Anti-Gay Marriage

[Narga_Rocks]

Well for starters I'm not justifying it but merely brainstorming on the topic. But let's see:

In the given situation you can see two bulls locking heads and both are strongly opinionated as you can see. In such a 'battle' the loser is always looked down upon. This is a pretty big battle of egos as you can see- backing down or not fighting means society will look at them the wrong way. As for why would the couple fight for a church marriage? Reasons, I can think a few.

One would be a genuine " God tells us to love everyone as brothers and sisters, we need to show people this message.", in hopes of seeking external validation they might do this. Obviously this doesn't really show anything but some people are optimistic about these 'messages that they send' I honestly don't see the point in it. Yes, the statement in quotes has almost no connection with what they're really doing but hey, this is irrational optimism. And it exists in more people than one would assume. Reminds me of a debate on some other subject months ago and I got the "we're sending a message" argument which was just BS.

Then there are those people for political propaganda- this one's obvious.

Some do it out of spite- they're no different from homophobes, yes.

But whatever the case, its clear that once you're into an argument, and that too with an opponent that apparently hates you and thinks you are 'evil', you don't want to back down. Backing down is a sign of 'weakness' to many people. For starters if gay couples(some of them anyway) just got a civil ceremony they would still feel like they're conforming to society and not being true to themselves, instead of being happy that at least what they're doing is legal now. "Why should we be having marriage in some other building? We're Christians too, why should we be looked down upon? We're God's Children too!We should be allowed to marry in a church!" Do you see how the ego is bruised?

And this is all from an observer's perspective. I personally don't see anything great about minority groups or the groups which 'defend the majority from the minority' because they're really just big ego battles.

@bold: if there is a church that hates a random gay person, chances are they aren't a very good church in the first place. If they aren't preaching love of everyone, the gay person should probably leave the church not because of the homophobe thing but because the church itself isn't very churchy or however you want to call it. As for evil, they shouldn't think that, either. Yes, they should think of the gay person as a sinner, but every person on this planet is a sinner according to the bible, so...

[peener weener]

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex marriage propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

Quick Google search confirmed this is copy-pasted from such invaluable articles as TOP TEN REASONS TO BE ANTI-GAY and TEN IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENTS AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE

Thanks for your input and misconceptions about the definition of marriage

[I.M. Gei]

Quick Google search confirmed this is copy-pasted from such invaluable articles as TOP TEN REASONS TO BE ANTI-GAY and TEN IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENTS AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE

Thanks for your input and misconceptions about the definition of marriage

Hey, dude, we don't know if that's his input and misconceptions about the definition of marriage, simply because they were copypasta'd :V

[shadykid]

Hey, dude, we don't know if that's his input and misconceptions about the definition of marriage, simply because they were copypasta'd :V

*her input

the power of google continues

[Original Alear]

Yes, they should think of the gay person as a sinner, but every person on this planet is a sinner according to the bible, so...

If I'm not wrong, the Bible can be read in giving one an understanding of how "society" or "culture" "require" "sinning" and how to avoid changing one's inner self while sinning. "Innocent sin."

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

I suspect you are being facetious or dishonest in some sense. Let us consider your stuff though.
...
First of all, the compatibility of male and female bodies isn't perfect, otherwise there would not be male and female bodies that are distinct (I suppose if you really want to you can carry that further, and point out that my male body isn't in unison because I don't always act in my best interest - for instance, I post on this discussion).

You would be some sort of Hindu illustration of a god or goddess constantly in tantric union with your other self, or something. The point is that even if adults generally consider sex to be the best thing since sliced bread or at least the toilet, it's not all there is to the universe (or is it?).

For my part, the "compatability" you describe seems for my part to weaken my ability to associate with the other gender. Because I'm relatively uninterested in masculine beauty, I can look on it more freely; because I make the assumption I am sexist against women, I probably try, psychologically, to compensate by willfully taking their side in issues that can be divided by gender (probably not in any sense that actually matters, however).

Marriage right now seems to often be about founding a nucleus for children as they're brought into the world, but not engaging in that practice in the traditional world is not necessarily standing against the formation of such a nucleus. This may in part be because there's a "surplus" of children - I'd imagine, given that some end up adopted - who lack parents.

I have to admit the possibility that hormonal differences cause a team of a mother and father to be better at raising children than two fathers or two mothers, but I'm not sure we necessarily have the luxury to conclude that such an arrangement is undesirable compared to other alternatives (where volunteered for) or that we should have the meanness to say that homosexual relationships don't raise children like they are the treasures they are (sometimes ;) ).

And in closing, just because, if you want the human race to continue while you're alive, you want people to have children, that doesn't mean you need to have a world where as many people are having children as possible all the time (or beyond the time).

[Nostalgia]

There is no legitimate reason to forbid same-sex marriage.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Nostalgia

[eclipse]

There is no legitimate reason to forbid same-sex marriage.

I can think of a few extreme examples, none of which are relevant in this day and age. Regardless, this sentiment is less helpful than that person who cited biology as a reason against it. This statement gives no room for debate, when the entire point of this topic is to debate.

[peener weener]

Are these extreme reasons related to sex between men, which is not what is being discussed?

[Original Alear]

I can think of a few extreme examples, none of which are relevant in this day and age. Regardless, this sentiment is less helpful than that person who cited biology as a reason against it. This statement gives no room for debate, when the entire point of this topic is to debate.

I hope that this isn't too flippant and conceited (self-referential) a remark, but I have a sense that I am seeing "Eclipse's Paralipsis" here :3 . That is fine though. I have my guess.

