10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is "Wrong"

People need to get the argument straight.

Of course people oppose gay marriage. Marriage is a religious institution between a man and a woman. Many religions view homosexuality as a sin. Therefore why would those who follow a religion condemning homosexuality allow a marriage of two men with god?

Gay couples do not need to get "married". Marriage is for the traditional religious.

However gay couples deserve  the right to civil unions which grant them the same rights as married couples.

I pretty much agree with this. I don't quite understand why a gay couple would want to get married when they're likely not religious (and if they are I have to wonder why they're so ... masochistic). However, there obviously are gays who are religious and so to resolve the issue an alternative would be to make Marriage a non-religious thing. Surely marriage is at the point now that it's accepted into all of society regardless of faith or a lack thereof (like how many atheists celebrate Christmas).

Perhaps that would defeat the point, but gays could get married on a technicality at least. And this would be the only workaround - you can be assured that a religion isn't going to suddenly disregard what it has been preaching for thousands of years.

Personally, I don't see what the big deal about marriage is period. I'd be happy to have a civil union since the only purpose of it to me is the benefits you and your partner receive. At least with a civil union there isn't this expectation to hold a glamorous, costly event. Nor do you have to fool yourself into thinking your marriage means anything more than a piece of paper and a ring.

People need to get the argument straight.

Of course people oppose gay marriage. Marriage is a religious institution between a man and a woman. Many religions view homosexuality as a sin. Therefore why would those who follow a religion condemning homosexuality allow a marriage of two men with god?

Gay couples do not need to get "married". Marriage is for the traditional religious.

However gay couples deserve  the right to civil unions which grant them the same rights as married couples.

I pretty much agree with this. I don't quite understand why a gay couple would want to get married when they're likely not religious (and if they are I have to wonder why they're so ... masochistic). However, there obviously are gays who are religious and so to resolve the issue an alternative would be to make Marriage a non-religious thing. Surely marriage is at the point now that it's accepted into all of society regardless of faith or a lack thereof (like how many atheists celebrate Christmas).

Perhaps that would defeat the point, but gays could get married on a technicality at least. And this would be the only workaround - you can be assured that a religion isn't going to suddenly disregard what it has been preaching for thousands of years.

Personally, I don't see what the big deal about marriage is period. I'd be happy to have a civil union since the only purpose of it to me is the benefits you and your partner receive. At least with a civil union there isn't this expectation to hold a glamorous, costly event. Nor do you have to fool yourself into thinking your marriage means anything more than a piece of paper and a ring.

Gonna have to agree with you on this one. Gays deserve the same "marriage" rights given by the state. They deserve the same tax exemptions as every couple out there regardless of their sexual orientation.

At least with a civil union there isn't this expectation to hold a glamorous, costly event. Nor do you have to fool yourself into thinking your marriage means anything more than a piece of paper and a ring.

But, in a religious marraige, not only is that an important part of the ceremony where all your friends and relatives can attend, but it is one of the most anticipated parts! Why the hell do you think that wedding planners make off like bandits? Because they are providing an absolutely neccesary service?

Ya know what, their services are about as neccesary as having three lambourghini diablos, but people still want them.

That is to say, the whole point of why gay people don't care for a Civil Union, is that it's segregation all over again. Of course, now it's not a racist practice, but a lifstyle one.


You know what a Civil Union is? It's a "seperate but equal" law. Just like giving blacks the back of the bus, or not letting them eat at the same restaurants. Of course, I'm not equating hating gays to hating blacks, only on the point that they are/were discriminated against horribly just because of who they are.

People need to get the argument straight.

Of course people oppose gay marriage. Marriage is a religious institution between a man and a woman. Many religions view homosexuality as a sin. Therefore why would those who follow a religion condemning homosexuality allow a marriage of two men with god?

Gay couples do not need to get "married". Marriage is for the traditional religious.

However gay couples deserve  the right to civil unions which grant them the same rights as married couples.

I can honestly say I haven't seen you post in forever. Nice to see ya .
That and I agree with what you've said.

