible says “Marriage is between a man and a woman for love and procreation, any other definition is an abomination.”

I am fine with that too, so long as we deny all legal rights to those who are married. Make marriage a religious thing only, and if someone wishes their union recognised in any business or legal manner whatsoever, they must go through a separate ‘legally bonded’ ceremony at another time, with no connection to the marriage.

Look deep into history, and you will find there was very little mention of marriage that was not done under a priest. It is a direct abomination because God intended it to be a union between a man and a woman. And if you consider how prior to the 1900s all marriages were done under a priest, you will understand why it is a religious ceremony and how changing it treads on my ideals.

Im not very learned in religions from asia, I apologize if what I say does not exactly attribute to it.

Are animals not unable to commit unnatural acts? And asexuality and homosexuality are not the same thing. Two people of the same sex “mating” and 2 animals that only have 1 sex mating are very different.

Im speaking in terms of marriage. If 2 men can get married why can 1 man and 2 women not get married?

What I am saying is that it offends many people greatly to allow this. Im not sure of the percentage of homosexuals, but is it worth ignoring the traditions of the two largest religions in existence?

I think that would be hard to do.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Spaghedeity:
Marriage has always been a religious ceremony

Incorrect. Marriage has always been, first and foremost, a means of determining paternity. It was a tool to ensure a man’s child was actually his child, and that he passes on his genes rather than protecting some other jackass’s genetics.

but are we really going to take examples from the Roman empires?)

Why shouldn’t we? They were only the most powerful and advanced civilization of their time.

Also, I am a strong believer that homosexuality is unnatural. If we look at it with a scientific view homosexuality literally drains on the survival of the species.

Wrong again. Homosexual behavior has been observed in many species. But I’d like to know why you think it “drains on the survival of the species.”

And lastly, if we legalize Gay Marriage how can we say no to things like Polygamy?

Why would we want to? Marriage, as far as the state is concerned, is a contract between consenting adults. Why should it be limited to just two adults?

But while I do realize that not everyone believes in my religion and not everyone should be bound by it’s law I feel like legalizing Gay marriage will tread on the beliefs of billions of people.

Treading on peoples’ beliefs is preferable to equality?

Genes can only be passed in a heterosexual scenario. :P

Yeah, but the Goths (Germans) kicked their ass. They’re gone now. Continuing their ways would only be showing that we have a desire to discontinue our nation.

Very few species actually continue the practice of homosexuality. The species that do are also the ones that have sexual relations for sheer pleasure. And yeah, it does drain the survival of a species. Homosexual couples can’t transmit genetic material. I thought that was obvious.

Why don’t we allow incest while we’re at it? I mean, we’re allowing homosexuality, if that is determined morally sane by the state, then what’s stopping incestophilia from being passed as morally “ok” as well?

Listening and adapting to people’s beliefs is all part of equality.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by GameCrazyKid:
Originally posted by zwinkey98:
Originally posted by GameCrazyKid:
Originally posted by Winnabago:
Originally posted by GameCrazyKid:
Originally posted by Spaghedeity:
Marriage has always been a religious ceremony

Incorrect. Marriage has always been, first and foremost, a means of determining paternity. It was a tool to ensure a man’s child was actually his child, and that he passes on his genes rather than protecting some other jackass’s genetics.

I don’t know what you are talking about. But, please, if you are going to partake in this discussion address all my points rather than just one sentence.

He’s saying marriage isn’t necessarily religious. It isn’t, it’s legal. No one is saying “Catholicism must marry gays” but rather “Gays must be able to get married”, purely in the legal sense, so that both parents have equal custody, even if only one is the true parent.

His argument is custody of children…?

His argument is that gay marriage is in a purely legal, not religous, sense, you numbskull.

I don’t believe it is. Are you saying marriage is little more than a legal bonding?

The gay marriage front is so that the unions of same-sex couples are recognized legally.
Anyways, they can have a religous union either way. God’ll forgive ‘em, right? Christianity is so hypocritical…
Essentially you’re saying God loves everyone EXCEPT gays, Jews, Muslims, athiests, or anyone who’s not Christian or straight (trust me, this is exactly what you’re implying)

 
Flag Post

I’m saying that’s what gay people have a legal right to, and that’s what the law should worry about.

Yes, there are religious, emotional, and moral aspects, but that’s for gay people to worry about, not the law.

Gay people don’t pass their genes very often. Yes. So what? Neither do women who can’t get pregnant. Ban them from getting married as well?

What God wants the law is in no position to say. That’s your church’s decision, not the government’s.

All marriages do not have to be done under a priest.

I don’t know. Why not? Bigamy ftw, even though it seems degrading.

Yes. I don’t care how many people hate gays. There’s no reason anyone should restrict gay rights. I don’t care how disgusting it is, it isn’t your problem.

