So how does gay marriage destroy the sanctity of marriage?

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

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.

Assuming that homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction, then yes. But why assume this is so?

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.

I would say the onus is on you to prove that it is a disorder like ****philia or necrophilia.

And how does any of your post respond to the OP? The question was, how does gay marriage destroy the sanctity of marriage? Especially since gay marriages have existed since the beginning of recorded history? The argument for tradition is false; traditionally, gay marriages have always existed, and by not allowing them to exist, we are actually changing tradition.

[Carpig]

Assuming that homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction, then yes. But why assume this is so?



I would say the onus is on you to prove that it is a disorder like ****philia or necrophilia.

And how does any of your post respond to the OP? The question was, how does gay marriage destroy the sanctity of marriage? Especially since gay marriages have existed since the beginning of recorded history? The argument for tradition is false; traditionally, gay marriages have always existed, and by not allowing them to exist, we are actually changing tradition.

It replies to the OP because I think the religious arguments are weak and I don't subscribe to them.

People have lots of strange habits, that doesn't necessarily require society to legally recognize and validate them. I think allowing the action to occur without fear of any consequence is sufficient.

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

It replies to the OP because I think the religious arguments are weak and I don't subscribe to them.

The OP asked how gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage. Your disagreement with one position that describes how gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage . . . does not describe how gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage.

People have lots of strange habits, that doesn't necessarily require society to legally recognize and validate them. I think allowing the action to occur without fear of any consequence is sufficient.

How is homosexuality a strange habit?

Homosexuals are not allowed to exist without consequence. So obviously, your solution is insufficient.

[xxAnonymous30]

Sounds like a cop out statement implemented by social conservatives to justify their religiously fueled bigotry

[TruthandJustice]

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?

Are you even reading what I wrote? When did I say anything about people who can't/don't have children? I said that children are best raised in a monogamous marriage between a man and a woman because it provides the most stable environment for raising children. Raising children is important because children are not born with the knowledge and skills to be a functional and contributing member of society. Children have to be taught things like hard work, self control, and discipline, otherwise they will be significantly less likely to be a contributing member of society and more likely to be a criminal, on welfare, use drugs, etc.

And there are also long-lasting relationships, so this is completely pointless.

That's like saying because not everyone who smokes experiences negative health effects that cigarettes shouldn't be considered harmful, or that because not all people who play the lottery lose money that the lottery shouldn't be considered a bad financial decision. There will always be exceptions to the rule, but that doesn't change the fact that homosexual relationships have a very poor track record and are not a stable environment for raising children.

Yes, because gays are the only ones who have one-night stands, and are the only sloots in existence. Everyone else is chaste.

Strawman much? I never said that homosexuals are the only ones who have one-night stands. However, homosexual behavior gives new meaning to the word promiscuity. Statistics show that nearly a third of active homosexuals have had more than 1000 partners, 43% have had more than 500 sexual partners, and 80% have had more than 100 sexual partners. 79% of homosexuals say that more than half their sexual partners are strangers. Also, 95% of homosexuals that self-reported themselves as in a "committed" relationship also reported themselves as having been unfaithful to their partner. No matter your opinion of homosexual behavior, that is not an environment that is good for raising children in.

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?

Marriage lacks any real purpose if it isn't about children. Yes marriage has other benefits aside from being a stable place to raise children, and people who aren't going to have children can still get married, but the primary purpose is for children. As I've already mentioned, children are not born with the knowledge and skills to be contributing members to society, and marriage is the institution designed to facilitate an environment where children can be taught the knowledge and skills they need.

Which, again, isn't the case for all of them. You do like to tar people with the same brush, don't you?

As I said, exceptions don't prove a rule is false. Are you arguing that playing the lottery is a good financial decision?

[x-trainer ben]

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?

Call it barriage, narriage and split the diff

[Carpig]

How is homosexuality a strange habit?

