The Religious Case for Gay Marriage

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by sty
Also another question; if same sex marriage is correct, what would make father-daugher, brother-sister, brother-brother etc wrong? WHY NOT? why would that be wrong??


So now you are equating gays to pedophiles and incest. Nice. You just took a step further down from beastiality. :shk:

[edit on 7-12-2008 by intrepid]




posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   
It doesn't matter what is said. Some people are so mired in religion or blinded by it, so mired in hatred, bigotry, hypocrisy, fear, and confusion or blinded by it, so close minded that nothing anyone says or does will ever change their minds.

How does gay marriage affect any of you at all???? How does it affect your day to day life???? My guess....it doesn't and it wouldn't.

Gay people live together and it doesn't affect your day to day life.

Gay people have children and it doesn't affect your day to day life.

Gay people drive cars and it doesn't affect your day to day life.

Gay people are cops, soldiers, doctors, teachers, chefs, authors, TV and movie stars, cab drivers, news anchors, fishermen, computer techs, government officials....they work side by side with you daily and it doesn't effect your day to day life.

Gay people's children go to school with yours and it doesn't affect your day to day life.

Gay people live next door to you, shop in the same stores you shop in, go to the same places you go to, breathe the same air you breathe and it doesn't effect your day to day life.

Gay people are in your daily life constantly and it doesn't affect your day to day life.....

So, why would letting them get married and having the same rights as heterosexual couples all of the sudden cause upheaval and turmoil in your day to day life?????


sty

posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


well, the question is: how far can we go with changing what is good or bad? what is the next step? where do we say "its enough"? why would that be wrong, whyle same-sex religious marriage is correct?



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by sty
well, the question is: how far can we go with changing what is good or bad? what is the next step? where do we say "its enough"? why would that be wrong, whyle same-sex religious marriage is correct?


We don't. Let God sort that stuff out. Not on some loose interpretation of scripture written thousands of years ago. As far as the law goes, beastiality, pedophilia and incest are against the law. Being gay isn't. So why not allow same sex marriage?


sty

posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


sure they should have some rights, however my point was :is distorting the religion going to make it right? is distortig the EVOLUTION going to make ir right? Nature beautifully closes down the possibility of such people to have descendends , do we just bypass that ??



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


laughed out loud

:-)

the entire thread was worth it for that alone

Jack Black - my hero...


sty

posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 



"As far as the law goes, beastiality, pedophilia and incest are against the law. Being gay isn't. So why not allow same sex marriage?"

Sorry, in my mind I srugle to see why same sex marriage is less wrong than all described above. I am not religious, however I simply feel something is not right. It is deeply unnatural - maybe this makes me feel is is wrong?



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by sty
 


It took me a minute to decipher what you typed.....gotta love how evolution works.


And, no. What is it with people like you??? You are free to believe what you want to believe, but you are not free to force other people to live their lives according to your beliefs.

That is the difference. Your religion, your opinion, your beliefs either take rights away from or keep rights from being bestowed upon a group of people who only want the rights that heterosexual couples have.

Their being allowed to get married and have those rights DOES NOT take anything away from you or prevent you from having anything.

Why is that so hard to understand???


sty

posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


should we accept also "beastiality, pedophilia and incest " ??? it does not affect you directly, why would you be against it?



"It took me a minute to decipher what you typed.....gotta love how evolution works. " well, i an speak 3 languages , need some effort to tidy up my english

and at last:
"Their being allowed to get married and have those rights DOES NOT take anything away from you or prevent you from having anything. "
- well, this thread is about the religious aspect of the same sex marriage, not about the legal one. It is about faking religion in order to give up rights to some certain people. Whatever I say is right, will not make it right for God, is it??

[edit on 7-12-2008 by sty]



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by sty
 


Those things are illegal!!!!! Like Intrepid said, being gay is not illegal.

Why jump to the worst case scenario when talking about two consenting adults wanting the government to recognize their love and their commitment to each other, hence affording them the legal protections and rights which a marriage contract with the state entails?

Last time I checked, two consenting adults had nothing to do with some whack job wanting to "have relations" with his favorite dairy cow.


[edit on 12/7/2008 by skeptic1]


sty

posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


The cow cannot agree. Why an adult brother and sister could not get married? Their kids will go to school with your kids, they wil work with you - you will not be affected. What is wrong with you people?


What if i tell you that same sex is as bad, it is just that the number of the same-sex lovers is greater so they managed to legalise it? The fact that something is legal it is not making it moral.. nor religiously correct

[edit on 7-12-2008 by sty]



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Sexual orientation determines what gender you experience core attraction with, sexual deviance is a crime, and it has nothing to do with sexual orientation. The former you are born with.

