Why are people against gay marriage?

reply to post by dragonfire2159


you're welcome

just to clarify - and it must be understood in the context of my stated Christian beliefs - I do not advocate homosexuality. I do believe its a lifestyle choice. The God of my Bible proclaims that any sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman, is a sin. I dont go around yelling 'sinner, sinner' at people because, guess what, the Bible also tells me I am a sinner, though for different sins.

All I do - if asked my opinion - is to proclaim where I get my 'moral compass' from, which is God's Word, and I read in it that I am as unclean as any other sinner, and I too need the free gift of salvation from the coming day of Judgement of God's wrath.

You may not agree with all this, and I understand...but at least I hope I explained my position on it.

Thanks, and peace to you.

reply to post by TrailGator


Im not christian but I believe Christ died for me so i can be saved

there is only one unforgivable sin and that is blasphemy against the holy spirit

so being gay is so not even near that at all

we are all born sinners so who the F cares, you cant weigh sin out at all

sin is sin and its against god we sin

one sin is not worse or better than another in gods eyes

its only through human ego's that we put limits, etc on things to suit ourselves selfishly

if being judgemental and christian is the right thing to do, then I wish i was gay just to be able to ask you how you plan to save your soul if you are a sinner just like me?

thats what i thought

god loves us all, even satan, lucifer, he just doesnt like the sin we commit

dont judge, love thy enemy like a brother

love is so powerful yet we white wash it over like its secretive and we need to protect it so our egos dont get hurt

we as people suck

reply to post by TrailGator


Another well thought/civil post. I'm glad to have a conversation with someone that may not have the same values, but is open to objective/polite discussion.

I think we both agree on a "let he without sin" type compromise. I think we all make bad decisions too, so why judge people for their bad decisions, or atleast as you put it not go around calling people sinners. I think a main difference is I feel that homosexuality is a trait we're born with though. Thank you for your reply, and clarifying your position. It's nice to know that even though someone is on the opposite fence, they too don't feel that violence is the answer. I think that scares me a lot about this thread, the continued reference to violence against homosexuals or treating them as if they weren't human. Thanks again. Peace.

The problem with the sinless stonethrower option lies in between words of the Hebrew source. Have you sinned by performing a homosexual Ba'al rite to honor his existance you are a sinner and need forgiveness; are you simply gay, you don't rvrn nrrd to bug thr heavenly court of Law... unrrand id hu's undressdandable Forreddid. idz madness. They're sinless'''''''''

Your question is Why are people against gay marriage.

My answer would be that it is for the same reason people are against most things. If we fight everyone else's issues, we are able to remain blind to that within ourselves that needs attention.

Personally I am for gay marriage. I don't see anything wrong with two men/women getting together. If they're in love, I don't see anything wrong with it. Please try to refrain from the "it's unnatural", "god says it's wrong", "I just don't want to see it" answers. If that's your opinion, please provide the basis for that opinion, but don't just say "it's wrong". I'm just trying to understand the basis for anti-gay marriage individuals, which isn't based on a blind adherence to norms that hold no actual weight in reality. I promise I'll be open-minded and won't flame anything. Just looking for opinions.

dude i think people missed the memo that marriage is about LOVE, not your GENDER.
totally FOR gay marriage. people should keep their minds open.

[edit on 8-6-2008 by pretty_vacant]

adam and eve not adam and steve! nuff said! there was the creation of man and woman for a reason..if man was ment to love man there would be no woman! thank you come again

Once again that is an opinion based on a book that holds no objectivity, and is extremely hypocritical. Basing a judgement on the bible requires ignoring human emotion, socialization, gender roles, psychology, and basically common sense in general. Sex's main goal is not procreation, as many heterosexuals have sex for the sake of pleasure. One also cannot deny that love of one individual for another, as regardless of personal preference, it is easy to tell when people are in love, and I personally have witnessed homosexuals who are more in love than some heterosexual couples I have seen. Bascially, you take away a basic human right by denying an individual the right to be happy, just because you personally don't like it. So while everyone has their right to an opinion, once we make laws based on opinions and not objectivity, we have given up our humanity. If the bible is true, then God loves all, and thus doesn't care who you want to sleep with. If you don't believe in an all-loving God, it immediately negates the opinions of said God, as it merely reflects the personal discrimination of the follower. Don't justify taking rights away from homosexuals with religion, as there is no consistency to be found within that medium. In all likelihood interpretations of God are completely wrong, so there's no point in judging others based on a book of social control written for another time and another people.

