Top 17 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

Post Reply New Topic

Some people actauly believe the parts of it that I left in the quote there. I heard each one used in an argument against Gay marrege, one way or another. Particularly in Christian churches. I think the writer did well, and they didn't get the ideas out of thin air. Other people likely did it for them already.

It double posted me again Man I hate that.

I just wanted to explain where I'm coming from when I say that I am both a Christian and I believe that gay people should be able to marry. I'll leave it up to you to determine if I'm conservative or liberal.

First, I believe very strongly in marriage, that marriage is not only a legal contract but also a sacrament. I believe spiritually and psychologically that a couple should have a sexual relationship concomitant to their level of commitment to each other. I believe marriage is the only level of commitment in which sexual intercourse is appropriate.

Second, I believe that there are people who are genetically homosexual, that some people become homosexual because of abuse, and that some people choose to be homosexual. I have a great deal of compassion for these first two groups, but have trouble understanding how to accept the third group. I don't pretend to know how to tell the difference so I err on the side of being compassionate rather than judgmental.

Third, I do not believe the Bible is the "Paper Pope." I do not believe that interpreting the Bible, which is a collection of texts that exhibit a wide range of genres and cultural contexts, as literal truth is appropriate or necessary to be a Christian. I think many people misunderstand Christianity as being ONLY the interpretation of scriptures, literal or figurative, when in reality, I believe it is a way of life.

In conclusion, the combination of these beliefs results in my strong support for gay marriage. I do not believe in any way that gay marriage will undermine society or that gay marriage will weaken heterosexual marriage.

Face it, you homophobic, subhuman excrement: you've lost. You've lost in North America, you've lost in Europe, and you're slowly losing in South America and Asia. You've lost in every country that's worth the dirt it's built on. You've lost, and you've failed. You challenged our right to live in peace, and you were knocked flat on your asses, you slimy pieces of filth. Defeat! Taste it, jerks!! EAT IT!! ! Don't do things to try to screw up the lives of others, you idiots! It's wrong! It's always wrong!!

This discussion isn't just about the "right vs. wrong" of homosexuality. That was decades ago! You lost, remember? The real moral issue at stake, here, is what you lunatics were trying to do about it. You know, like ruining innocent people's lives, remember that? DO YOU REMEMBER THAT, YOU FILTHY SLIME??? That's what this is about. That's the only thing in this duscussion that is clearly, universally and unequivocally a moral issue, regardless of your religious beliefs or country of origin. There is NO planet on which you have a right to trash the lives of people who aren't doing anything to bother anyone. That's what you jesus freaks were trying to do four decades ago and continued to do everything you could to reinstate until, if I recall correctly, just toward the end of the 90's.

Just let people live in peace!! !

Griff, chill man! I was just saying where I heard them before! Look, it isn't the easiest piece for me either, being Bisexual, and yes my Christian congregation is against gays. Not that I have been thouroughly attending lately. Thank you, whatever, and goodnight. This thread has gotten way too rediculess, and I doubt OP wanted all this meaningless force and fighting and @$#%. Sheesh....

I feel alot like you do about it, Jeanne. Thank you.

Last edited by LiendaBalla on 07 Apr 2008, 11:50 am, edited 6 times in total.

Lost?? Parakeet never even competed! All he did was assert his own prejudices, dressed up in what seemed almost a parody of natural law, as axiomatic. If you accept his axioms, then of course his conclusions follow, just as if you accept the axioms of mathematics, it follows that 2+2=4.

He fails, however, to understand the nature (as it were) of natural laws. Laws of nature cannot be violated - they are implicit in the structure of the universe. Gravitation is universally attractive; you cannot exceed the speed of light in an Einsteinian plenum; fire consumes oxygen, and is hot. None of these are subject to interpretation, nor capable of violation - they are natural laws. The fact that generative organs work well for the process of reproduction, however, is merely convenient; using them thus is not a matter of natural law, as obviously they can be used in other fashions.

Thus, he has failed to respond to a single counter - he has merely restated his prejudice and ignorance (if the stats in his sig are accurate, it's not stupidity, but ignorance), and claimed this was an "answer".

zendell, you should check out the other "abomination in the sight of the LORD" listed in Leviticus. Lobster is evil. So is indoor plumbing - Leviticus spells out how far from an encampment a latrine should be built. And ham, of course, is right out. As for the epistles of Paul, he also says that slaves should obey their masters happily, and that women have no place in decision-making and should not be permitted to cut their hair - ever - as it is "a glory unto the LORD". Reading the entire Bible, rather than merely the passages one is instructed to, can be quite enlightening. (Okay, I'll admit, I skimmed some of the later prophets in the Old Testament - but really, is it theologically important to know how much material had to be ordered during the rebuilding of the Temple?)