Homosexuals are not allowed to exist without consequence. So obviously, your solution is insufficient.

No matter how you spin it, homosexuality is not normal behavior. It may be acceptable in today's world, but it is not normal.

And what consequences to homosexuals face just for being gay? Can they vote? Drive a car? Own a business? No one is incarcerated or lashed for being gay.


You and I will probably never agree on this topic. So be it.

[No7]

No matter how you spin it, homosexuality is not normal behavior. It may be acceptable in today's world, but it is not normal.

And what consequences to homosexuals face just for being gay? Can they vote? Drive a car? Own a business? No one is incarcerated or lashed for being gay.


You and I will probably never agree on this topic. So be it.

spending 8 hours a day on the internet isnt normal behaviour
. ' . nerds cant marry
QED

*******s are routinely beaten and murdered all around the world m8

[Carpig]

spending 8 hours a day on the internet isnt normal behaviour
. ' . nerds cant marry
QED

*******s are routinely beaten and murdered all around the world m8

I have no idea where to begin with all the non sequitur you just posted...

[IDrinkBloodLOL]

You force traditional marriage to include things that are dramatically different to its original definition, thus the definition of real marriage is compromised.

Imagine the word "motorcycle." Now, imagine you suddenly HAD to include Ford pickup trucks in the "motorcycle" category. The concept of a motorcycle has changed, but the nature of its change is to destroy its original definition. People will now use the word "motorcycle" to describe something we would never have called a motorcycle before, and so if people want to go find or discuss the "classical definition" of a motorcycle they will be hindered by the language of the day.

It's as simple as that.

What was special about real marriage will in time be indistinguishable - people will point towards things contrary in methods and results to real marriage, but call them by the same name and so lose their ability to tell them apart. They will be robbed of the right to make a very important distinction about lifestyle choices because their language was confounded in a way that affected their ability to think about the issue.

[GregariousWolf]

Gay marriage destroys the sanctity of divorce. Don't let the queers and their gay agenda ruin the sanctity of divorce. Divorce is meant to be between a man and a woman. And at least one lawyer.

[TheJimmyRustler]

Are you even reading what I wrote? When did I say anything about people who can't/don't have children? I said that children are best raised in a monogamous marriage between a man and a woman because it provides the most stable environment for raising children. Raising children is important because children are not born with the knowledge and skills to be a functional and contributing member of society. Children have to be taught things like hard work, self control, and discipline, otherwise they will be significantly less likely to be a contributing member of society and more likely to be a criminal, on welfare, use drugs, etc.

A better question is "are you?" since I never mentioned children in my OP, or until you brought them into it. You said nothing about people that can't/don't have children, but, shocker, I never said anything about children, and yet you brought it up, so while we're on the topic, best to not be one-sided, right?

That's like saying because not everyone who smokes experiences negative health effects that cigarettes shouldn't be considered harmful, or that because not all people who play the lottery lose money that the lottery shouldn't be considered a bad financial decision. There will always be exceptions to the rule, but that doesn't change the fact that homosexual relationships have a very poor track record and are not a stable environment for raising children.

Once again, you're talking about children, despite me not asking about them in the OP. That said...

54% of rapes in the UK are committed by a woman's current or former partner. Therefore, the post you just gave applies to men and women. Have fun with that.

Strawman much? I never said that homosexuals are the only ones who have one-night stands. However, homosexual behavior gives new meaning to the word promiscuity. Statistics show that nearly a third of active homosexuals have had more than 1000 partners, 43% have had more than 500 sexual partners, and 80% have had more than 100 sexual partners. 79% of homosexuals say that more than half their sexual partners are strangers. Also, 95% of homosexuals that self-reported themselves as in a "committed" relationship also reported themselves as having been unfaithful to their partner. No matter your opinion of homosexual behavior, that is not an environment that is good for raising children in.

