Always wanted to know this, not once have I ever gotten a proper response.
Several times here people have said it would "destroy the sanctity of marriage / destroy the nuclear family," and other such stuff. Why? How?
|
-
11-13-2012, 03:14 AM #1
-
11-13-2012, 03:37 AM #2
-
11-13-2012, 03:48 AM #3
-
11-13-2012, 04:19 AM #4
-
-
11-13-2012, 04:31 AM #5
-
11-13-2012, 04:32 AM #6
-
11-13-2012, 04:41 AM #7
-
11-13-2012, 04:48 AM #8
-
-
11-13-2012, 04:52 AM #9
- Join Date: Nov 2010
- Location: Virginia, United States
- Posts: 6,369
- Rep Power: 14469
It doesn't destroy anything.
That's why it's a bit ridiculous to keep a segment of our population, who are consenting adults, from doing what they please. It doesn't harm anyone, so what do I care? Actually I take that back, I care because if some religious radicals can stop that minority group from marrying, then what's to stop them from preventing other minority groups for equally silly reasons? The slippery slope is slippery on both sides, indeed.
-
11-13-2012, 05:19 AM #10
Although that's a ridiculous statement, there is a very small amount of truth in that. I mean, look at these Bronies.
Srsly though, this new Bieber culture and these Misandrist Radical Feminist's are definitely enforcing this idea that being masculine is something to be ashamed of and that all men should kiss their ass. For example, say if you call a woman a cunt, you're automatically branded a Misogynist, but if a woman calls a man a prick, everyone knows by default she's calling him a cock.
This culture of emasculated males you could argue is causing them to think they were "born gay". Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Radical Christian that thinks you can "change your sexuality". I don't think you can change being gay or Bisexual, but I don't think you're "born gay"..
But Dawkins made a good point that, this idea of a "gay gene" very well could just be formed from environmental circumstances. He mentions that early in life if a baby is fed with a bottle, that could hypothetically be an environmental circumstance that could contribute to one possibly developing homosexual tendencies, thus developing attraction to men. Whereas if that same baby were to grow up in Africa, that gene may have been used to learn how to hunt or search for animals. Before homosexuality was made less stigmatized in mainstream culture, that gene would not have been influenced the same way because we were basically just procreating and hunting.
Look how it is today, among males, homosexuality is still stigmatized, wouldn't it make sense that this is the exact reason why there is a small percentage of real Bisexual males, many will end up just turning gay. As opposed to Females openly being Bisexual? Would make much more sense that this is an affect of developing in our modern environment.
-
11-13-2012, 05:25 AM #11
I have never understood why homosexuals don't come up with their own name for "Marriage."
The research shows they are more creative, as opposed to heterosexual males. It would solve EVERYTHING.
eg: "Hey Sarah, do you want to go to Tom and Mike's clabsom tomorrow? I think it will be beautiful with all the flowers and rings."
Done and Done.
-
11-13-2012, 05:28 AM #12
-
-
11-13-2012, 05:31 AM #13
-
11-13-2012, 06:18 AM #14
-
11-13-2012, 06:18 AM #15
-
11-13-2012, 06:30 AM #16
-
-
11-13-2012, 07:00 AM #17
It destroys it the same way calling a tree a bowling ball destroys the meaning of those words. Marriage is a term used to describe a specific relationship between man and woman. Only recently has it started to mean same sex, but is not recognized by the traditional meaning, which is the one most religious people think of. To be fair, many other people in a hetero relationship ruin the meaning and sanctity of marriage.
cliffs:
-it destroys the specific traditional meaning of marriage because same sex couples can't be ''married''"An injury to one, is an injury to all. Workers of the world, unite!"
https://www.iww.org/
-
11-13-2012, 07:12 AM #18
-
11-13-2012, 07:19 AM #19
I think one has to apply context in order to understand the sanctity of marriage arguments, in order to avoid throwing around words like bigot. The same people making these statements are also inclined to believe humanity was created by magical beings for entertainment purposes Therefore marriage was established IN THE EXACT SAME MOTHER****ING LEGAL FORM THAT EXISTS IN MURICA!!! by decree of said deity in order to make more toys for him to play with.
Yes, it is pretty out there, but there is a reason everyday people can make anti-gay arguments with a straight face.Last edited by VAPlowhorse; 11-13-2012 at 07:24 AM.
Disciple of the tire flip and Utilikilt.