 
Flag Post
Why don’t we allow incest while we’re at it? I mean, we’re allowing homosexuality, if that is determined morally sane by the state, then what’s stopping incestophilia from being passed as morally “ok” as well?

I don’t see any reason not to. But yes, let’s do go down that slippery slope. It’s fun for the whole family, after all.

Listening and adapting to people’s beliefs is all part of equality.

Refusing rights to a minority because of what the majority’s ancient rulebook says is not part of equality. Nobody is telling them they can’t have these beliefs, just that they need to get the fuck over themselves.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by zwinkey98:
Originally posted by GameCrazyKid:
Originally posted by zwinkey98:
Originally posted by GameCrazyKid:
Originally posted by Winnabago:
Originally posted by GameCrazyKid:
Originally posted by Spaghedeity:
Marriage has always been a religious ceremony

Incorrect. Marriage has always been, first and foremost, a means of determining paternity. It was a tool to ensure a man’s child was actually his child, and that he passes on his genes rather than protecting some other jackass’s genetics.

I don’t know what you are talking about. But, please, if you are going to partake in this discussion address all my points rather than just one sentence.

He’s saying marriage isn’t necessarily religious. It isn’t, it’s legal. No one is saying “Catholicism must marry gays” but rather “Gays must be able to get married”, purely in the legal sense, so that both parents have equal custody, even if only one is the true parent.

His argument is custody of children…?

His argument is that gay marriage is in a purely legal, not religous, sense, you numbskull.

I don’t believe it is. Are you saying marriage is little more than a legal bonding?

The gay marriage front is so that the unions of same-sex couples are recognized legally.
Anyways, they can have a religous union either way. God’ll forgive ‘em, right? Christianity is so hypocritical…
Essentially you’re saying God loves everyone EXCEPT gays, Jews, Muslims, athiests, or anyone who’s not Christian or straight (trust me, this is exactly what you’re implying)

How do you attribute not wanting gays to marry to dislike jews muslims and atheist? You sir are very muching proving Godwins law.

Originally posted by Winnabago:

I’m saying that’s what gay people have a legal right to, and that’s what the law should worry about.


Yes, there are religious, emotional, and moral aspects, but that’s for gay people to worry about, not the law.

They have a right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

 
Flag Post

“I think it’s fine if gay people get married. Just not to each other”
-Area Man (Onion)

Why the restriction on marrying those of the same sex?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Winnabago:

“I think it’s fine if gay people get married. Just not to each other”
-Area Man (Onion)

Why the restriction on marrying those of the same sex?

I outlined that in my first paragraph.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by GameCrazyKid:
Originally posted by Winnabago:

“I think it’s fine if gay people get married. Just not to each other”
-Area Man (Onion)

Why the restriction on marrying those of the same sex?

I outlined that in my first paragraph.

Because it’s unChristian and disgusting? Let’s say I agree with you. Why does that mean something should be illegal?

 
Flag Post

GCKid, actually, those who are polygamists (a break-off sect, that has been separate from the main church for a rather long time), have been using the law-rulings in the court as leverage to legalize polygamy.

Similar cases are being made with pedophilia as well.

In any case, I really don’t want to argue about this. So here’s a few things you should consider talking about.

I would suggest that you use the leverage of the education laws to show why it should not be allowed. Schools are required to have ‘anti-discrimination’ education in some states. It is also required in some states to show examples of many ‘different types’ of ‘couples’, as ‘role-models’. You could use this to your advantage, because not many people, even those who support gay mairrage, want their kids taught that gay mairrage is a correct thing in schools.

In addition, if your state has accepted civil unions for them, you could argue that it defeats the point of allowing marriages, as they are by and by equal in legal terms. You could then say it isn’t up to the state to determine what a word means, but is up to the people themselves.

Those are a few things you could use, I guess. The subject is a complex one, to be sure. It’s also rather emotional… so you have to be kinda careful when talking about it on forums, I would think. =)

Best Wishes,
No offense to anybody,
TAO

 
Flag Post

I, like many people, go to school. I have yet to be forced to be shown how gay marriage is the best. That would be awkward and silly. Everyone in my school supports this kind of thing anyway, it’s you silly old people.

 
Flag Post
In addition, if your state has accepted civil unions for them, you could argue that it defeats the point of allowing marriages, as they are by and by equal in legal terms.

Ah yes, the good ol’ “separate but equal”.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Winnabago:

I, like many people, go to school. I have yet to be forced to be shown how gay marriage is the best. That would be awkward and silly. Everyone in my school supports this kind of thing anyway, it’s you silly old people.

Did you just call me silly and old..?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by GameCrazyKid:
Originally posted by Winnabago:

I, like many people, go to school. I have yet to be forced to be shown how gay marriage is the best. That would be awkward and silly. Everyone in my school supports this kind of thing anyway, it’s you silly old people.

Did you just call me silly and old..?

No. I was referring to how most people who hate gays are old. I know about two young people who hate gays, and no one likes them.