Several of those claims are from the Weinberg-Bell study. A quick google search has brought up some interesting critiques on that

http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayhealth.html#appa

The sampling of the homosexuals in the study was not random, and they admit as much.... the homosexual samples were taken from the following places: singles bars (22%), gay baths (9%), public places (=guys hanging out in parks to find sex partners; 6%), private bars (=sex clubs; 5%), personal contacts (people that the bar people, public place people, bath house people, etc, knew personally and referred; 23%), public advertising + organizations + mailing lists (29%)

The heterosexual sample was random, using census data and land tracts to ensure a random sample, and going to exhaustive lengths to make sure those samples were truly random. The heterosexual sample... were people in residential areas, admittedly including married people.


Another reason why their data is not generalizable is that they while they did a survey of heterosexuals as well as homosexuals, for some reason they didn't include the heterosexual data.

http://joebrummer.com/WordPress/?page_id=62

Dr. Diggs’ cites the Bell and Weinberg study to show that gays are radically more promiscuous then straights. However, this interpretation of the Bell and Weinberg study has been rejected by the scientific community because of numerous problems found in the study (primarily, they did not use a random sample, they used a faulty control group, they did not disclose parts of their data, and their definitions were too broad). A summary of these issues can be found here:

So to say that those statistics can be applied to all homosexuals is absolutely ridiculous.

Marriage lacks any real purpose if it isn't about children. Yes marriage has other benefits aside from being a stable place to raise children, and people who aren't going to have children can still get married, but the primary purpose is for children. As I've already mentioned, children are not born with the knowledge and skills to be contributing members to society, and marriage is the institution designed to facilitate an environment where children can be taught the knowledge and skills they need.

It doesn't matter if you believe that marriage without children is pointless. People in love want to get married. Your obsession with children, when I never mentioned them, is completely meaningless since that's not got nothing to do with letting gays get married.

As I said, exceptions don't prove a rule is false. Are you arguing that playing the lottery is a good financial decision?

State these rules and provide sources for your claims, then. Considering how you used a completely bogus study to somehow prove the insane promiscuity of homosexuals, I'm suspicious of claims you make now.

[meatcigarette]

Sounds like a cop out statement implemented by social conservatives to justify their religiously fueled bigotry

That summed up most of this TL;DR BS from religious retards trying hard to debate with JimmyRustler.

Gay marriage destroys the sanctity of divorce. Don't let the queers and their gay agenda ruin the sanctity of divorce. Divorce is meant to be between a man and a woman. And at least one lawyer.

You mean divorce is between a lawyer and the women. *wink*

If a man and a man get married, what will happen to the big profit of taking sides with the wife? It will be gone along with discrimination towards men!!

[golfpunk1985]

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?

Homosexuals are an abomination and the government should not condone such unions between freaks. By doing so, you desecrate the sacred union between a man and a woman that is marriage. YOU risk your immortal soul. Please do not come in here with such blasphemy and purport to be my intellectual equal. But do not take me with scorn; for i'm sure that He will show you the horrors that await those who attempt to mock his most precious creation; and that people like you have mistaken this scourge of humanity as a blessing.

[sctrey99]

They can amend the def of marriage from a man and a woman, to 'two people'! BOOM problem solved!

[Persecuted]

Lol'd.

I hoped you would

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.

I know that people want 'reasons' but unfortunately this isn't like a logical or mathematical proposition where we can demonstrate it to be true/false. This is a question that involves deeper world view considerations. A Christian would say that morality is grounded in God and this entails that certain actions are morally wrong, including homosexual actions. If you don't believe in this God (which you don't) you would simply say, well your God doesn't exist, or isn't proven etc...

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.

Well, you could suppose that, but I think we're taking too narrow a consideration here. Of course if a homosexual couple, say Brad and Karl, get married it's not going to result in the destruction of the marriage of two Baptists, say Jack and Jill, in the next neighbourhood. But, as Christians who do believe that life has a very real spiritual/moral dimension and that there are very real consequences when we ignore that. Thus, it is incumbent upon Christians to resist such things, which would include gay marriage but also other things, abortion, pornography, polygamy etc...