-
11-13-2012, 07:34 AM #20
Eh, kind of. The sanctity of marriage involves the meaning of traditional marriage. Expanding the definition ruins the meaning therefore ruining the sanctity. But, like I said before, same sex couples aren't the only ones ruining the sanctity of marriage. Plenty of people complaining about it are guilty ie divorces, abuse, infidelity, etc...
"An injury to one, is an injury to all. Workers of the world, unite!"
https://www.iww.org/
-
-
11-13-2012, 07:37 AM #21
-
11-13-2012, 07:41 AM #22
-
11-13-2012, 07:49 AM #23
-
11-13-2012, 07:56 AM #24
That analogy would be correct if you were to get that tree and carve it into a bowling ball. It might be of a different material, but it's still a bowling ball. If that person were to just chuck a tree down the alley, then that'd be something else entirely. As it is, gay marriage is the "carving a bowling ball out of a tree" analogy, to be more accurate.
Also, what about non-religious people that get married? If marriage is a religious affair, then surely we shouldn't be able to get married either?
"Gay and religious? God doesn't want you to get married, you're an abomination, you'll destroy the sanctity of marriage!!"
"Straight and atheist? Alright then, go for it."
You don't have to be religious to be married, therefore religious people shouldn't have a monopoly over who gets married because it might offend their religious views.
-
-
11-13-2012, 09:01 AM #25
Hi James Rustler
I find it funny that many non-Christians demand logical reasons for why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. Not saying that you are demanding, but I have seen many such demands before, this is a highly emotional issue. I don't understand why people want 'reasons' when they already reject the Christian view of morality to begin with? If you don't believe in God what possible reason could one give against gay marriage?
It all comes down to this, if God doesn't exist, then there is no sanctity of marriage at all, for anyone. If, however, God does exist (and He's not a liberal :P) then marriage is sacred as ordained by Him. To sanctify means to set apart for God's purposes, or to make holy. There is a concept of moral righteousness that is inseparable from this concept of sanctification. I don't know if you have read much of the New Testament but there are numerous statements by Jesus, and the Apostles, where they draw the analogy of God's relationship with us as a marriage: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her to make her holy" - Ephesians.
Anyway, like I said before, if you reject this concept of God, then why would you accept any reason a Christian would give against gay marriage?
I wouldn't say that gay marriage, in and of itself, destroys the sanctity of marriage or the nuclear family, but I would say that these two things are already being destroyed by a society that rejects God. By that I don't mean that atheists are destroying marriage, but anyone who rejects God's way in life will face a lot harder challenges in their marriage.
Now I have a question for you, and I would like Meatros to answer as well since he raised the issue. It seems to me that the non-Christian position has settled on a sort of rule that 'if it's 2 consenting adults then there's no problem'. There are problems with this definition though. As you will see on these boards (and in the broader public) that many people are applying this rule consistently to include incest as well. My cousin said to me the other day that there was nothing morally wrong with incest or beastiality as long as the two parties are consenting. I asked how an animal could consent and he said if it was sexually aroused it was consenting, sounds logical hey?
So my question is to both of you, are you ok with a brother and sister getting married? What if it was your own brother and sister getting married, would you still be ok with that?
Meatros, I disagree that Christians have a slippery slope, or one even comparable to yours. Christians are not allowed to prevent marriage of people based on race or creed. It might be the case that we don't recognise a marriage as binding in God's sight if they are non-Christians but we should not be preventing them.
One more thing. Mark Steyn makes a good point that if you start changing the definition of marriage, what is to stop you from changing it to include more than one partner, i.e. polygamy? He says there are much more takers for polygamy in the world than there are for gay marriage, which is a fact. Are you both ok with polygamy? Let me guess, as long as they're all consenting?John 3:16
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
1 Corinthians 15:14
"And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."
-
11-13-2012, 09:21 AM #26
You probably have gotten numerous proper responses, you just ignore them because you want to purposely misinterpret that meaning of the statement. Liberals like to purposely misinterpret the statement to mean that if a homosexual couple gets married, then a conservative thinks his personal marriage is harmed and tainted. Obviously that's silly.
What the statement means is that marriages and families are the fundamental building block of society. Marriage is what results in stable families and families are how children are raised. We are seeing the results of poorly raised children as America further and further abandons what a family is, such as crime and unemployment. Over the past 50 years or so the definition of the family has been changed from a "married man and woman" to a "man and a woman who 'love each other'". This is especially apparent in the Black community where fatherlessness is somewhere around 70-80%. Not waiting until marriage to have sex and start a family has resulted in a massive influx of single parent "families".