There was an Adam and an Eve so procreation could happen. Not because that is all that is intended. We have free will, and free emotions.

What if opinion was swung the other way and people thought that straight people were strange, would you not argue that it is your free will to be straight?

reply to post by umbr45


Opinion swung the other way, people being straight weird? That was the worst example of if the shoe was on the other foot I've ever heard........ Some people choose to be gay I understand that, but why should they get the benefits of being married? Nature never intended any species of animal to be gay, I'm not saying it isn't ok to be gay I'm just saying it isn't normal... Lets not use if the shoe was on the other foot, lets use this one.... If everyone was gay then where would our children come from and where would our future be?

Our future would be short lived yes, but being gay IS NOT and I'll repeat IS NOT a choice. A gay person does choose to become gay, he simply is.

Nature did intend for animals to be gay as there are gay members of almost every spieces recorded.

And yes the, lets put the shoe on the other foot does work, ignoring all other complications, focuaing on that one point it does work.



[edit on 9-7-2008 by umbr45]

[edit on 9-7-2008 by umbr45]

Originally posted by jheated6
reply to post by umbr45

 

Opinion swung the other way, people being straight weird? That was the worst example of if the shoe was on the other foot I've ever heard........ Some people choose to be gay I understand that, but why should they get the benefits of being married? Nature never intended any species of animal to be gay, I'm not saying it isn't ok to be gay I'm just saying it isn't normal... Lets not use if the shoe was on the other foot, lets use this one.... If everyone was gay then where would our children come from and where would our future be?

Some people "choose to be Christian"; Why should They get the benefits of being married?

Some people "choose to be Jewish"; Why should They get the benefits of being married?

Some people "choose to be Muslim"; Why should They get the benefits of being married?


Some people even "choose to be" a religion other than the one "they were born as" (into). How "unnatural" is that?

Why should even THEY get the benefits of being married!?


As to Nature's intents, a brief search of Google will reward you with a wealth of examples of homosexual behavior within the animal kingdom, some of it leading to "life-mate" relationships. Everything from bonobo apes to porpoises and penguins.

Now if you're saying that homosexuality is not "normal" in the sense that it does not comprise the the dominent behaviour in a given population (outside of, say the Castro district of San francisco, California, perhaps), on that I would agree.

However, if you are trying claim that homosexuality is not "normal" in that it is not an included aspect of animal (that includes humans) sexuality, I have to say that you are woefully mis-informed.


As to "our children", they would come from exactly where they come from now. Procreation is not dependent upon marriage, if it were, the human race,not to mention most other animal species would never have made it this far. Historically, and traditionally, marriage has been about forging bonds of alligence and securing lines of inheritance; not love and children.

Furthermore, homosexuality does not, nor has it ever, precluded the act of procreation; it just gets a bit more complicated and, especially in times past, less enjoyable for the parties involved.

I'll spare the details, but I'm sure they are not too difficult to imagine.


As for our future, who knows. But don't you think we might all benefit from a society wherein tolerance, acceptence, and equality under the law applied to all citizens?



Or would you prefer to live in a society where Your basic human rights could be determined and/or curtailed by simple popular demand?

Let the gays marry, maybe then they will leave everyone alone and prance around somewhere private. Better yet let them get married so disease will wipe them out in a hurry. I am not against gay marriage because of the bible, I am against it due to the spread of disease and the rise in violence it brings. Also by all means if homosexuals dislike how this country treats you, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way to another. Try Iran I hear they treat you much better than us hate mongering Americans.

Here is an interesting read.It's been translated from french to english.


"We must punish them. Otherwise, woe! Anyone who hesitates
"Is a soul night that the demon visit;
"The judge read indulgent crime like a dog;
"Whoever does not know these things knows nothing.


Victor Hugo
Published by Clouseau at 29.4.08 Links to this post
Labels: JUDICIAL ACTIVISME
Monday, February 25, 2008
Upon the issue Everyone's drooling with a homosexual cards and a baveux who think from the thigh of Jupiter, last night at Radio-Propaganda homosexual and abortion, the brother-mason Dalton-long chin asking its guests decide on the fifure (homosexuality). As Radio-Propaganda has long reputation as a nest of homosexuals, see featherbed on this blog, it's not surprising to see guests powdered despise those who do not bite the hook liars humanists . This item is not the only one to give us this kind of reply:


Is there still who are against abortion or homosexuality!