At least with a civil union there isn't this expectation to hold a glamorous, costly event. Nor do you have to fool yourself into thinking your marriage means anything more than a piece of paper and a ring.

But, in a religious marraige, not only is that an important part of the ceremony where all your friends and relatives can attend, but it is one of the most anticipated parts! Why the hell do you think that wedding planners make off like bandits? Because they are providing an absolutely neccesary service?

I have absolutely no idea what you're saying here but I'll have a guess. The only reason marriage is held in the regard it is is because since a young age it is drilled in our heads as some sort of ultimate goal or a normal step in human life. It isn't. It's a human construct that means nothing more than what it is (a ring and a piece of paper that allows you benefits). It is people who invest all this meaning into it. It isn't going to take your relationship to the next level nor will it make it magically permanent. It means nothing. I do not feel at a loss because I cannot marry (I am bi, currently in a relationship with Skanker :3), both because I think the idea is retarded as well as the fact that I'm not religious. I really do not care that I am separate from the church at all.

But then there is the problem of religious gays. My solution seems like the middle ground here. You aren't going to change a religion, nor are you going to convince people marriage means nothing. Change the definition of marriage so that people can get "married" (since this is what we're hung up on here - the name of the ceremony) by the government.

Ya know what, their services are about as neccesary as having three lambourghini diablos, but people still want them.

Right, so you agree there's no reasonable need for marriage.

That is to say, the whole point of why gay people don't care for a Civil Union, is that it's segregation all over again. Of course, now it's not a racist practice, but a lifstyle one.

Non-religious gays shouldn't care. Non-religious people should not be getting/want to get married in the first place.
Religious gays are going to have to push for a government run marriage system. Good luck fighting all those very, very dense religious politicians though.

You know what a Civil Union is? It's a "seperate but equal" law. Just like giving blacks the back of the bus, or not letting them eat at the same restaurants. Of course, I'm not equating hating gays to hating blacks, only on the point that they are/were discriminated against horribly just because of who they are.

Sure, but I don't care. If people are all that upset that a religious group won't include them then there's just no helping the situation. The battle will go on forever because both of them are too stubborn. And this is really just telling of how much control/influence the church has over society, which is a problem for me. I don't mean the fact that they are able to choose who gets married - I mean the fact that so many people want to be a part of this religious ceremony in the first place. Perhaps an alternative would be to abolish marriage all together (and organised religion while we're at it).

So basically, if you're upset that you aren't recognised as equal by a religion that's founded on what was written by savages thousands of years ago - you're dumb.

That is to say, the whole point of why gay people don't care for a Civil Union, is that it's segregation all over again. Of course, now it's not a racist practice, but a lifstyle one.


You know what a Civil Union is? It's a "seperate but equal" law. Just like giving blacks the back of the bus, or not letting them eat at the same restaurants. Of course, I'm not equating hating gays to hating blacks, only on the point that they are/were discriminated against horribly just because of who they are.

This is pretty much bullshit, and the state has no say in it in this case, they can't FORCE churches to allow gay marriages they can however allow the same benefits to those couples with legal documents ie marriage licenses or a civil union.

 

Ya know what, their services are about as neccesary as having three lambourghini diablos, but people still want them.

I want to get married to three Lamborghini Diablo's <3333

Marriage isn't a strictly religious thing in today's society, nowadays it's less a sacred rite and more of a legal thing or just having a big symbolic party/ceremony saying you love someone.

Just as Marriages don't have to happen in a Church, or even necessarily be done by a Priest, they aren't strictly a religious thing.

All of that being said, I don't agree with forcing Churches and Priests to perform marriages if they are against homosexuality, it's their right, in my opinion, to disagree and deny service based on that.  However, I -do- think it should be made law that public services (even provided by a church) cannot be subject to discrimination.  I also believe that people and places for homosexuals to be married should be encouraged and made more accessible.

No doubt people would complain that they can't be married in the same church as their heterosexual family, but forcing the church to do that is the same as removing their freedom of religion.