Feeling that its wrong somehow, is a gender oriented issue. While we are born with our sexual orientation, the feeling something's yucky (which doesn't make it wrong) is gender oriented. I, as a straight heterosexual female felt creeped out by the bisexual women who made passes (my lesbian friend didn't however). I didn't judge them in any way though, just not my thing and shuddered. But the way a man views two women together as "interesting" is the way I naturally view two men together. Its all hardwired in us to some extent, its all natural, including our reactions. But this gives no one the right to deprive another person of their rights, because its not your cup of tea. The very yucky shuddering that I'm describing would be how a gay person would view the opposite sex. Get it! The thing you call natural is completely wrong for homosexuals.

[edit on 7-12-2008 by mystiq]

[edit on 7-12-2008 by mystiq]



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by sty
 


Then I say you are wrong.

You, as a law-abiding adult, should not have any more or any less rights than I, as a law-abiding adult, have. And, just because I don't agree with what you do in your bedroom with another law-abiding, consenting adult does not mean that I have the right to deny you rights or take them away from you.

And, BTW, marriage is no longer a strictly religious union. It hasn't been in a very long time. And, this is a secular country. To get married, a couple has to sign a "contract" with the state, and they don't have to get married in a church.

[edit on 12/7/2008 by skeptic1]



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by sty

"Their being allowed to get married and have those rights DOES NOT take anything away from you or prevent you from having anything. "


- well, this thread is about the religious aspect of the same sex marriage, not about the legal one. It is about faking religion in order to give up rights to some certain people. Whatever I say is right, will not make it right for God, is it??


Huh?


Originally posted by sty
Sorry, in my mind I srugle to see why same sex marriage is less wrong than all described above. I am not religious, however I simply feel something is not right. It is deeply unnatural - maybe this makes me feel is is wrong?


Well, if you're not religious your quote above means nothing.

Did you notice that? It's all about you, you, you. And this doesn't affect you but your going to impose YOUR will on others. That's just wrong.


sty

posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by mystiq
 


no, what I call Natural is what can reproduce by natural means. This is why they call it "the natural museum of history" then you go there and see how monkey evolved into humans.
Homosexuals cannot evolve into anything , as far as I know. This is what I call UNNATURAL: a dead end, that should stay dead . Sure this is just my personal opinion based on my observations on how the world should work ..

[edit on 7-12-2008 by sty]



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by sty
 


Then there are a lot of straight people who are unnatural because they cannot reproduce by "natural means". They have infertility problems, are barren, etc.

Should we not be able to get married or have certain rights, either??

I mean, by your definition, we are "unnatural".



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Well, I hate to tell you, Mother Nature made 25% (and thats a conservative estimate) of all humans on earth, a variant sexuality naturally. We're all natural organic, nature (or God or both) made, with a right to be here. So just get over this right, because its blind prejudice in todays world, with todays science to keep talking about depriving a huge minority group of its rights.


sty

posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


well, I am not religions. But I talk in the behalf of the people that are forced to accept same sex marriages in their churches - it is happening in the Netherlands, where churches that do not perform same sex marriages will loose financing from the gvmnt. This is how a new split has ben created - churches that will accept it, they are mostly empty but the leaders will get the cash, or churches that went independent and strugle for survival..



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If that's ALL there is to sex, then why is it enjoyable? And I don't know about you, but I don't only have sex to conceive.


Oh you just HAD to go there didn't ya? Oh ok, if you must. Pure pleasure sex I believe nature intended to be limited by design. Go all natural, no contraceptives, and now there are limits- or else.

And speaking of which indirectly, the abortion issue is another which can be totally bypassed by the gay community. An issue forced on heterosexuals, and dealt with, but yet a gay couple would like to have children from these very same people, leaving them to shoulder the tremendous responsibility of pregnancy in itself? The very same responsibilities which brought YOU, mr or mrs homosexual, into this world? How convenient. Well it ain't right. Just my opinion.

And it is not from envy I say these things. They are just points to be considered.

Yeah you can have the benefits of no worries on pregnancy, and unlimited pure pleasure sex, but you give up the ability to continue as a species without the opposite sex. And if any want to argue that point, then consider the case of taking all female homosexuals and putting them in one country and all homo males in another. Unless one of you happens to rob a sperm bank or have invented an artificial egg and womb, you will survive another 50 years, and that's about it.


My heterosexual marriage was guaranteed not to produce offspring. Should they have some say in whether or not I marry?


Well I see your point, but how can you relate that directly to a gay marriage with it's own set of issues that heterosexuals do not have? It's not quite the same thing, imo.


Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I want my children in healthy heterosexual relationships, and influence to the contrary, ESPECIALLY at a young age, can be very detrimental to that.



Do you have any evidence that supports this?

Your "normal" children can grow up alongside a gay couple's "normal" children. Do you know any kids of gay couples? They're perfectly "normal". You can't protect your kids from learning what's out there in the world, but no one can make your kid gay.


No direct evidence, no. But we might just have to partially stay in disagreement on that one, BH. I would prefer my children not exposed to that until the latest possible age. Where's my civil rights on this?

[edit on 7-12-2008 by TrueAmerican]


sty

posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mystiq
 


your percentage is very wrong. yet another propaganda..





top topics
 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join