Why is same-sex marriage "wrong"?

silver 2039 said:
Marriage is generally a religous ceremony is it not? Why not dispose of the religous ceremnoy and simply have a civil union?

Well not really. You can get married without any religion stuff.

Mobboss: I have to change my position, yes the gay marriage has been debated, but there has never been an inquiry into the matter. For example in one of previous threads you posted

Well, when the bible says this: Leviticus 19:13
If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination they shall surely be put to death to me that pretty much makes it black and white. Tell me how you interpret that Ironduck...please

And how can one take this anecdote as basis for governmental policy, or even for rational moral stance?
 
I'll tell you why:

1)God told me. He came down himself and said quite explicitly to me this exact thing: "Gays are bad. Like, really, dude. They're in for a whole lot of smitation.
2)It's yucky.
3)It's proven that gayness leads to paedophilia.
4)Gays like to do animals.
5)If we allow gays to marriage, people willstart having sex with kettles.
6)It encourages sex.
7)Therefore, it encourages masterbation.
8)Ergo, it encourages sin.
9)Therefore, it encourages communism, mass genocide, and invading minor countriesd in the Balkans
10)We don't let them get marrie dnow, why should we in future.
11)DRUGS. Gays all do 'em. We need to win the war on drugs.
12)Encouraging gayess will mean that they will rape us.
13)Western civilisation will fall.
14)Gays aren't peoples.
15)We let them get married to wimmin. What, are they TOO GOOD for wimming? That it? Smarmy bastards, ain't they?

There you go, 15 good reasons. I dare you to come up with even ten good reasons why we shouldlet them get married.
 
silver 2039 said:
Marriage is generally a religous ceremony is it not? Why not dispose of the religous ceremnoy and simply have a civil union?

IMO this is how marriage should be handled:

- Marriage is performed by the state
- Only marriage performed by the state has a legal status
- After (or before) you've gotten married by the state (which could be as simple as going to the courthouse, picking up a form, getting it signed by yourself, your mate, a lawyer, and a witness) you have the option of performing a religious ceremony according to your beliefs.

Wouldn't this make everyone happy? Homosexuals could get married and any church could refuse to marry people they didn't like.
 
Phyr_Negator said:
Cuz gays do not deserve to live)))

Well I'm shocked its differently sexualised and us bigots tend to say existentially challenged these days. So you should have said.

I wish all differently sexualised people were existentially challenged, other wise it's down right offensive.

All stirling points there nonconformist, honestly the logic is faultless and I'm hard pushed to think of a better argument. Congratulations.
 
Gladi said:
Well not really. You can get married without any religion stuff.

Mobboss: I have to change my position, yes the gay marriage has been debated, but there has never been an inquiry into the matter. For example in one of previous threads you posted



And how can one take this anecdote as basis for governmental policy, or even for rational moral stance?

Indeed. He quoted Leviticus archaic tribal 'purity' laws which would get most people thrown into an asylum if they were followed letter for letter these days. Biblical cherry picking aside, the abomination spoken of in Leviticus is toward the tribe, not God as some if not most would have you to believe.:rolleyes:

[edit] I wonder what the punishment in hell is for fraudulently misrepresenting the 'word of god' ? :lol:[/edit]
 
Civil partenrships better, I can do ten for them just about maybe.

Advantages

1)Johnny church can't argue religous semantics.
2) it shows that under a democracy everyone is fairly treated and recieves the same privillages
3) It should in theory promote the lifestyles that heterosexauls have, which should in theory make Johnny church happy.
4)It's humane
5)it's open minded and tolerant, WWJD
6)if it doesn't work you've got a position to bash your bible from
7)after 5 minutes people will wonder what all the fuss was about
8)you can stop thinking up stupid illogical reasons to ban gays from having tax breaks
9)now that your not arguing about pointless issues you can start doing that garden up like you've been meaning to.
10) You can find something else to discriminate against, this time it might be an idea to pick something everyone hates like Nazis or something? Just a thought.
 
nonconformist said:
I'll tell you why:

1)God told me. He came down himself and said quite explicitly to me this exact thing: "Gays are bad. Like, really, dude. They're in for a whole lot of smitation.
2)It's yucky.
3)It's proven that gayness leads to paedophilia.
4)Gays like to do animals.
5)If we allow gays to marriage, people willstart having sex with kettles.
6)It encourages sex.
7)Therefore, it encourages masterbation.
8)Ergo, it encourages sin.
9)Therefore, it encourages communism, mass genocide, and invading minor countriesd in the Balkans
10)We don't let them get marrie dnow, why should we in future.
11)DRUGS. Gays all do 'em. We need to win the war on drugs.
12)Encouraging gayess will mean that they will rape us.
13)Western civilisation will fall.
14)Gays aren't peoples.
15)We let them get married to wimmin. What, are they TOO GOOD for wimming? That it? Smarmy bastards, ain't they?