Marriage isn't a strictly religious thing in today's society, nowadays it's less a sacred rite and more of a legal thing or just having a big symbolic party/ceremony saying you love someone.

Just as Marriages don't have to happen in a Church, or even necessarily be done by a Priest, they aren't strictly a religious thing.

All of that being said, I don't agree with forcing Churches and Priests to perform marriages if they are against homosexuality, it's their right, in my opinion, to disagree and deny service based on that.  However, I -do- think it should be made law that public services (even provided by a church) cannot be subject to discrimination.  I also believe that people and places for homosexuals to be married should be encouraged and made more accessible.

No doubt people would complain that they can't be married in the same church as their heterosexual family, but forcing the church to do that is the same as removing their freedom of religion.

The legal definition of marriage in many countries is the definition set out by whatever religion, because it's origins are in religion. I know what you're saying when you say it isn't strictly religious (I agree), but it's still unlikely that they'll ever change it from being a religious thing technically. At least not until the hold religion has on the US or any other country is lessened (Sweden - the most atheist country in the world - has legalised same sex marriage).

Er, let's not forget Canada. Go Canada! We have this whole same-sex marriage business, and it's not a big deal. There *is* a whole shitload of homophobia out there, but men can definitely marry men. We have Sunday Shopping, and no one's complaining. People still say "Merry Christmas" to EVERYONE EVERY DAY in December, but men can totally marry men.

I can't deny that I'm ridiculously naive on this subject, but it's not that big an issue over here, at least to folks my age.

I'm sorry if I appeared to have lost my point.

There *is* a whole shitload of homophobia out there, but men can definitely marry men.

OH, so in Canada they only discriminate against the women.  FINE  

People need to get the argument straight.

Of course people oppose gay marriage. Marriage is a religious institution between a man and a woman. Many religions view homosexuality as a sin. Therefore why would those who follow a religion condemning homosexuality allow a marriage of two men with god?

Gay couples do not need to get "married". Marriage is for the traditional religious.

However gay couples deserve  the right to civil unions which grant them the same rights as married couples.

Bingo, most religions have different definitions of Marriage and it seems as more of a spiritual thing rather than what gay couples look for when they want same-sex marriage: to have the same rights as same sex couples granted by a marriage license.

There *is* a whole shitload of homophobia out there, but men can definitely marry men.

OH, so in Canada they only discriminate against the women.  FINE  

I prefer to think about it as more of equality then discrimination... anyone who wants to can marry a man!

this post has so far been useless and sarcastic, so back on to discussion.

Technically all bodies are created to be strait. Hell, lesbians' bodies will react to man-pheromones like strait women would (a fact that annoyed a girl in my class who always likes to remind us that she is lesbian and therefor very special and unique.) So I guess that from a biological standpoint banning gay marriage and any gay relationships are "useless" because they don't get anything done. (by that logic women should start having sex as soon as they reach the age of 13 so they can keep on pumping out babies once a year until they die)

And there is a non-religious look at why gay marriage could be wrong... of coarse since the human race is large enough that over population is commonly brought up, I don't think that we really need to focus on reproducing right now.

Also, what about gay Christians, I actually know a few and they are currently more concerned about me burning in hell for not thinking that if I don't bow down to an old revolutionary who spent his time with a whore and a friend who killed him I will spend eternity getting burnt, despite that one time he was all "yeah, you don't really need to go to hell anymore, I cleared it all up with god"... back on track... yeah, these people want to be able to be married under the god that created them and made them gay.  There are churches and priests/ministers/preachers/whatevers that are willing to perform this type of marriage, and I don't think that it's up to (supposedly) 54% of the population to decide they can't just because they think god wouldn't like it... if god didn't like it he would do something about it personally like, I don't know, not make gay guys.

Technically all bodies are created to be strait. Hell, lesbians' bodies will react to man-pheromones like strait women would (a fact that annoyed a girl in my class who always likes to remind us that she is lesbian and therefor very special and unique.) So I guess that from a biological standpoint banning gay marriage and any gay relationships are "useless" because they don't get anything done. (by that logic women should start having sex as soon as they reach the age of 13 so they can keep on pumping out babies once a year until they die)

And there is a non-religious look at why gay marriage could be wrong... of coarse since the human race is large enough that over population is commonly brought up, I don't think that we really need to focus on reproducing right now.