[shadykid]

I can think of a few extreme examples, none of which are relevant in this day and age. Regardless, this sentiment is less helpful than that person who cited biology as a reason against it. This statement gives no room for debate, when the entire point of this topic is to debate.

there shouldn't be a debate over something as fundamental as equal rights

[Esau of Isaac]

there shouldn't be a debate over something as fundamental as equal rights

That's a poor argument. What constitutes a right is always in fluctuation, precisely because of debate and argumentation.

And a good healthy dose of cultural aggressiveness and occasionally military might, but that's neither here nor there.

[shadykid]

yeah, yeah

http://www.twincities.com/politics/ci_23181239/minnesota-houses-gay-marriage-bill-up-committee-vote

hmm, maybe these guys will beat Delaware to be the 11th state

[Chiki]

So what if it's in fluctuation? That doesn't mean people shouldn't have rights. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in a while.

[Esau of Isaac]

So what if it's in fluctuation? That doesn't mean people shouldn't have rights. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in a while.

I didn't say people shouldn't have rights. I'm saying what constitutes a right is debatable. Many here believe that gay marriage is a right. Some don't. Who is correct is decided upon over time through various means. There is no such thing as an objective right. No one has any truly inalienable right simply by existing.

[shadykid]

I vote we stop arguing about the definition of a right and enjoy the show of marriage equality bills

[Chiki]

there shouldn't be a debate over something as fundamental as equal rights

What he means is that there shouldn't be debates about people having equal rights.

[Esau of Isaac]

What he means is that there shouldn't be debates about people having equal rights.

But there are debates over even basic equality every day all around the world. Example: A man applies for a job at Hooters. The business states that he is disqualified from the position he's looking for because he does not meet their requirements, namely a.) he be a woman, and b.) have a sweet ass. Is this right? Well, whether you think so or not, it's currently legal and fair for a company to discriminate on such grounds despite being sexist so long as it is innately tied to the business's purpose.

Equality's nice, but it's not always the end goal.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[shadykid]

But there are debates over even basic equality every day all around the world. Example: A man applies for a job at Hooters. The business states that he is disqualified from the position he's looking for because he does not meet their requirements, namely a.) he be a woman, and b.) have a sweet ass. Is this right? Well, whether you think so or not, it's currently legal and fair for a company to discriminate on such grounds despite being sexist so long as it is innately tied to the business's purpose.

Equality's nice, but it's not always the end goal.

I vote we stop arguing about the definition of a right and enjoy the show of marriage equality bills

[Esau of Isaac]

No we must argue over everything.

[Bryan]

I just wanted to post about churches being forced to hold a ceremony. They shouldn't be. Consider these two situations:

A doctor doesn't want to preform euthanasia, which is legal. He doesn't want to do so because it directly goes against his values of saving human life, and so he doesn't preform this task. Another doctor who's okay with that can do it for him. Is it moral to make the man go against his will and kill someone? No, it's not.

Similarly, a woman comes into a clinic seeking an abortion. The doctor doesn't want to give her one, because this doctor doesn't believe in taking the life of a child. Should she be forced to? No, she shouldn't.

Churches are the exact same as those doctors. They shouldn't be required to do something if it goes against their values.

[eclipse]

Are these extreme reasons related to sex between men, which is not what is being discussed?

Nope. It would require a drastic drop in population, for one.

I hope that this isn't too flippant and conceited (self-referential) a remark, but I have a sense that I am seeing "Eclipse's Paralipsis" here :3 . That is fine though. I have my guess.

Probably not.

there shouldn't be a debate over something as fundamental as equal rights

As long as people don't agree on something, there will be debate. Not too long ago, slavery was considered a normal part of society.

[-Cynthia-]

I just wanted to post about churches being forced to hold a ceremony. They shouldn't be. Consider these two situations:

A doctor doesn't want to preform euthanasia, which is legal. He doesn't want to do so because it directly goes against his values of saving human life, and so he doesn't preform this task. Another doctor who's okay with that can do it for him. Is it moral to make the man go against his will and kill someone? No, it's not.

Similarly, a woman comes into a clinic seeking an abortion. The doctor doesn't want to give her one, because this doctor doesn't believe in taking the life of a child. Should she be forced to? No, she shouldn't.

Churches are the exact same as those doctors. They shouldn't be required to do something if it goes against their values.

While I don't necessarily disagree with you, there should probably be "limits" to how far 'going against one's values' should go. If I refuse to serve customers of a certain race or sexual orientation or whatnot because they go against my values that won't hold up to an employer or in court.

[shadykid]

I just wanted to post about churches being forced to hold a ceremony. They shouldn't be. Consider these two situations:

A doctor doesn't want to preform euthanasia, which is legal. He doesn't want to do so because it directly goes against his values of saving human life, and so he doesn't preform this task. Another doctor who's okay with that can do it for him. Is it moral to make the man go against his will and kill someone? No, it's not.

Similarly, a woman comes into a clinic seeking an abortion. The doctor doesn't want to give her one, because this doctor doesn't believe in taking the life of a child. Should she be forced to? No, she shouldn't.

Churches are the exact same as those doctors. They shouldn't be required to do something if it goes against their values.

I am fairly sure this isn't actually allowed

[peener weener]

Nope. It would require a drastic drop in population, for one.

Are you implying gay marriage would decrease the amount of births in the world and slow population growth?

for real?

[Rehab]

I thiiink Eclipse means there would have to be a drastic (like, friggin catastrophic) population drop to even consider accepting that line of reasoning as an argument against gay marriage (because with the world's population and growth as-is, it's a ridiculous idea, of course, so things would have to be totally different to even take it seriously)