As David Suzuki, the Green Hell's Angel, they want to imprison their opponents.

A few years ago, a woman who had crossed the limits of safety of a clinic killers of children was sentenced to six months in prison. When she wanted to explain, the judge, a good humanist, he was sharply told to shut up and do his time in prison.
What is extraordinary, murderers are only one sixth of their sentences, and it systematically.

Christians were put to the kernel for refusing to rent a room for homosexuals, a man was put to the kernel for making one ad denouncing homosexuality, the Bible is regarded as a book by hate courses. If you believe the environmental Greens tomorrow will not succeed to imprison their opponents, you should think twice.
A person who is not doing its credo of abortion, the fifure and the greenery is not working in the liberal media. It's as simple as that.
Published by Clouseau at 25.2.08 Links to this post
Labels: JUDICIAL ACTIVISME, ABORTION, HOMOSEXUALITÉ
Saturday, September 23, 2006
MILITANTISME JUDICIAL: appointees who are not accountable to anyone
There is good reason for the disruption of the social fabric in Quebec and here's one answer:


On 6 September 2004
Prices lead in the culture war

Interview with the American judge Robert H. Bork

A war of culture takes place in Canada in which courses brazenly trying to reorganize Canada to agree to the vision of his appointees who are not accountable to anyone.

This culture war has become clearly apparent in 2003 when the liberal judges of Courts of Appeal of British Columbia and Ontario, have ignored the fact that since ancient times and in all cultures and major religions World, marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Instead, the courts have declared that marriage also includes a union between members of the same sex. Nothing illustrates the destructive power of tyranny that this legal decision.
The Canadian court decisions on gay marriage have now poisoned the Etats_Unis, where on November 18, 2003 the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, relying heavily on Canadian courts, in a decision of four against three, have declared that homosexual couples in this state had the legal right to marry under the constitution of the state.
Former presidential candidate for the post American, Gary Bauer, now president of the organization American Values, "said:
"For those who did not understand the cultural struggle today is the perfect illustration. Four individuals robe trying to seize power of the people of Massachusetts and their elected representatives and order a cultural outcome of their choice. These unelected judges try to impose what no elected legislature would dare consider. And in fact, they ordered the unprecedented destruction of marriage despite tremendous public support for the key component of society. Prices are digging in fact the voice of the people, ignoring their own version of social progress. "
The American judge Robert H. Bork is a central figure in this ugly culture war distorting the U.S. and Canadian companies. Formerly a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the District of Columbia in 1987 he was appointed by President Reagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. After a concerted smear campaign by special interest groups, his appointment has not been confirmed and a new word entered the American language: "To bork." That means launching a relentless and systematic attack against a candidate, particularly by the media. Some social conservatives consider Robert Bork as an eloquent spokesperson in the world délabrant. Judge Bork has written a new book, Coercing Virtue (Vertu Binding), in which he discusses extensively the acquisition of control by the courts of the
culture. What follows is an edited version of an interview with Judge Bork
which appeared in the Meridian Magazine (November 19, 2003). His comments and thoughts directly apply to the situation in Canada as well.
Q. In your recent book you describe a judiciary which took a lot of power and which routinely reverses the will of citizens. The judges have become agents of change
Cultural _ what many of us would call the cultural deprivation. Do not sont_ils checked and controlled? The founding fathers created a system ont_ils wrongdoing that would allow a judiciary escaped become unelected legislators?
A. There is a defect. The Founders had no idea that a court could become. The courses they knew were modest in their ambitions and in their decisions. They have not planned
court assumed the power to make laws. That is why they have failed to provide meaningful checks and balances regarding the judiciary. Nobody means to verify
the judiciary. [Editor's note: We have in Canada article S.33 of the Charter, the notwithstanding clause, which is not used.]
Cover this court activist of a culture that is increasingly lax and do not make moral judgments and you have a portrait of where we as a society. The court becomes a part
crucial in developing a culture of radical individualism where no one has the right to criticize anything on a basemorale.
Q. What does "legal activism"?
A. The term is so much noise that it must be defined. The judges embark on activism when their decisions can not plausibly be connected to the constitution they claim to uphold. Such imperialism is now characteristic of most Western nations. This suggests that the problem is not simply due to some unfortunate appointments to the Supreme Court. It is inherent to the men and women who were given power without democratic accountability.
Q. What can people do about this? Sommes_nous to remain there doing nothing while the restructure our world?
A. People are resistant to certain things that are taking place. They pass laws, for example, against pornography and cancel the court. One thing that might be to have judges who understand the legal role, which is much smaller than their current behaviour not shown.
Q. We received a letter from a reader who said she had worked hard to pass Proposition 22 in California to define marriage as between a man and a woman and
questioned whether a court could destroy all its efforts in this valait_il sentence? When judges remove the expression of the general will of citizens by denying their laws, it sape_t_il the will of the people? They apprend_il they are unable to govern?