It is an undeniable fact that homosexual relationships are extremely short, and it isn't uncommon for a homosexual to have multiple partners in a single night and more than a thousand sexual partners during their lifetime. Such behavior obviously does not lend itself to being a stable environment for raising children, and that doesn't even include the diseases and mental disorders associated with homosexual behavior. I guess I would be considered libertarian on this issue because I'm not interested in a law that would punish homosexual behavior. If people want to have gay sex, fine, go ahead, but making homosexual behavior a government approved and endorsed "version" of marriage is bad for children, bad for society, and bad public policy.
-
11-13-2012, 09:22 AM #27
Lol'd.
Curious to understand what the big deal with it is. It affects a lot of people, so understanding why it's not allowed is important, I reckon.
So, and I'm not trying to sound like smarmy prat, but in other words it doesn't really affect anyone. The world doesn't bend to the whims of religious folk (see all of us eating pork and shellfish whilst Jews and Muslims believe it to be against God's wishes) so I don't really understand why this argument is legitimate to prevent gay marriage from taking place. I'd understand if churches didn't want to let gays marry, and would be fine with that - you don't need a church to get married, after all.
Incest = something I find gross, obviously, but those who practice it are free to do so. I agree that if they're consenting and neither is taking advantage of the other...well, more power to them. Where I'd probably draw the line is in them having kids of their own, since, being incestuous, they could give birth to a child that's "deformed" in some way, and that's where it gets more complicated.
By this logic, shouldn't you also not prevent gays from marrying? If you see marriage between atheists as being non-binding in God's eyes, doesn't that go against the Christian view of marriage, ie destroy its sanctity?
Yup. I reckon it would probably fail miserably for those who do it, but, as I said earlier, so long as no one's being taken advantage of and they're fine with it, enjoy.
-
11-13-2012, 09:29 AM #28
Yawn.
This doesn't apply to gay marriage at all. Do you hold people that don't have children, or can't have them, in some kind of contempt?
And there are also long-lasting relationships, so this is completely pointless.
Yes, because gays are the only ones who have one-night stands, and are the only sloots in existence. Everyone else is chaste.
I don't believe I said a thing about children - besides, are you going to start legislating which other minorities in society can and can't have children as well?
Which, again, isn't the case for all of them. You do like to tar people with the same brush, don't you?
Enjoy your opinion.
-
-
11-13-2012, 09:36 AM #29
Good thread so far. I just wanted to jump in on the above. Victims of rape can orgasm. I don't think anybody believes that means they are consenting to the sex. Sexual arousal has nothing to do with consenting. We can't always control what our bodies do.
As to the rest of the debate - the Bible says that a marriage is between a man and a woman, and that sex between same-sex individuals is a sin. So no Christian should support a homosexual marriage. But, as has been pointed out, if you're not a Christian, then there's no argument that can be made against homosexual marriage that I'm aware of. From a non-Christian perspective, hetero couples have done a fine job of ruining the sanctity of marriage on their own. I don't see how a homosexual marriage can do any worse.STAND TALL AND SHAKE THE HEAVENS!!
"Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own." - 1 Corinthians 6:19
▪█─-─█▪ Equipment Crew #71 ▪█─-─█▪
[]---[] York Barbell Club #32 []---[]
[]---[] Ivanko Barbell Crew #66 []---[]
||---|| Rogue Barbell Club #6 ||---||
-
11-13-2012, 09:55 AM #30
- Join Date: Jun 2011
- Location: Akron, Ohio, United States
- Posts: 3,012
- Rep Power: 3826
The religious based arguments are weak.
The problem is that gay marriage singles out and validates one form of sexual dysfunction over others thus creating inequality, not equality.
The onus is on the gay community to show that homosexuality is a trait like ethnicity/race and not a disorder like ****philia or necrophilia.
Similar Threads
-
Why are the Prop 8 gay haters afraid of publicity?
By markymark69 in forum Religion and PoliticsReplies: 457Last Post: 09-09-2012, 05:09 PM -
Why all the Ron Paul hate? (srs, policy discussion)
By wolfhere in forum Religion and PoliticsReplies: 131Last Post: 02-22-2012, 01:51 AM -
ITT: I Explain to You Why Some People Selectively Hate Gays (Very SRS)
By KRNEKIM in forum Misc.Replies: 239Last Post: 07-13-2011, 07:22 PM -
Gay Marriage
By dmbphan041 in forum Religion and PoliticsReplies: 212Last Post: 05-06-2009, 08:23 AM
Bookmarks