There you go, 15 good reasons. I dare you to come up with even ten good reasons why we shouldlet them get married.

You forgot the "fact" that they eat faeces. Well, according to a homophobic moron I used to know, at least, and if anyone would know... well, it wouldn't be him.
 
Mr. Do said:
You forgot the "fact" that they eat faeces. Well, according to a homophobic moron I used to know, at least, and if anyone would know... well, it wouldn't be him.


I don't want to get banned for explaining how that technicly can be true. But it technicly can be true.
 
CurtSibling said:
Sounds oddly like something humans would come up with in order to control society.

Don't you think?

.

Is that any reason to believe something isn't true?

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

God repeatedly set laws for the people of Israel to follow on their voyage to Canaan as God's chosen people. Later, Jesus fufilled the Law, but established an example and set guidelines of purity (including sexual purity) to be disciples of God. Over and over again Jesus tells us to refrain from sexual immortality.
 
Gladi said:
Bright day
Why it is wrong for state to recognise and support families with two healthy non-criminal homosexual parents?

It is unnatural. Homosexuality does not occur naturally within nature, it is a product of humans only. The issue of same sex parenting is that is produces fundamental flaws in the mental development of the child, both at the early stages, and later on in life. That is why it is wrong for such to happen, it isnt politics, it is mother nature.
Also, most states have an anti-sodomy law. Maryland does.
 
Cheezy the Wiz said:
please dont throw the politically right-minded in with such morons, leave it at the fact that they are such

I did not mean every right winger is crazy, since I am one. I meant one that is literally insane.
 
puglover said:
God repeatedly set laws for the people of Israel to follow on their voyage to Canaan as God's chosen people. Later, Jesus fufilled the Law, but established an example and set guidelines of purity (including sexual purity) to be disciples of God. Over and over again Jesus tells us to refrain from sexual immortality.

So did "god" write these laws itself or did so random guy come up one day and say "Hey "god" said its wrong".

And what exact passage from your bible are these laws repeatedly set? How many people heard "god" say this was the law? What exactly did the man Jesus say or do that later fullfilled the laws?

The real reason christians are anti-gay is because in early roman times when early christians were trying to difer hemselves from your standard roman the demonized the things like romans liked ie. orgies, gay sex, sex w/boys sex of all kinds realy.
 
Cheezy the Wiz said:
It is unnatural. Homosexuality does not occur naturally within nature, it is a product of humans only.

Yet again we have to bring in the overused and tired article about homosexual penguins.

Here



Cheezy the Wiz said:
The issue of same sex parenting is that is produces fundamental flaws in the mental development of the child, both at the early stages, and later on in life.

This is a matter of debate. But the question is same sex marriage, not same sex parenting.

Cheezy the Wiz said:
That is why it is wrong for such to happen, it isnt politics, it is mother nature. Also, most states have an anti-sodomy law. Maryland does.

There are plenty of things humans do against mother nature, such as survival of the fittest. It is mother nature for animals to fight and kill to survive and gain the most territory and secure females to pass on their DNA.
 
Godwynn said:
Yet again we have to bring in the overused and tired article about homosexual penguins.

Here
.

My apologies, i meant that reproduction cannot occur, thus it is unnatural, although I've never heard of a gay animal before, thats interesting. However, these penguins dont exactly have young they take care of, either, its just them two.
 
Cheezy the Wiz said:
It is unnatural. Homosexuality does not occur naturally within nature, it is a product of humans only. The issue of same sex parenting is that is produces fundamental flaws in the mental development of the child, both at the early stages, and later on in life. That is why it is wrong for such to happen, it isnt politics, it is mother nature.
Also, most states have an anti-sodomy law. Maryland does.

So it is unnatural, so is living without kidneys. AFAIK resources on homosexual parenting are are not that one-sided with each camp acusing the other of having agenda. It would also be helpful to produce such reasearch. And how exactly? Also we have only data for homosexual partnerships. Sanctity of marriage should not be underestimated.