A. A horrible thing the decision on abortion is that it came from the judiciary. In all other Western nations, it is a legislative decision. Our court has removed from the will of the people _ including the horror called partial birth abortion. The predisposition of people to homosexuality is in a spectrum. Some people in their formative stage can be leurrées in this lifestyle and it is a pity because it is an unhappy life. We must talk about the impact that homosexuality has on the psychology of a person instead of always talking about other things. The rates of mental illness and suicide attempts are 3 to 4 times higher among homosexuals. The usual response to these facts is that this is the fault of discrimination against homosexuals. However, in countries like Pays_Bas and Belgium where we allow homosexual marriage, these disparities in mental health still exist.
So there is the question of diseases that are frantic among homosexuals. We owe it to the youth to preserve them to marry this lifestyle and the only way is to keep
the difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality.
The marriage would be completely debased by allowing homosexual marriages. Why serait_il something special if people could only sign to marry on the basis of activity
sexual? The reports homosexuals are not usually characterized by fidelity. The rate of promiscuity among them is much higher. The heterosexual bear much of the blame for
what happened to marriage. Admitting this does not mean we should be doing more down and destroy it completely.
Q. What can citizens while they watch their world make this drastic social change?
A. The public must be alerted that we systematically reversing their culture with a global vision lax, individualistic, non_judiciaire enforced by the courts. Now you can show caresses oral sex on cable TV, you can show the simulated child pornography on computer. This is not just a bad decision isolated from the course to force this viewpoint, but a systematic progression.
Q. Why this liberal philosophy a_t_elle flowers while the Conservatives seem asleep at the wheel?
A. The Liberals are more aggressive, but in doing so, the Conservatives do not control the major means of education. The Liberals control the universities. They give the chairs.
They control the news agencies, which are uniformly on the left. The public denounced Fox News as terribly arrested in his opinions. We do not hate it because it is conservative, but because this is not liberal and it is enough to be denounced. The Liberals control the media, radio, television, many bureaucracies church, many clergy, museum staff, staff foundations and Hollywood. These educational opportunities are very left and, of course, they are rewarded for giving young people.
Q. There is a way to completely change it so that social conservatives have more influence?
A. I have no idea. If I knew I would be there to explain how. Irving Kristol said: "There is no war culture. There was one, but the other side won. "Kafka said:" There is hope, but not for us. "T.S. Eliot said: "For us it only remains to be tested. The rest is not our case. "Of course it is our case, that is why we try. You are fighting everywhere you can deliver the struggle and never relent.
Q. Where the cultural war trouve_t_elle its worst expression?
A. In his aversion to religion. The biggest divisions between pseudo_intellectuels and the rest of the world is religion. They are very indifferent or hostile to religions. It is perfectly clear and this has been explained clearly in the book by Philip Hamburger: Separation of Church and State. There is no possible basis for this separation wall, but classes are moving forward to erase religion from the public square. The religion is the politeness and restraint in our society, which
disappears as a religion as it is being marginalized and expelled from the debate. The Supreme Court has played a large role to do that.
Q. If the courts take a legislative role and trample something as important to most people as religion, why, as the polls say, generally tiennent_ils the Supreme Court in such high esteem?
A. They believe that the Court decides in principle while legislators are opportunistic. They do not include courses or nature of what is happening.
Q. Est_il possible to help people understand that such courses will, culture goes? They must pay attention to what kind of judges support their candidates?
A. I do not know if people will never be educated enough to realize that they are governed by liberal judges. They say they speak on behalf of the Constitution and is a revered document, so people believe that this must be true. Even the Conservatives, if they like something, believe it must be in the Constitution. I had a bitter debate with conservatives who felt that banning abortion would be in the Constitution. Whatever your feelings about abortion, this is not in the Constitution. There is nothing that speaks of the topic. Conservatives often share the sins of liberals, they are simply losers.
Q. You say that too many judges activists seeking to push the views of the intellectual elite on us all. Who are these people?
A. World Vision has a shape. It is utopian. They have a version of virtue they want to impose on us. This class, the intellectual elite, can not be distinguished by intellectual ability. There has been no particular intellectual accomplishment to Barbra Streisand Hollywood does Peter Jennings of the media, but they think they know how things should be and they will let us swallow force.
In a debate at the University of Michigan, I said that the Supreme Court had gone too far in removing certain decisions of local communities. A man of the Union American Civil Liberties (ACLU) stood up and called me a fascist. We were made there. Allowing people to vote is fascism, but a judge who makes the laws for them is democracy?
Q. So they see us as a band of peasants unlucky waiting to be lit and reorganized by them? What pouvons_nous do?
A. I do not know if the situation can be returned, but I intend to cause as much trouble as I can out.
I do not have a solution. We can not predict the future, but something has to change.