I would say there is another element to gay marriage though, and that is that we believe marriage is an institution that is given to us by God and is meant to reflect our relationship with Him. I don't know any really good analogies to demonstrate this but maybe it would be like if Muslims suddenly decided they wanted to be baptised purely for the sake of equality, and not for the sake of God. It's a bit hard to describe.

I will say, I think some Christians have completely mishandled the situation and have been far less than loving to the gay community. This has probably inflamed the situation somewhat.

Actually, it turns out that gay couples aren't just happy to get married, they want to be married in Churches too. I read a story about a Church that found out it had unwittingly agreed to marry a lesbian couple. When they realised they refunded the deposit and even paid the couple extra just for their inconvenience with apology. That was not good enough for the couple who then sued the Church.

BTW Muslims can eat shellfish, they don't follow strict kosher food laws.

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.

What if (and this 'what if' is fast approaching) they were able to have children free of birth defects through IVF and other medical technologies (thinking Gattaca - a great movie btw). Would it be ok then? You didn't actually answer my other question, what if it was your own brother and sister, or worse still, your own children, would you really still say "more power to them"? I don't think you would, and I would really like a response to this.

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?

I would refer you to what I said above regarding marriage. Just quickly, I would say no, if two non-Christians (male and female) want to get married it would be at least neutral. A homosexual union would be a sin, sorry to use such a dirty word

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.

I really must take issue with this whole idea of 'as long as they're consenting adults' morality. Actually, my pastor just did a sermon on sexual relations last Sunday, providence James? James = You Anyway, he also took up issues with this idea of 'two consenting adults' and he gave a really good demonstration, Woody Allen. As you know, he married his adopted daughter and was widely criticised and he responded "what was the scandal? I fell in love with this girl, married her. This is what his son, Ronan Farrow, had to say about the matter:

“He’s my father and he’s married to my sister. So that makes me his son and his brother-in-law at the same time. This is a major moral transgression. I cannot see him. I cannot have a relationship with him and have moral cohesion. I grew up with all these adopted kids. They’re family. If I would say that Soon-Yi is not my sister it would be an insult to all adopted children.”

Now, this is a perfect example of two consenting adults and yet, there is something very wrong with this picture, but by your rule it's fine "more power to them", right?

[Phil9]

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

50 years ago, you would have had to include "of the same race" in many states.

[Persecuted]

Dear James,

Regarding above stats on promiscuity, STDs and homosexuality. The sad fact is that this is largely true, and I really do mean it when I say it's a sad fact. I don't wish pain (emotional or otherwise) on these people, but the truth is that their lifestyle is quite destructive to themselves and others. All you need to do is go to http://avert.org/men-sex-men.htm and you will see that the prevalence of STDs (including HIV) among homosexual men in the developed world far outweighs the rest of society. There are several factors that contribute to this, among them; risky behaviour, promiscuity, and biological factors.

It doesn't do anyone good, especially homosexuals themselves, to deny this.

[wings_unhinged]

The fact that you're no longer forced to marry your rapist means we've already redefined marriage.

[Phil9]

The fact that you're no longer forced to marry your rapist means we've already redefined marriage.

Many early marriages in human history were pre-arranged and not of choice [Typically for prestige or wealth reasons] as well.

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

Men typically married girls after thy had their first period. Not women, girls. Aside from banning gay marriage, traditional marriage has been changed on lots of ways. It would seem that a few delusional religious people have redefining traditional marriage willy niilly and look at the divorce rate that has resulted from that. No wonder. I'm not saying men should marry girls but the lie that gay marriage is against tradition has to stop. Gay marriage records exist as far back as Egypt.

[stealth_swimmer]

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

I think there may be some element of truth to that.

Anyways, some folks get all butthurt (no pun intended) because it differs from what they believe marriage is and should be about. Most of them don't understand that marriage has meant different things in different places of the world and throughout history.

