Why are people against gay marriage?

page: 13
7
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Gay marriage is the ultimate political red herring. Why should voters and politicians and media sources do/report anything to stop the war or fix the miserable economy when we can worry about what two consenting adults want to do with their lives. Yawn.




posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Lethil
 


Okay... I am very new (first time to post) to this, so be gentle... Where in the Bible, Koran, or Torah does it actually say that God (or by any other name) said this? I do know for a fact that the King James Bible interpretation was a gross rewrite based upon the puritan beliefs of the time. Numerous efforts to translate the original text has proven some blatant inaccuracies of KJ edition so fondly upheld as the foundation of many Western Religions being practiced today.

Keep in mind that same sex relations are well documented well back into the early Roman empire, and even even during the time of the Egyptians.

Isn't it also ironic that so many of the icons of the organized religions which claim righteousness on this topic, are the ones who are themselves violating their own rule. I know I spent many a Sunday as a child listening to "Man shall not lie with man, nor woman with woman." Only then I find out that the parish priest is tagging altar boys. How are we supposed to act?

The biggest problem with religion today, is that they influence through fear... Try this on for size... If God is a truly benevolent and caring being, and our omniscient, forgiving, loving creator of all things in and of the universe... Do you really think that God would cast off one of his own children because of the fact that they were following their own feelings? After all, the magic of love is supposed to be the highest of all virtues and morality, so why would God put restrictions on that? The restrictions come from men and their interpretations of the word, or better his phobias and paranoia, so they label it as a sin and then preach fire and brimstone to scare the hell out of the congregation.

People these days are much better educated, and are less apt to merely accept someone like this at their word, without doing their own analysis of the facts presented.

Look at our current administration, they use fear and intimidation to swing the popular view whichever way they wish. They discredit free thinking through character assassination and propaganda. And who is one of the biggest contributors to the current admin? That's right, organized religion. The same ones who vilify free thought, and continue to tell the masses that they will find everlasting damnation if they don't toe the line.

I can go on all night, but I think most of you get my point.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 02:41 AM
link   
I'm new here also, this is my first post.
Personally, I don't really mind same-sex marriages. It's not unnatural or whatever people call it.
However, I'm not sure if I agree with same-sex couples raising children. Reading this forum has sort of opened my view about same-sex couples raising children but I'm still not sure if I would agree with it or not.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Gay people cant help being gay. They should be allowed to marry. On the contrary i think the world would be a better place if gay people were suddenly vaporised.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 05:01 AM
link   
I don't know why people believe so blindly in religion, (religion wants to control our lives and our world and our free will. I think humanity has missed the point that, everything humanity has done is corrupted, religion, government, society etc. So why think that religion is pure when is ruled by men? (When you see priests molesting children etc)



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Critical....***what??!!!***

**slapping forehead in complete dismay at what I've just read**

and feeling very hurt, not to mention a little threatened...please reassure me, if you can



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 05:46 AM
link   
I'm an atheist so I have no religious reasons for denying gays marriage status. I think cost and legal reciprocity are two good reason against it. Cost: Gay marriage and or civil unions expands who can receive benefits from a variety of sources, insurance policies to social security. That's a large financial burden that I don't think powerful companies will tolerate well. The next issue is reciprocity: One of the basic elements of a society is legal reciprocity. You may live in Florida but you can drive in Washington State without getting a Washington driver license. States recognizing the legal acts of other states is the backbone of smooth business and every day life. Civil unions goes against that completely, as slavery did. Some states recognize gay marriages, most states do not. If a "married" gay couple move to a non-marriage state their "marriage" will NOT be recognized, benefits will not have to be paid, rights granted in one state will NOT be recognized in another. California may allow all the legal gay marriages it wants but the same couple can be legally arrested for anal sex in Georgia. Going against legal reciprocity and expanding benefits is a tough battle, and when you add the change is not for a wholesome cause -- homosexuality is not wholesome -- it does not stand much chance for success.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Straight Razor
California may allow all the legal gay marriages it wants but the same couple can be legally arrested for anal sex in Georgia. Going against legal reciprocity and expanding benefits is a tough battle, and when you add the change is not for a wholesome cause -- homosexuality is not wholesome -- it does not stand much chance for success.