Also, what about gay Christians, I actually know a few and they are currently more concerned about me burning in hell for not thinking that if I don't bow down to an old revolutionary who spent his time with a whore and a friend who killed him I will spend eternity getting burnt, despite that one time he was all "yeah, you don't really need to go to hell anymore, I cleared it all up with god"... back on track... yeah, these people want to be able to be married under the god that created them and made them gay.  There are churches and priests/ministers/preachers/whatevers that are willing to perform this type of marriage, and I don't think that it's up to (supposedly) 54% of the population to decide they can't just because they think god wouldn't like it... if god didn't like it he would do something about it personally like, I don't know, not make gay guys.

...what

Well, my opinions haven't changed much since the last time this subject came up, but I'll repeat myself anyway

I think that the reasons for homosexual marriage are obvious and have been adequately explored by other members already.

However, I think that the reasons against gay marriage are a little stronger than they are ordinarily presented. The problem religious people have with gay marriage is primarily that it isolates them. [analogy]If a school were to teach, for instance, the Christian bible in schools, then it is discriminating against non-Christians because it means the public school system is telling their children that their parents and their religion (or lack thereof) is incorrect.[/analogy] I think that it is the same if the law says that marriage is "the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others" (Canadian definition), then it is implicit that marriage is not "an indissoluble bond between a man and a woman, created by human contract and ratified by divine grace; it is one of the seven sacraments" (Catholic definition). The state is hegemonic - the fact that it defines marriage excludes all other definitions and says that they are incorrect. If it says the bond is dissoluble, if it says that it is between any two persons, then that's what it is; all other religous definitions, stronger or weaker, are cast as false. Thus, I do think there is a freedom of belief issue here that is as strong as the case against teaching religion in schools.

That being said, I think that gay couples should certainly receive all of the benefits that heterosexual couples receive, and I think that they trump the religious rights I have outlined. If the only option were to trample on one or the other, than gay mariage rights should prevail in my opinion. But it is not the only option.

The problems that I have outlined for religious have a lot more to do with the word "marriage" than it does with the legal construct of marriage. The fact is, I seriously doubt that many religious people even care that the law recognizes their marriage as a "marriage", because the legal definition of marriage is so weak that almost any religion I can think of has a stronger definition. Further, whatever significance marriage has for them derives entirely from their religion, and not at all from the state. Marriage is a religious institution, and is only secondarily a legal one, if at all.

That is why I think that the best solution would be to simply change the word for the legal construction from "marriage" to "civil union" or "domestic partnership" for heterosexual couples as well as homosexual couples. That way, the state would not be discriminating against homosexuals - all of the benefits that currently exist would exist for all couples, even down to the name, regardless of sexual orientation. There is no reason for the law to interfere with what religious people consider to be marriage.


As for gay religious since it was brought up; that's not an issue for the law in any way as far as I'm concerned. For one, the law would have to recognize spiritual benefits, which would take it far out of the realm of separation of church and state. Even if it could get past that hurdle, speaking of Catholicism at the least, changing the definition of marriage would in fact cause a schism with Rome (see: Anglicanism) since it would be rejecting the authority of the Pope. So forcing priests to marry homosexual couples would practically outlaw Catholicism. The religious rights are far far stronger in that case.

I think all marriage is wrong. I think we should just have orgy parties all day.

I think all marriage is wrong. I think we should just have orgy parties all day.

Wow...just...wow...

I should have expected this from a man whose avatar is the Doctor.

I've heard this arguement a lot...go watch the episode of Metalocalypse where Pickles' brother gets married and listen to what the "expert" says about marriage...

...why did a serious debate break out in a joke thread?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, RMRK?!?!

in before the "hill" 

...why did a serious debate break out in a joke thread?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, RMRK?!?!