I remember one conservative guy rightfully pointing out that divorce is a big blow to the sanctity of marriage...but his crazy ass then made the conclusion that we should outlaw divorce! Also says divorce is bad for the kids but ignores that parents who don't love each other also can make for a bad environment for the child.

[meatcigarette]

Everytime I see a Creationist argument it always seems to resemble this type of logic:

I know that people want 'reasons' but unfortunately this isn't like a logical or mathematical proposition where we can demonstrate it to be true/false. This is a question that involves deeper world view considerations. A Christian would say that morality is grounded in God and this entails that certain actions are morally wrong, including homosexual actions. If you don't believe in this God (which you don't) you would simply say, well your God doesn't exist, or isn't proven etc...

It's up to you to prove God exists, relying on ancient scripture just seems primitive. Never mind taking select interpretations from the Bible. I think if people took Jesus' teachings, Christianity would make the world a better place. You seem to be selective when it comes to what you believe in the Bible. Like "women should wear a dress", oppressing women seems to be fine, labeling homosexuality as a crime against nature is fine. But yet modern Christians don't sacrifice goats or sell their daughters anymore, care to explain that?

Well, you could suppose that, but I think we're taking too narrow a consideration here. Of course if a homosexual couple, say Brad and Karl, get married it's not going to result in the destruction of the marriage of two Baptists, say Jack and Jill, in the next neighbourhood. But, as Christians who do believe that life has a very real spiritual/moral dimension and that there are very real consequences when we ignore that. Thus, it is incumbent upon Christians to resist such things, which would include gay marriage but also other things, abortion, pornography, polygamy etc...

But as said above, society has proven demonstrably that even straight marriages are lacking in success. Those who define themselves as Christians now and the beliefs they hold would have been labeled Heretics in the past. It's not perfect, so this argument seems to be arbitrary. Anyone can put the Christian label on themselves and mainstream media is trying to dictate what makes a Christian, making the concept of "real Christian values" entirely subjective.

I would say there is another element to gay marriage though, and that is that we believe marriage is an institution that is given to us by God and is meant to reflect our relationship with Him. I don't know any really good analogies to demonstrate this but maybe it would be like if Muslims suddenly decided they wanted to be baptised purely for the sake of equality, and not for the sake of God. It's a bit hard to describe.

Exactly you could believe in a number of deities or religions, discriminating a few because of what an ancient book says is very strange. This idea that someone would be "baptised for the sake of equality" doesn't make sense.

I will say, I think some Christians have completely mishandled the situation and have been far less than loving to the gay community. This has probably inflamed the situation somewhat.

No kidding.

Actually, it turns out that gay couples aren't just happy to get married, they want to be married in Churches too. I read a story about a Church that found out it had unwittingly agreed to marry a lesbian couple. When they realised they refunded the deposit and even paid the couple extra just for their inconvenience with apology. That was not good enough for the couple who then sued the Church.

When has a Church ever rejected Atheists marrying in a Church? It doesn't make sense.

What if (and this 'what if' is fast approaching) they were able to have children free of birth defects through IVF and other medical technologies (thinking Gattaca - a great movie btw). Would it be ok then? You didn't actually answer my other question, what if it was your own brother and sister, or worse still, your own children, would you really still say "more power to them"? I don't think you would, and I would really like a response to this.

Historically you could argue humanity already rooted from incest. And there's already plenty of incest in the Bible. Even though I certainly disapprove with incest, people have their rights. Mating with someone in the same sex from another gene pool is no way comparable to having sex with a family member. I also don't see how you could stop the human gene's from having defects from incest, I think we're closer to making human robots more intelligent than our own than we our to manipulating the human genome in such a way. And I don't think Scientists are in a rush to fund that what with the growing population rate we have already.