Nice. real nice.

And again with the obsession over anal sex. What is it with anal sex that people in this thread keep coming back to. If you're that curious, try it, heterosexual people love anal sex. There are millions of straight people all around the world right now having anal sex! Are you afraid of blowjobs too?


wholesome
adjective APPROVING
beneficial for you, and likely to improve your life either physically, morally or emotionally


By that definition, heterosexuality isn't wholesome either - it doesn't improve your live physically, emotionally and the majority of fellons in prison are hetersexual, so certainly not morally.






[edit on 3-6-2008 by VelvetSplash]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by scorand
 



Scorand: I don't see where God and/or Jesus enters into my argument. I'm agnostic. This topic as absolutely NOTHING to do with religion from my point of view. Perhaps you are the bigot to assume I have an "Archie Bunker" attitude and to assume I am some Bible-thumping evangelist.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by spaznational
 


sorry spaz i wasnt tring to say you were, i was just pointing out the reason some people are against gay marriage.. and agnostic or not those ideas can still influence how the situation is viewed..


and god and jesus is on topic as this thread is about weather or not homosexuality is condemed by the bible



[edit on 3-6-2008 by scorand]

[edit on 3-6-2008 by scorand]

[edit on 3-6-2008 by scorand]

[edit on 3-6-2008 by scorand]

[edit on 3-6-2008 by scorand]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
i have to agree with velvetsplash on that, how is homosexuality unwholesome compared to hetrosexuality.. hetros would have to be super prudes to be wholesome under that stricture.. and just because georgia says it illigal doesnt mean that the law is right..check the books there are some really stupid laws that are still on the books... maybe we should start a thread on stupid laws...i'm sure we could find quite a few...lol



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lethil
Marriage has nothing to do with the church....thats like saying cheese and a bottle of vodka have something in common...the church would like you to think they have some moral authority on the matter,when in reality it dates back thousands of years before the *church* was even established...and when i say church i mean most modern monotheistic religions...thats if you buy the fact they were mono in the first place before being edited....anyway its all homophobic feelings wrapped up in religion imo...

But yah..i understand where you are coming from...we just shouldnt tolerate this on the bounds of religious freedom blah blah etc These people are just against human freeedom that doesnt conform to their views.Case Closed.


the only thing 'closed' is your mind....to anything that anyone might say to the contrary of your belief. And I thought the OP of this thread asked for something different. It didnt seem to take you long to return to Bible believer bashing.

I dont try to tell a sculpture how to scuplt since I dont do it. I dont suggest that a great guitarist should play differently or a singer sing differently since I am not one of those either. But I continue to be amazed at how many people on ATS act like you, and tell "us" what the Bible or church really says and how we are misunderstanding it.

Please, just shut up with that. If you want gay marriage fine. Dont tell me what the bible says or doesnt say. Because you clearly - clearly - do not believe in it as the Word of a Holy, Righteous God, and that therefore, instantly disqualifies you from telling us about it, and about the church established by the Lord Jesus Christ.

[edit on 3-6-2008 by TrailGator]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by TrailGator
 


you are more than welcome to believe what you will but the fact remains that the current bible was written by men who have on several occasions mistranslated, misconstrued, and flat out manipulated the book...to push their idea what is acceptable and rightous.. and this fact has been shown in many arenas from the slave trade oh throughout history..and the church has proven to be incredibly hostile about questioning its idealology, from galileo from claiming that the earth revolved around the sun and bruno claiming that there were other worlds outside our own..the bible has been used by egocentrical people for thousands of years to boost their superiority complexes.. you know, the sister bertha better than you syndrome



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by scorand
reply to post by TrailGator
 


you are more than welcome to believe what you will but the fact remains that the current bible was written by men who have on several occasions mistranslated, misconstrued, and flat out manipulated the book...to push their idea what is acceptable and rightous.. and this fact has been shown in many arenas from the slave trade oh throughout history..and the church has proven to be incredibly hostile about questioning its idealology, from galileo from claiming that the earth revolved around the sun and bruno claiming that there were other worlds outside our own..the bible has been used by egocentrical people for thousands of years to boost their superiority complexes.. you know, the sister bertha better than you syndrome


Try reading it on your own, and dont listen to what 'others' say, even me. Check it out for yourself.

