Top 17 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

Post Reply New Topic

Thank you to.

For what?

GLTBQs want to destroy the world? Not literaly, I hope.

But if they brought about their own armageddon or "unveiling," that would be cool. This global shift in consciousness has been a long time coming. Having two seperate marriage rites, one for heterosexual couples and another for homosexual couples, and have them equally within the church ...

Society can adapt to anything if it must, but violent revolution is a very sloppy method.

As a Straight Christian Aspie or SCA, I say the Church must adapt to changing times. If the human species were not so incredibly adaptive, we'd have gone extinct long ago. The Christian religion's need to change is spurred by more than just the homosexual cause. This lumbering dinosaur needs to reinvent itself for a new millennium.

God bless WrongPlanet

Well thought-out comment, slowmutant, and also Lienda and Jeanne.

Nice to see some reason returning to the thread

I think it's important to remember that, in the US at least, marriage is not a religious matter, no matter how much the gay-bashers want you to believe it is - it's entirely within the purview of the civil authorities. That is, once the waiting period (if any) between purchase of the license and earliest marriage date have passed, you can have your ceremony solemnized by any religious groups you choose - or you can just go into an office. (In the state of California, the only one I have experience in, you can literally return to the building you bought your license in, go into a back office, and be declared legally married. Sadly, thus far, state law still insists the partners be of different genders, and number no more than two - but one day, when folks realize religion has nothing to do with it, perhaps this will change...)

Thus, I believe that, as with any other civil institution, if a valid reason cannot be presented to limit this particular franchise, then the state has no business telling people who gets to use it. And "it makes me uncomfortable" is not a valid reason, nor is "this goes against my religion" - there are religions out there that would forbid women to vote or work outside the home, but we don't let them dictate election or employment law. Why should this one set of laws be permitted to discriminate in such a blatant fashion?

Now, your favorite religious group may try to say that the marriage is "wrong" - just as there are groups who will claim even today that my marriage is "against God's will", because I'm white and she's black (the "mark of Ham", don't you know). This should be permitted to have only as much influence as the individual wants - if you're Catholic, after all, you're not supposed to get divorced, and many Catholics refuse to consider divorce and shun divorcees for that very reason, but we don't forbid divorce to everyone on that basis.

ROFL, maybe the whole thing is a tongue-in-cheek joke!! XD!! ! Because no one is THAT naive and stupid!! XD

[joking]TOP REASONS WHY GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG:

1-BECAUSE ALL MARRIAGES SUCK

2-MARRIED PEOPLE DON'T HAVE SEX, AND GAY PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE SEX

3-MARRIED GAY PEOPLE WOULD ARGUE ALL THE TIME AND THE FASHION BUSINESS WILL SUFFER THE LOSS OF THEIR BEST MINDS

SO FOR THE SAKE OF GAY'S HAPPINESS, DON'T LET THEM MARRY. THEY WILL THANK US LATER![/joking]

Nononono, take a few steps back from the "equals" issue. I'm not even going to START worrying about EQUALITY until we're all clear on the idea that I'm not going to be treated as a criminal. We need to settle THAT issue before EQUALITY is even a concern. Homosexuality is NOT under ANY circumstances going to be treated as a crime.

Then we need to settle the issue that homosexuality is NOT a valid premise on which to fire a guy from his job.

What we need to kill first is the idea that homosexuality is somehow "immoral." To be specific, we need to destroy the idea that we somehow need to think differently about a guy based on whom he has sex with and how.

I'm not going to feel safe in my own home until we've all come to the agreement that this is NOT something that I need to worry about ANYMORE. When people start saying, "Oh, homosexuality is immoral, and it's a crime against nature!" I don't feel safe because those are the same justifications that were used to support the sodomy laws.

Before EQUALITY is even on the radar, we need to get it settled that it's okay for me and another man to go into our private residence and screw each other into happy oblivion. We need to get it settled that your fundamentalist lunatic buddies aren't going to have some cop follow me and my boyfriend to our house and bust in on us when we're in the middle of getting dinner ready.

Before EQUALITY is even up for discussion, we need to make it perfectly clear that, if I were to get a job as a teacher, I wouldn't be unemployed if some idiot like Zendell were to run to my boss, shouting, "EEEK!! ! Jesus came to me while I was smoking crack and told me Griff is planning to rape my little boy!"