And were not most sodomy laws stricken down? And what does it have with question?

oh some source
 
Cheezy the Wiz said:
It is unnatural. Homosexuality does not occur naturally within nature, it is a product of humans only. The issue of same sex parenting is that is produces fundamental flaws in the mental development of the child, both at the early stages, and later on in life. That is why it is wrong for such to happen, it isnt politics, it is mother nature.
Also, most states have an anti-sodomy law. Maryland does.


Oral copulation is against the law in MD too. And can be performed by both straight and gay people just like anal sex so whats your point? Sodamy and oral sex are outlawed because of out dated laws set by christians. Did you know that anal sex can be much more enjoyable for a man because the anus has thousands of times more nerve endings then a female vagina pluss the presure against the prostate creates its own pleasure?


If god created all things good then surely anal sex being good would be ok in gods eye?
 
Cheezy the Wiz said:
My apologies, i meant that reproduction cannot occur, thus it is unnatural, although I've never heard of a gay animal before, thats interesting. However, these penguins dont exactly have young they take care of, either, its just them two.

It appears to promote increased reproduction amongst famillies with gay relations, thus it has an advantage. It would also explain why it exists in many animal species and humans. Evolution abhors a vacuum no advantage or disadvantage means it dissapears from the gene pool, the fact that it's still there aught to tell you something too, I reeled this out before but maybe you missed it. It's speculative but interesting.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6519.html

Italian geneticists may have explained how genes apparently linked to male homosexuality survive, despite gay men seldom having children. Their findings also undermine the theory of a single “gay gene”.

The researchers discovered that women tend to have more children when they inherit the same - as yet unidentified - genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men. This fertility boost more than compensates for the lack of offspring fathered by gay men, and keeps the “gay” genetic factors in circulation.

The findings represent the best explanation yet for the Darwinian paradox presented by homosexuality: it is a genetic dead-end, yet the trait persists generation after generation.

“We have finally solved this paradox,” says Andrea Camperio-Ciani of the University of Padua. “The same factor that influences sexual orientation in males promotes higher fecundity in females.”
Relative differences

Camperio-Ciani's team questioned 98 gay and 100 straight men about their closest relatives - 4600 people in total. They found that female relatives of gay men had more children on average than the female relatives of straight men. But the effect was only seen on their mother’s side of the family.

Mothers of gay men produced an average of 2.7 babies compared with 2.3 born to mothers of straight men. And maternal aunts of gay men had 2.0 babies compared with 1.5 born to the maternal aunts of straight men.

“This is a novel finding," says Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist and commentator on sexuality at Stanford University in California. “We think of it as genes for ‘male homosexuality’, but it might really be genes for sexual attraction to men. These could predispose men towards homosexuality and women towards ‘hyper-heterosexuality’, causing women to have more sex with men and thus have more offspring.”

Camperio-Ciani stresses that whatever the genetic factors are, there is no single gene accounting for his observations. And the tendency of the trait to be passed through the female line backs previous research suggesting that some of the factors involved are on the male “X” chromosome, the only sex chromosome passed down by women. “It’s a combination of something on the X chromosome with other genetic factors on the non-sex chromosomes,” he says.
Immune system

Helen Wallace, of the UK lobby group GeneWatch, welcomes the new research that moves away from the controversial single-gene theory for homosexuality. “But it’s worth noting that the data on the sexuality of family members may be unreliable, so more studies are likely to be needed to confirm these findings,” she says.

Even if the maternal factors identified by Camperio-Ciani’s team are linked with male homosexuality, the research team’s calculations suggest they account for only about 14% of the incidence.

Their findings also support earlier findings that when mothers have several sons, the younger ones are progressively more likely to be gay. This might be due to effects changes to the mother’s immune system with each son they carry.

But Camperio-Ciani calculates the contribution of this effect to male homosexuality at 7% at most. So together, he says, the “maternal” and “immune” effects only account for 21% of male homosexuality, leaving 79% of the causation still a mystery.

This leaves a major role for environmental factors, or perhaps more genetic factors. “Genes must develop in an environment, so if the environment changes, genes go in a new direction,” he says. “Our findings are only one piece in a much larger puzzle on the nature of human sexuality.”

Journal reference: Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2004)
 
Cheezy the Wiz said:
My apologies, i meant that reproduction cannot occur, thus it is unnatural, although I've never heard of a gay animal before, thats interesting. However, these penguins dont exactly have young they take care of, either, its just them two.


You cant procreate with oral sex or mastubation so that must be unnatural too right? What about oral masturbation? That something most mamals take part in. Ever seen a dog lick himself? Its not to get clean but to pleasure himself.
 
Back
Top Bottom