I believe in faith that the Bible is correct and that God and Jesus is who they say they are per the scriptures. Others believe in faith that this is not so. We cant really ever answer this until we die (well there is another way, but I wont bother with it here so as not to lose context). And if one waits till that point - death of the body - and the Bible is correct, it will be too late for those who do not believe. If I am wrong about it, then I have just 'limited' myself with the things I could do and not have to worry about the consequences. I choose the former, to believe in God and His Living Word the Bible.

I will agree that too often throughout history, people have misused the Bible for doing things to people that are indeed contrary to what the Bible says. This is anathema to God, and those folks will also have to stand before God on judgement day. But so will everyone else that has hurt people, murdered, robbed, etc. All will have to give an accounting....believe it or not.


[edit on 4-6-2008 by TrailGator]



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Marrage as stated before is a HOUSEHOLD in which gives PARENTS (MAN & WOMAN) status for bringing up children.
show me a man that can bring a being upto the earth.
show me a woman who can bring a being upto the earth without man.
+ & + =0
- & - =0
So, I dont want you using the term Marrage... call it what you will
but not Marrage.. thats for bringing up children - call it
fetishpartners for what ever you want - but not Marrage



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Critical
Gay people cant help being gay. They should be allowed to marry. On the contrary i think the world would be a better place if gay people were suddenly vaporised.



wow ive never heard of nice hate


get a life



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by 888LetsRoll
 


Why does the name matter? The connotations are subjective. By calling it a union or such, one does not tackle the inability of some to accept others for who they are. It just brings to mind the "separate but equal" idea, which was still racist, though hidden under a new term. While the actual act of reproduction is based on biology, the idea of "marriage" is a social construct, and therefore should deal with social situations, that being two individuals wanting to be united, regardless of sex. Marriage does not necessarily involve reproduction, as not all couples have children, therefore one cannot assume that marriage involves reproduction.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonfire2159
reply to post by 888LetsRoll
 


Why does the name matter? The connotations are subjective. By calling it a union or such, one does not tackle the inability of some to accept others for who they are.... While the actual act of reproduction is based on biology, the idea of "marriage" is a social construct, and therefore should deal with social situations, that being two individuals wanting to be united, regardless of sex...


names matter because of posts like this on the front page of this topic...

Originally posted by Lethill
Marriage has nothing to do with the church....thats like saying cheese and a bottle of vodka have something in common...the church would like you to think they have some moral authority on the matter,when in reality it dates back thousands of years before the *church* was even established...and when i say church i mean most modern monotheistic religions...thats if you buy the fact they were mono in the first place before being edited....anyway its all homophobic feelings wrapped up in religion imo...

But yah..i understand where you are coming from...we just shouldnt tolerate this on the bounds of religious freedom blah blah etc These people are just against human freeedom that doesnt conform to their views.Case Closed.


so, then, if the 'church' doesnt own any right to marriage, why even call it a "marriage"??? that word is sacred to many religions around the world. It carries a sign of a covenant, that Christians at least, believe is symbolic of man's relationship with God. Thats one of the reasons I and others find it ("marriage") offensive. Not saying you cant live with a same-sex partner, as people do that now. Not advocating hunting people down or imprisoning them or causing violence upon them.
But - and here is the key point I want to make to this whole thread and that I think 888LetsRoll tried to make as well - the current debate or arguments or discussions over 'gay marriage' seem to me to be about bring a certain legitimacy and approval to this act. It thus attacks the very core of my - and countless Americans and others around the world - beliefs.

So all I ask is if homosexuals want to live together and do whatever they do, then fine. Dont call it a marriage, and dont ask for me to accept it as a legitimate marriage. And then much of this will die down, believe me.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by TrailGator
 


Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I can understand how the term may offend some. Although I don't agree with the connotations of marriage, I can see how others could believe so, and that's fine. Just personally I feel that by saying "they can do what they want to, just don't call it what I do", it comes off as more of a toleration of an idea than acceptance. Personally, I think that tolerance is just politically correct hate, and acceptance of all human behavior is a better stance. I understand that acceptance takes time, and requires one to re-evaluate our socialized beliefs, but I prefer it to tolerance which insinuates a judging of the individual from the outside instead of as another human. Just my opinion though. I also think that behaviors matter more than words. So if you would be okay with homosexuals atleast being able to have a union which is equal to marriage, but not labeled marriage, I could come to a compromise there. Not a compromise that I would necessarily want to make, but such is the nature of the world I guess.

