Why is same-sex marriage "wrong"?

[Eukaryote]

It's not wrong, but some people like to pretend that it is because homosexuality disguists them.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[C~G]

I agree with warpus also and would like to ask why is straight marriage "right"?

 

[silver 2039]

I don't believe homosexual marriage is wrong nor homosexuality for that matter. If it is unnatural why has it always existed? Homosxuality or Bisexuality was prevelant on Classical Greece, the Romans were less into that but still practiced it....It has occuered all throughout history and continues to occur...gasp might it even be occcuring nataurally?

 

[Fox Mccloud]

I don't believe it is natural, but if they want a civil union or something I don't care. Don't force churches to do any marriages they don't like.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

The Greek Vice did tend a bit more to the exploitative intergenerational relationships, and I hardly think the Romans can be held up as paragons of effective morality, although Trimalchio does throw one great orgy.

Things that are unnatural can and do exist - freak of nature, perversions from the norm. According to the idea that something has always existed giving it normality, we may as well throw in paedophilia, eating one's young, murder and a multitude of other conditions. Furthermore, just because something happens naturally does not make it right or acceptable. Babies and young children eat their mucus and play with their excreta, but that is no basis for running a society.

 

[Gladi]

To be honest, the Good Lord's position on the intricacies of sodomy aren't what bought me to him.

People have the free will to sin, but it should not be accomodated by the rest of society. Homosexuality is in itself a perversion from the norm, and a very small minority of the populace are involved in it. Of that fraction, far from all are interested in, or care for, the idea of homosexual marriage. A very small group, and not one that requires the attention of society, nor pandering to their wishes.

There is the slippery slope argument, which has its merits.

I am not a proponent of civil or secular marriage in any fashion, let alone for those of whatever sexual perversion or taste.

If all they want are various guarantees and safeguards, then those can be arranged differently and quietly, just as they should be for carers, or close friends, or for anyone in a de facto relationship. But no civil unions, no confetti, no recognised partnerships, no gilding the lilly to hide the fact that people are very different, and no further territorial demands.

Some people just can't get into some clubs, and that is the way it is.

This is all nice, but marriage is more than relationship between man and woman. It is formal recognition of establishment of family. And Homosexual could utilse nuber of other means to get chidlren. I am not talking about guarantees and safeguards, but why should state deny its protection to a family just because it does not have cut/out mommy and daddy.

And what slippery slope? Group marriages? What is wrong with them either?
Marriage with dog? How can dog give a legal consent?

 

[Gladi]

The Greek Vice did tend a bit more to the exploitative intergenerational relationships, and I hardly think the Romans can be held up as paragons of effective morality, although Trimalchio does throw one great orgy.

Things that are unnatural can and do exist - freak of nature, perversions from the norm. According to the idea that something has always existed giving it normality, we may as well throw in paedophilia, eating one's young, murder and a multitude of other conditions. Furthermore, just because something happens naturally does not make it right or acceptable. Babies and young children eat their mucus and play with their excreta, but that is no basis for running a society.

Again, we are not talking about natural, we atalking how it is wrong, if it is.

 

[Gladi]

Like AL_DA_GREAT more or less said, same-sex marriage is "wrong" becauseand that's all there is to that, really.


Seriously, did you actually expect to get answers on this subject?

Yes. I trust human rationality. It is one thing that differates us from other known beings and gives us glimpse of God.

 

[CurtSibling]

The risen Christ. His reasons are beyond my understanding, but it would seem that same-sex relationships are a twisting of what is natural that appeared after Adam's fall.

Sounds oddly like something humans would come up with in order to control society.

Don't you think?

.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

This is all nice, but marriage is more than relationship between man and woman. It is formal recognition of establishment of family.

And Homosexual could utilse nuber of other means to get chidlren.

I am not talking about guarantees and safeguards, but why should state deny its protection to a family just because it does not have cut/out mommy and daddy.

And what slippery slope? Group marriages? What is wrong with them either?
Marriage with dog? How can dog give a legal consent?

No, marriage is the religious recognition of union for life between one man and one woman. Family follows on from marriage, and is created by it.

Homosexual adoption is a different issue again, and one where there is also a vocal small minority that wishes complete normalization - have their cake and eat it too. No.

The arguments being put forth were not about families, but about marriage. The case for civil unions is very much phrased as a matter of equalising rights and treatment. That is fine, that can be done. But no recognition, and no kiddies put through the ringer as pawns.

Polygamy detracts from the unique nature and position of marriage, and is rightly given a broad social sanction. Incest is an area where consent can be given. The very age of consent itself can, and has been, altered in salami tactics. As for bestiality, man's best friend could become even closer; Lassie was taught to bark on cue, although some horses may say neigh.