I would refer you to what I said above regarding marriage. Just quickly, I would say no, if two non-Christians (male and female) want to get married it would be at least neutral. A homosexual union would be a sin, sorry to use such a dirty word

But Atheism goes against everything in the Bible, there's only one verse referring to homosexuality, but the entire book is against Atheism..

I really must take issue with this whole idea of 'as long as they're consenting adults' morality. Actually, my pastor just did a sermon on sexual relations last Sunday, providence James? James = You Anyway, he also took up issues with this idea of 'two consenting adults' and he gave a really good demonstration, Woody Allen. As you know, he married his adopted daughter and was widely criticised and he responded "what was the scandal? I fell in love with this girl, married her. This is what his son, Ronan Farrow, had to say about the matter:

“He’s my father and he’s married to my sister. So that makes me his son and his brother-in-law at the same time. This is a major moral transgression. I cannot see him. I cannot have a relationship with him and have moral cohesion. I grew up with all these adopted kids. They’re family. If I would say that Soon-Yi is not my sister it would be an insult to all adopted children.”

Now, this is a perfect example of two consenting adults and yet, there is something very wrong with this picture, but by your rule it's fine "more power to them", right?

This idea that homosexual couples are less successful.. People aren't considering the certain factors, such as the dogma on homosexuality in culture still prevalent. Dan Savage talks about how his son didn't want to ask him questions because he was straight and his father is gay. He explains that he went through the same thing as a kid which then actually enabled them to talk about it.

That's just how stigma works on human emotion. Something being a norm automatically qualifies it as being "right"? That's like saying if a Youtube video has a billion views it must be good, if a majority of people subscribe to a certain belief, it is believed to have merit or it must be "good" by default.

Dear James,

Regarding above stats on promiscuity, STDs and homosexuality. The sad fact is that this is largely true, and I really do mean it when I say it's a sad fact. I don't wish pain (emotional or otherwise) on these people, but the truth is that their lifestyle is quite destructive to themselves and others. All you need to do is go to http://avert.org/men-sex-men.htm and you will see that the prevalence of STDs (including HIV) among homosexual men in the developed world far outweighs the rest of society. There are several factors that contribute to this, among them; risky behaviour, promiscuity, and biological factors.

It doesn't do anyone good, especially homosexuals themselves, to deny this.

Isn't that a complete lack of responsibility weather they are spreading HIV, rather than having anything to do with the person's sexuality??

[TheJimmyRustler]

I hoped you would



I know that people want 'reasons' but unfortunately this isn't like a logical or mathematical proposition where we can demonstrate it to be true/false. This is a question that involves deeper world view considerations. A Christian would say that morality is grounded in God and this entails that certain actions are morally wrong, including homosexual actions. If you don't believe in this God (which you don't) you would simply say, well your God doesn't exist, or isn't proven etc...



Well, you could suppose that, but I think we're taking too narrow a consideration here. Of course if a homosexual couple, say Brad and Karl, get married it's not going to result in the destruction of the marriage of two Baptists, say Jack and Jill, in the next neighbourhood. But, as Christians who do believe that life has a very real spiritual/moral dimension and that there are very real consequences when we ignore that. Thus, it is incumbent upon Christians to resist such things, which would include gay marriage but also other things, abortion, pornography, polygamy etc...

I would say there is another element to gay marriage though, and that is that we believe marriage is an institution that is given to us by God and is meant to reflect our relationship with Him. I don't know any really good analogies to demonstrate this but maybe it would be like if Muslims suddenly decided they wanted to be baptised purely for the sake of equality, and not for the sake of God. It's a bit hard to describe.

I will say, I think some Christians have completely mishandled the situation and have been far less than loving to the gay community. This has probably inflamed the situation somewhat.

Actually, it turns out that gay couples aren't just happy to get married, they want to be married in Churches too. I read a story about a Church that found out it had unwittingly agreed to marry a lesbian couple. When they realised they refunded the deposit and even paid the couple extra just for their inconvenience with apology. That was not good enough for the couple who then sued the Church.