Another problem I have with the idea of a different name for gay unions, is that I see something wrong with judging an individual as "abnormal" or "deviant" when the behavior is merely just a different human behavior, and in reality there is no behavior that is "normal". There is just the socially acceptable and unacceptable, and that's just based in culture not objectivity. I don't view homosexuality as abnormal, because is has been occuring throughout the history of man as a natural symptom. If it was only relegated to a few pockets of humanity, say such as canabalism, then I may agree that it is perhaps not natural and societally influenced.

It is the belief that homosexuals are viewed as foreign, as opposed to just human, that disturbs me. While there are a few individuals like yourself who would allow them to have a different type of union just not called marriage (I'm assuming from you post, forgive me if I interpreted wrong), the belief system of separating homosexuals from humanity could easily lead to hate, discrimination, and a reversal of law back to present where the rights of homosexual couples are held suspect, and suppressed in order for some individuals to maintain their belief. A belief which while fine on a personal level, should not be made into a law, as it is merely a personal preference. I feel that beliefs should be dynamic, as the world is ever changing, thus instead of having a detailed belief system of behavior I prefer a generalized view, such as acceptance of all behavior which does not cause harm to other individuals, of what's "right" and "wrong". Just my opinion of course. I'd personally would rather have equal freedoms and consistent labeling for the masses, than have a few individuals be judged differently, even if I don't agree with them on a personal level. Thanks again for the reply. Peace.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrailGator

Originally posted by dragonfire2159
reply to post by 888LetsRoll
 

"so, then, if the 'church' doesnt own any right to marriage, why even call it a "marriage"??? that word is sacred to many religions around the world. It carries a sign of a covenant, that Christians at least, believe is symbolic of man's relationship with God."

"........It thus attacks the very core of my - and countless Americans and others around the world - beliefs."


I think my reasoning for maintaining the label "marriage" regardless of religious undertones, is that gay marriage falls under both definitions, in my opinion. It is still a unification of two individuals who would like to combine their hearts, the more dictionary/originative definition that I subscribe to. I also agree that marriage is representative of the union between humanity and God. I see gay marriage as the exact same, as I feel that God loves all of us equally and the emotions between two inviduals who are in love is equal regardless of the sex of the two. I feel rather than juding the individuals based on the type of sex they have, God would look at the feelings the two have for each other and the commitment that they would like to make. Thus, from my perspective, God would merely judge their hearts and how they treat each other, not the societal acceptance of their union. Therefore, gay marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage in my mind.

Not to sound combatative, but I feel that beliefs are meant to be challenged. If a belief is based on any type of hierarchy, whether based on economics, race, religion, behavior, etc, I feel that it is a judgemental belief system, and I would prefer a belief system based on acceptance. But that's just my belief (haha), and is therefore subjective, so it is impossible to know what belief is "right". I just see acceptance as better than judgement, as it provides for an open forum in which to discuss all behaviors as equal, decreasing the chances of discriminating against a behavior because of the action as opposed to the result of that behavior.

I don't see a negative result to homosexuality, in regards to societal decay, corrupting children, crime, etc. I have yet to find any objective proof that homosexuality causes anything negative, other than bringing out the hate/judgement in individuals, which is the fault of those individuals not homosexuals. Because I see nothing wrong with homosexuality, I feel that it is not a separate entity from heterosexuality, and merely another expression of humanity.

In justifying my belief system I use the following example. Statistically there is bound to be homosexuals in every individual's family, regardless of geographical location, race, religion, nationality, etc. I question if I would feel justifiable in denying my family member the same rights as me, merely because of whom they find attractive. I also feel that God would not want me to judge my family as such, for I should show love instead of judgement. Because of this inevitability, I cannot agree with a belief system that judges homosexuality negatively, and would cause me to see a family member as a "lower" class than myself, because of a natural human behavior that happens to be different than my behavior. Just my two cents, not saying I'm right, just how I view it.





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join