We should not have only pleasure as our driving principle, else we are as atavistic and base as the beasts of the field and the birds of the air. Anything going within a broad concept of consent puts us morally with the dog licking itself in the gutter.

The point on nature was addressed to another poster's comments, and should be viewed as such.

 

[skadistic]

I believe morality comes from the source, namely God. According to God, homosexuality is a perversion. This is my moral stance.

However, I am also in the school of people who think that governments should be very small, and allow citizens greater freedom. This is my civic stance.

Therefore, I will discourage homosexuality, but allow people the freedom to practice it.

Where and when did this "god" tell you its wrong?

 

[CurtSibling]

Where and when did this "god" tell you its wrong?

Don't expect a follow-up answer from Mr Puglover or his fellow believers.

They love to make the big statements, but are shy about providing some evidence to back it.

.

 

[Godwynn]

Even if homosexuality is unnatural or wrong. They still should be allowed to marry. If its against your religion, don't be the judge of it, let your invisible man in the sky be the judge of it.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

This morning in the hallway.

 

[skadistic]

I don't believe it is natural, but if they want a civil union or something I don't care. Don't force churches to do any marriages they don't like.

Allowing same sex marriage wouldn't force any church to do anything. The seperation of church and state thing protects the church from that. The only people that would be "forced" to marry gays would be state official like mayors, judges, justice or the peace, and the like.

The only argument against allowing it would the slippery slope one. If you allow one divient sup-group you'd have to allow all of them like poligamist, beastiality (in some states is legal to marry your horse and your house ) and what ever other wierdness is out there.

 

[Gladi]

No, marriage is the religious recognition of union for life between one man and one woman. Family follows on from marriage, and is created by it.

Homosexual adoption is a different issue again, and one where there is also a vocal small minority that wishes complete normalization - have their cake and eat it too. No.

The arguments being put forth were not about families, but about marriage. The case for civil unions is very much phrased as a matter of equalising rights and treatment. That is fine, that can be done. But no recognition, and no kiddies put through the ringer as pawns.

Polygamy detracts from the unique nature and position of marriage, and is rightly given a broad social sanction. Incest is an area where consent can be given. The very age of consent itself can, and has been, altered in salami tactics. As for bestiality, man's best friend could become even closer; Lassie was taught to bark on cue, although some horses may say neigh.

We should not have only pleasure as our driving principle, else we are as atavistic and base as the beasts of the field and the birds of the air. Anything going within a broad concept of consent puts us morally with the dog licking itself in the gutter.

The point on nature was addressed to another poster's comments, and should be viewed as such.

I am afraid, that to marriage to be taken seriously by many parties it has to be officialy recognised by government- which though does delegate its power to priests of many religions (and maybe sea captains]. And how is that so much different from saying that marriage is an act which establishes family?

Well you say so, I say it is not. I see marriage as indivisible part of family. And children are of course the heart of every family.

WHY no recognition. And who is using chidren as pawns, did I?

Yes polygamy does detract from the marriage. But I was talking about group marriage not polygamy. Incest, yes consent can be give, but not when one is an authority figure. Age of consent can hardly be lowered as it is in puberty right now in majority of countries (14 in Czechia), further in most cases it is not arbitrary rule about when one can "fornificate", but an age of minority, when you are recognised as junior citizen. And beast can hardly give real consent even if you teach it to bark or neigh.

Ah sex is only pleasure, this is what I feel the force driving you. Sex is in its basis also a communication- in fact the the very act of conception is an utmost act of communication. Also, family is not based around "fornification". It is based on respect, love and loyalty. And we are not discusing sex, here, but marriage and by extension family.

 

[Mr Moron]

I might say because government endorsed marriages seems like kind of an iffy concept in general.

But when compared to hetrosexual marriages? I can't think of thing honestly.

 

[MobBoss]

Moot thread that has already been done to death more than enough times.

It is wrong and I can give you both religious and non-religious reasons its wrong.

However, if you already think its right, you wont listen.

Instead of starting a roller-coasters of heated debate most likely to get the thread closed, lets just say we wont agree.

As I live in the USA and I get a vote on the matter at a state level, I know how I will vote.

But as to the four nations that do allow homosexual marriage....they are not necessarily right...nor are they wrong....the law is what it is right now for those countries. That doesnt make it right for all the other countries of the world.

 

[Gladi]

It has, where? Can you please post a link?

 

[silver 2039]

Marriage is generally a religous ceremony is it not? Why not dispose of the religous ceremnoy and simply have a civil union?