Another good thread worth reading is here, at educate yourself.

educate-yourself.org...

I personally think the women should rule this planet. I think we should have it setup how the Native people had it. There were no concepts of "homosexuality" but if they found someone who was two-spirited they were considered special (Shaman, medicine person..etc) due to the fact they could see from "both" worlds. This was the same concept as "Race" as they felt nobody was separate from one another based on how they looked.

Women carry within them the womb of life. Creator gave them this so they could judge properly on how to raise and give birth to children. If someone wants to be gay then why invade someone's religion? What purpose is it to say someone is wrong and their religion is wrong? I find it wrong that someone marries within a religion that they know condemns them just out of spite. To marry out of spite is wrong, but to be in love is just and rightly so!

Originally posted by umbr45
There was an Adam and an Eve so procreation could happen.

If procreation was the main issue, why would Adam have to ask God to make a spouse for him. It was Adam's desire to find a mate that sparked God's creation of Eve. God originally intended Adam to create language, it had nothing to do with procreation. Adam was created alone, and God had him name all the animals and plants in Eden, it seams to me that Man was originally intended to live without women. Atleast that's what the good book says. There are actually words in the Hebrew text that suggest that Adam was originally a hermaphrodite, for when God removes a rib/tsela/cell from Adam to create Eve, the Hebrew text says that he would fill up the shameful wound connected to his sexual organ(s) "down there" with meat and close it up. God "split" the original Adam originally having two sets of sexual organs one penis and one "shameful wound down there", into becoming purely male, closing up his vagina, while God designed a purely female partner for him using a cell or rib extracted from his body. According to ancient wisdom, the angels of God are hermaphrodites, they have both male and female sex organs, and Adam was created in the image and likeness of God and his angels. Woman isn't our ideal partner, atleast it wasn't initially the intent of God that men should be with women. Woman was created after Man, and according to Man's wishes and criteria. Something to think about.

simply because

A marriage is a bond of a man and woman has always been .

get married in front of god till death do us part.
Have kid's...
and the world keep's gowning.

we have kid's so others family's kid's keep the human population alive.

to gay people think adoption make's them more... like man and a wife.
but it will never be the same.
they can not reproduce .

thus in a way if everyone was gay...the world would die.
no reproducing going on.

and a marriage is religious... thus why the preacher hold a bible when he marry's you.

and the bible has a story about Sodom and gamora...wiped the whole city away...

so that's why people don't think gay's should be married...much alone adopt kid's.

if gay people adopt a kid....think about this folk's.

if my dad was a smoker...i will try smoking..
if my mother was a drinker...i will try a drink

you aspire to become your idol or parent....
so in a way the kid's are getting messed up in there head's in one way or another.

teaching kid's it's ok to go both way's ect... is crazy to say the least.
it inst how life started....
bird's and the bee's..not the bird's and the bird's and bee's and the bee's lol

Look guys ... I'm a gay guy and even I have mixed feelings about the marriage thing ... I can understand why someone would want their love recognized and their LEGAL RIGHTS recognized (like when a gay person's partner dies, they have no legal right to anything no matter, even if they've been together decades) ... but if you love someone enough ... is the paper that important? or the title marriage? Not to me ... it'd be the love ... and my legal rights. I might be gay but I am still an American ... and proud of both! And to the haters ... yes I'm proud to be gay because I am proud of who I was born and who I grew to be.

And lets not forget the old saying "He who cries homo loudest bends over the fastest!"

Sorry, couldn't resist after reading some of this.

[edit on 17-7-2008 by SpookshowJon]

This is Skunkworks. Why is the title of this thread not ''Why Can't Reptiles and Humans Marry?''