The reason is simple.

Code: [Select]

This thread is -
 ->The Rpg Maker Resource Kit
 -->RMRK General
 --->General Chat
 ---->( Re: 10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is "Wrong" )

It isn't -
 ->The Rpg Maker Resource Kit
 -->RMRK General
 --->Elitist Debate
 ---->( Re: 10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is "Wrong" )

i just naturally assumed it was in elitist debate, uh i also only read this page because i don't care that much but whatever.

ok so i might be bashed by some non-religious or athiest folk cuz im a christian myself (yep i admit it, so let the bashing begin >_>;;; ) but i dont care if people being gay and date, but its unnatural for a guy and another guy to have sex and having shildren since thats lgically and spiritually impossible, and i have a HUGE deal about transgenders, if ur born a boy or a girl, then guess wut YOUR A GUY IF UR BORN WITH A DONG OR A GIRL IF UR BORN WITH A VAGINA!!! DUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRR!!!!

plus i honestly think transegendered men-->women are the ugliest women i have ever seen (seen them on tv...they look O_o)

but I have like at least 1-2 friends being gay, and im ok with it, i just want them to have kids once they grow up and i doubt adopting would help, i think the parents would be disappointed if their son didn't have a child with their bloodline, and it wouldnt be fair to the adopted child, with a different bloodline and confused about the family

though thats just my opinion, if u dont like my opinion then dont bash me, i have a right...heck EVERYONE has a right to THEIR own opinion so ha (to those where are gonna be bashing me about my opinion)

I have a feeling that your opinion is the least of your worries here.

ok so i might be bashed by some non-religious or athiest folk cuz im a christian myself (yep i admit it, so let the bashing begin >_>;;; ) but i dont care if people being gay and date,  and having shildren since thats lgically and spiritually impossible, and i have a HUGE deal about transgenders, if ur born a boy or a girl, then guess wut YOUR A GUY IF UR BORN WITH A DONG OR A GIRL IF UR BORN WITH A uhu!!! DUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRR!!!!

plus i honestly think transegendered men-->women are the ugliest women i have ever seen (seen them on tv...they look O_o)

but I have like at least 1-2 friends being gay, and im ok with it, i just want them to have kids once they grow up and i doubt adopting would help, i think the parents would be disappointed if their son didn't have a child with their bloodline, and it wouldnt be fair to the adopted child, with a different bloodline and confused about the family

though thats just my opinion, if u dont like my opinion then dont bash me, i have a right...heck EVERYONE has a right to THEIR own opinion so ha (to those where are gonna be bashing me about my opinion)

My opinion is that you're dumb and I'm entitled to it.
Also, just because somebody has an opinion it doesn't mean you have to like it. I don't like your opinion and I'm allowed to voice why I don't like your opinion.

but its unnatural for a guy and another guy to have sex

Why? It happens in nature. What is it that dictates natural and unnatural, really? I know for you it is men from thousands of years ago who didn't really know what they were talking about and decided to write about it in a book called the Bible. For me, sex is sex. It's something that is primarily for fun rather than solely reproduction. This is backed up by the fact that CONDOMS were invented. People want to have sex for fun, not to make babies.  So if you have a problem with homosexuality you must surely have a problem with any people having sex that don't intend to reproduce (and if you have a problem with this, you're stupid).

and having shildren since thats lgically and spiritually impossible

No idea what you're even saying here. Are you saying same-sex couples should or shouldn't be allowed children? By the way, spiritually impossible doesn't mean anything.

and i have a HUGE deal about transgenders, if ur born a boy or a girl, then guess wut YOUR A GUY IF UR BORN WITH A DONG OR A GIRL IF UR BORN WITH A uhu!!! DUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRR!!!!

