So how does gay marriage destroy the sanctity of marriage?

**TheJimmyRustler** · 11-13-2012, 03:14 AM

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?

**DiseasedScrotum** · 11-13-2012, 03:37 AM

The other day I saw couple of them homos kissin eachother and now everytime I eat out my wife I imagine a penor. Thats how.

**wings_unhinged** · 11-13-2012, 03:48 AM

They're going to teach my kids how to gay.

**GregariousWolf** · 11-13-2012, 04:19 AM

It's the thought that somebody somewhere is having more fun than they are.

**Fellowcitizen** · 11-13-2012, 04:31 AM

Don't most marriages end in divorce anyway?

You'd think that gay people would be more thankful for the opportunity than those who just don't even take it seriously.

**jf1** · 11-13-2012, 04:32 AM

They dont know.
Its a catch phrase that the sheep have blindly accepted without thinking it through.
Typical.

**Harbinger** · 11-13-2012, 04:41 AM

**stateless** · 11-13-2012, 04:48 AM

Many religious people are unable to identify or appreciate reality, therefore it's easy to scare them into believing such nonsense.

**Meatros** · 11-13-2012, 04:52 AM

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.

**meatcigarette** · 11-13-2012, 05:19 AM

Originally Posted by wings_unhinged

They're going to teach my kids how to gay.

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.

**Kovalchuk** · 11-13-2012, 05:25 AM

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.

**MrMachismo** · 11-13-2012, 05:28 AM

Originally Posted by meatcigarette

.

Weak name to post ratio.

**meatcigarette** · 11-13-2012, 05:31 AM

Originally Posted by MrMachismo

Weak name to post ratio.

Hwhat?

Originally Posted by Kovalchuk

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.

9 states allow gay marriage, 18 states allow medical Marijuana use, 20+ states allow sex with animals.

**TheJimmyRustler** · 11-13-2012, 06:18 AM

Originally Posted by Kovalchuk

I have never understood why homosexuals don't come up with their own name for "Marriage."

Because they shouldn't have to.

**Harbinger** · 11-13-2012, 06:18 AM

Here's whats going to happen if we don't allow gay marriage!

**Kovalchuk** · 11-13-2012, 06:30 AM

Originally Posted by TheJimmyRustler

Because they shouldn't have to.

Why not allow their creativity to flourish... they are "unique" and "individualized."

A strength-based approach to this issue would encourage homosexuals to come up with a name, rally behind it, and become empowered.

**Messier_Object** · 11-13-2012, 07:00 AM

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''

**BusterMudd** · 11-13-2012, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by Messier_Object

Marriage is a term used to describe a specific relationship between man and woman.

So iow the complaint isn't really that homosexual unions ruin the sanctity of marriage, it's that homosexual unions expand the semantics of the word "marriage" beyond the scope that ignorant, narrow-minded people are capable of comprehending.

**VAPlowhorse** · 11-13-2012, 07:19 AM

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.

**Messier_Object** · 11-13-2012, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by BusterMudd

So iow the complaint isn't really that homosexual unions ruin the sanctity of marriage, it's that homosexual unions expand the semantics of the word "marriage" beyond the scope that ignorant, narrow-minded people are capable of comprehending.

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...

**Darknightbegins** · 11-13-2012, 07:37 AM

Marriage has no sanctity left. 50 percent divorce rate, many people choosing not to wed at all, and marriage more and more being treated as an extension of a girlfriend/boyfriend relationship.

**Messier_Object** · 11-13-2012, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by Darknightbegins

Marriage has no sanctity left. 50 percent divorce rate, many people choosing not to wed at all, and marriage more and more being treated as an extension of a girlfriend/boyfriend relationship.

Pretty much. The stats can be misleading, though. First marriages have a better chance of surviving than second and later marriages. The same people getting divorced and remarried are largely responsible for divorce rates.

**stateless** · 11-13-2012, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by Messier_Object

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''

Has monogamous marriage ruined the sanctity of polygamous marriage?

**TheJimmyRustler** · 11-13-2012, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by Kovalchuk

Why not allow their creativity to flourish... they are "unique" and "individualized."

A strength-based approach to this issue would encourage homosexuals to come up with a name, rally behind it, and become empowered.

Originally Posted by Messier_Object

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''

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.

**Persecuted** · 11-13-2012, 09:01 AM

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?

**TruthandJustice** · 11-13-2012, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by TheJimmyRustler

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?

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.

**TheJimmyRustler** · 11-13-2012, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by Persecuted

Hi James Rustler

Lol'd.

Originally Posted by Persecuted

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Persecuted

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Persecuted

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Persecuted

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Persecuted

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?

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.

**TheJimmyRustler** · 11-13-2012, 09:29 AM