BTW Muslims can eat shellfish, they don't follow strict kosher food laws.



What if (and this 'what if' is fast approaching) they were able to have children free of birth defects through IVF and other medical technologies (thinking Gattaca - a great movie btw). Would it be ok then? You didn't actually answer my other question, what if it was your own brother and sister, or worse still, your own children, would you really still say "more power to them"? I don't think you would, and I would really like a response to this.



I would refer you to what I said above regarding marriage. Just quickly, I would say no, if two non-Christians (male and female) want to get married it would be at least neutral. A homosexual union would be a sin, sorry to use such a dirty word



I really must take issue with this whole idea of 'as long as they're consenting adults' morality. Actually, my pastor just did a sermon on sexual relations last Sunday, providence James? James = You Anyway, he also took up issues with this idea of 'two consenting adults' and he gave a really good demonstration, Woody Allen. As you know, he married his adopted daughter and was widely criticised and he responded "what was the scandal? I fell in love with this girl, married her. This is what his son, Ronan Farrow, had to say about the matter:

“He’s my father and he’s married to my sister. So that makes me his son and his brother-in-law at the same time. This is a major moral transgression. I cannot see him. I cannot have a relationship with him and have moral cohesion. I grew up with all these adopted kids. They’re family. If I would say that Soon-Yi is not my sister it would be an insult to all adopted children.”

Now, this is a perfect example of two consenting adults and yet, there is something very wrong with this picture, but by your rule it's fine "more power to them", right?

Dear James,

Regarding above stats on promiscuity, STDs and homosexuality. The sad fact is that this is largely true, and I really do mean it when I say it's a sad fact. I don't wish pain (emotional or otherwise) on these people, but the truth is that their lifestyle is quite destructive to themselves and others. All you need to do is go to http://avert.org/men-sex-men.htm and you will see that the prevalence of STDs (including HIV) among homosexual men in the developed world far outweighs the rest of society. There are several factors that contribute to this, among them; risky behaviour, promiscuity, and biological factors.

It doesn't do anyone good, especially homosexuals themselves, to deny this.

This spot reserved for when I'm done with summa dat dere uni work.

[lucious]

so shotgun weddings after a boozy, ******* fuelled night in vegas, britney spears/kim kardashian hour long "just for fun" marriages are so sacrosanct we absolutely must not let two guys in love marry?

[Zedbimmer]

so shotgun weddings after a boozy, ******* fuelled night in vegas, britney spears/kim kardashian hour long "just for fun" marriages are so sacrosanct we absolutely must not let two guys in love marry?

that is the perk my friend, so many Illegals want to go to college, but not being citizens stops them yet the citizens ignore college and use drugs. Perks of being a citizen

[golfpunk1985]

Nobody has countered my post.

[Persecuted]

Homosexuals are an abomination and the government should not condone such unions between freaks. By doing so, you desecrate the sacred union between a man and a woman that is marriage. YOU risk your immortal soul. Please do not come in here with such blasphemy and purport to be my intellectual equal. But do not take me with scorn; for i'm sure that He will show you the horrors that await those who attempt to mock his most precious creation; and that people like you have mistaken this scourge of humanity as a blessing.

Aussie troll?

[badreligion]

It doesn't , it is just the way the Religious Right peddle their homophobia .

[GregariousWolf]

I think there may be some element of truth to that.

Anyways, some folks get all butthurt (no pun intended) because it differs from what they believe marriage is and should be about. Most of them don't understand that marriage has meant different things in different places of the world and throughout history.

I remember one conservative guy rightfully pointing out that divorce is a big blow to the sanctity of marriage...but his crazy ass then made the conclusion that we should outlaw divorce! Also says divorce is bad for the kids but ignores that parents who don't love each other also can make for a bad environment for the child.

Don't mess with the sanctity of divorce. It's too holy to allow gays access to it. I oppose gay divorce.