We need to start at square ONE.

Before EQUALITY is even on the menu, we need to get a few things OFF of the menu. THEN we can have the discussion over how equal gay people are allowed to be to straight people. Is that crystal clear?

Let's save EQUALITY for another discussion. No doubt, I'm pretty offended by the fact that even the Democrats are insisting on this "civil union" term. Where do they get that crap? They've gotta lotta nerve. For me, though, that's all it is: hurt feelings. Big whoop. That's not what I'm in hysterics over.

EQUALITY is a whole different discussion.

Last edited by Griff on 10 Apr 2008, 11:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

that's for the church to decide. if you don't support their choice, then don't support their sect.

....meaning it's not something you can force on them.

Good God, are all gays this jaded? My own Ma & Pa happen to have a wonderful marriage ... since 1974. You should come to Oakville and tell them why their marriage sucks. I know for a fact that married people do indeed have sex. I was born in 1979, my sister in 1977, and my other sister in 1982. None of us were born out of wedlock.

. One's sexual orientataion neither negates nor guarantees a successful union.

How ironic

But the church does not operate independantly of the people.

dunno about gays but almost all the people i've come across in los angeles are.

"oh those teenage girls in lakeland? pshh that's an every day thing"

If we are to modify the current sacrament of marriage, how to know when the changes have gone too far? If it is to retain any semblace of meaning, marriage must have some kind of rules. The next logical step beyond same-sex unions are interspecies unions.

Multiple concurrent unions?

Unions between parent & child?

Unions between living & deceased?

As a straight man I support the homosexual cause, yet I would insist on very definite redrawn boundaries.

I'm not sure how I would summarize the interpretation of that lengthy book of Isaiah in this context. I do agree that the prophesies of Isaiah are fulfilled by the coming of Jesus of Nazareth.

I also wanted to make a note that although I believe Christianity is a living tradition, I do not therefore, believe that Christianity means whatever I want it to mean. I believe, like it says in the book of Hebrews, "Indeed, the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12).

In the past, some people (not you) have criticized my understanding of Christianity as just a product of my own wishful thinking, and I just wanted to clarify before the issue comes up.

i'm just going to act like you're just ignorant and not get mad at this...just point it out to you instead.


do you realize how insulting it is to imply that homosexual marriage is on the same level as necrophilia and pedophilia?


they want marriage because of the legal rights granted with it. mainly property rights and the rights with regards to relatives (hospital coma cases, visitation hours, etc etc).

you can't grant those rights to dead people and children are too young to know what they're doing (hence why they're minors and not at the age of consent).


now i realize that it's quite likely that you're used to hearing this from conservative circles and maybe you took them seriously...but those aren't even pragmatic potential scenarios.


edit: i just noticed you said parent and child...i misread that as just adult and child. incest laws are in place for damned good reason (flipper babies are bad). and incest is even more offensive to imply that's on the same level as homosexual marriage.

Easy, Griff! Easy.

I wasn't trying to be insulting, and I'm not ignorant. Pedophilia and necrophilia were just used as examples, and obviously aren't in the same category as same-sex unions.

My purpose for writing that last post was to ask eveyone here what they thought was reasonable when modyfing the original rite of marriage. The admittedly extreme examples I used were just to illustrate my point.

Slowmutant, no one has proposed changing any "sacraments" - if your church doesn't want to let gays marry within their sacraments, that's perfectly OK. No one is forcing Catholic priests to perform interfaith marriages, because for some, that violates their understanding of their faith, and that's OK. What's not OK is forbidding anyone from performing such a marriage because it violates one group's faith.

Marriage, as it is understood in the United States (and, I gather, most of the Western world) is a civil institution, intended both to solemnize a couple's commitment and to provide certain legal guarantees to both parties and any resulting children. As such, it is available only to those capable of legally signing a contract. Thus, no minors, no nonsentients of any species, and no nonhumans who cannot prove sentience in a court of law. Just adult humans. Removing gender discrimination from these laws does not change the requirements to sign a contract.

Now, if you'll kindly keep your religion out of my legal structure, I'll try to keep my legal structure out of your religion, as far as practicable (keeping in mind the old saw that "your right to swing your fist freely ends where my nose begins").