Wrong. You can be born physically a boy but mentally a girl. It isn't as simple as, "if you have a penus you're a dude wtf ?? xD." A lot of transgendered people do not feel comfortable in the gender they were born in and this causes a lot of psychological issues. I don't see why it's a big deal if somebody chooses to live their life as the opposite gender, especially since it won't effect you at all (nor should it in the first place anyway).

plus i honestly think transegendered men-->women are the ugliest women i have ever seen (seen them on tv...they look O_o)

It's pretty hard to reverse the effects of puberty. There's that one boy who approached his parents at a young age about his gender and they fortunately helped him get the stuff he needed to live his life as a girl. Since they caught him before he went through puberty (he had begun to grow facial hair and this deeply upset him) he's now a very nice looking girl. By the way, I didn't really want to call her "him" here but I figured I had to to illustrate the story properly. I think of this person as a girl, not a boy. Besides, it's not like being "ugly" is a reason to say they can't do it.

but I have like at least 1-2 friends being gay, and im ok with it, i just want them to have kids once they grow up and i doubt adopting would help

Actually I think the success rate of obtaining a baby after adopting a baby is around ... 100%. Unless what you're saying here is, "I want them to have a baby because that's what I want and it's natural and they don't have a baby they won't be natural and they won't be able to live with themselves." Whether they want a baby in the first place is up to them. If they adopt, I'm sure they'll be happy with their decision. Anyway, we need more people to adopt so you should thank them for making the world a better place for the children they adopt.

i think the parents would be disappointed if their son didn't have a child with their bloodline

No, you or your parents would be disappointed by this. No reasonable person would be upset by something as trivial as not having a direct descendant. What does "blood" really matter anyway? What will it matter to you or anybody else? Why would it make a difference?

and it wouldnt be fair to the adopted child, with a different bloodline and confused about the family

What? The child is adopted, you retard. Of course there's not going to be any relation. Do you honestly think the adopted child is going to think, "Damn, I can't believe I got stuck in a family I'm not even in the same "bloodline" as! I really wish I was back at the shelter." And I am sure if a child were brought up with same-sex parents they would be brought up as open minded and wouldn't have a problem with it. There wouldn't be any confusion about the matter, and I don't think they'd complain about "not having a mommy" after years of being brought up by two loving parents. Do you expect the child to suddenly turn around and say FUCK YOU to the two people who have loved them and brought them up as best they could? No, I really don't think that would happen.

Your opinion is retarded. I hate you. Learn to type.

By the way, I don't think you have any gay friends. It amazes me how every time a Christian pops into an argument like this they always seem to have these gay friends. You don't even know how many gay friends you have! "Oh, around 1 or 2... I don't know really."

I'll be honest, I don't have any gay friends. Well, besides some people on here. There's always the possibility that some people at my school are in the closet, but I dunno. I've met a lesbian once... could never tell she was a lesbian. Mostly 'cause she kept asking me if I liked cougars -_-... long story lol... getting off topic now. heh.

Personally, I think it's complicated. I'm a Christian, and the Bible clearly says it's a sin. Now, the Bible also says that God doesn't hate the sinner, but the sin itself. In the same way, I don't have a problem with someone who pursues a same-sex relationship themselves, but I do have a problem with the homosexuality itself. (I have a problem saying "gays" because to me it sounds offensive, kinda like my grandfather saying "blacks"... it just... bothers me. people are people y'know? )

As for the whole condoms being invented thing. That only proves that man uses sex as entertainment. But (I can't speak for other religions) in Christianity, God made sex for pro-creation and yeah - to feel good - but for the husband and wife. So, coming from a different viewpoint, the whole contraceptive thing doesn't really apply.

Yes, sex is entertainment. That was my point. I don't see why people have a problem with it being used for entertainment or "for love" if you believe that kind of thing. There's not really any argument against same-sex anything besides "God says it's bad so it probably is." There's no reason for why. But I suppose that's the foundation of all religion, really.

Anyway, God has a lot of problems with sex and none of them really make any sense. You can't have sex before marriage, no bum sex, no gay sex, reproduction only, final destination. The contraceptive thing does apply especially because there are religions who do have a problem with it since it makes sex a non-reproducing thing - an act of fun.

Sex is pretty cool. Have lots of it. Just don't catch any STIs since that probably won't be much fun.