DeaconBlues

Oh, but it does. No organ is useful without a suitable behavioural programme, so you can do something with the organ. Without the software, the hardware does nothing. If you want to know the purpose of the hardware, you need to know the software that uses it. If you want to know what an organ is for, you need to see how it is used in the wild.


To use a famous example, what is the male peacock's tail for? The only way to find out is to look at the behaviour, to see how the tail is used. That is true for many traits, whether morphological, physiological or behavioural. How do you know whether a substance emitted by a female moth is a pheromone? By the male's response. If you want to know the function of a cuttlefish's chromatophores (used to change skin colour), you need to see how and when the cuttlefish uses them. The claim that the function of an organ must be inferred from morphology alone is completely wrong.

If you are serious about applying an argument from function (or argument from design, to use your terms) to sex organs, let's see where the information from biology leads us, if we take a more thorough look, and don't restrict ourselves to just the information that gives us the conclusion you favour.

You seem to think sex is for reproduction only. In the cases where that is true, what should we expect to see? Sex is costly. It takes energy and physiological resources, it distracts attention from possible predators, it takes time away from finding food. If sex is for reproduction only, it should happen as little as possible, and only when there is a chance of reproductive success. Bees are an example. A young queen mates a few times on her mating flight, and that is it of the rest of her life. Many species restrict sex to a mating season, in many species the animals die immediately after. Even many species that mate repeatedly and have no seasons restrict sex to when there is a chance of reproduction: the female advertises when she is in the fertile phase of her menstrual cycle, and the male is only interested in females who are fertile right now. Chimpanzees and elephants are examples.

There are also species where sex clearly has not only reproductive functions. Bonobos are one (read Frans de Waal and Jared Diamond). Bonobos use sex as part of their social repertoire. Often where chimpanzees would use grooming, bonobos use sex. Bonobo females conceal their ovulation. The pink swelling, which female chimpanzees show only when they are about to ovulate, is present through three quarters of female bonobos' menstrual cycle. The males find them sexually attractive during most or all of their cycle. In which other primate is there concealed ovulation and sexual attraction independent of whether a female is fertile right now? Oh, right, humans. So far, the argument from function (or design) tells us that sex in humans can't be for reproduction only.

That doesn't yet tell us what the other functions are. For that we need to look at human sexual behaviour, where I am less expert. What I do know from human sexual and partner choice behaviour is that male and female sexual behaviour are, on average, in conflict. Both sexes want commitment, and both have elaborate strategies to test commitment. Human children are better off with two carers than one, and outside of a modern welfare state or the support of an extended family, single motherhood is hardly possible. Some of that commitment testing seems to happen through sex. So if we stop here, the argument from function or design should lead us to conclude that pre-marital sex (with a barrier method of contraception to prevent both pregnancy and sexually transmittted diseases) should be encouraged, so that when people finally settle down with a long term partner, they know how to choose a good partner.

If we carry on to look at how well the reproductive strategies of males and females fit with each other, we find that males are (on average) more promiscuous than females, while they want their partners to be faithful. The only partnership where the average strategies of both partners work without conflict is lesbian. The argument from function or design then leads you to support only lesbian marriages.

But perhaps we don't want to have a lot of unhappy males around. Are human males really not monogamous? That's easy to find out, even if, as you prefer, we restrict ourselves just to the anatomy. There is a correlation between relative testicle size and promiscuity. Monogamous species that only have sex for reproduction have sex only vary rarely, so don't need large testicles. Even in species with a female harem, as in gorillas, there is little sex. In chimpanzees, who are promiscuous, there is a lot more, and more still in bonobos. Humans are in between. The anatomy tells us that human males are not monogamous. So what social system of sexual relationships, should you support if you want to argue from function? Some of the functions are incompatible, so you must compromise. If you want a system where the maximum number of men contribute to the care of the children they produce, where you satisfy the children's need for stability, and if you are willing to indulge men's tendency to look for more than one partner, you end up with stable, long term polyamourous unions, with female homosexuality favoured. you should have no opinion on male homosexuality, unless you can show that homosexual men would contribute more to the general wellbeing if forced into sexual relationships with women (don't forget to add in how the women would feel about it). And remember to encourage pre-marital sex with appropriate precautions. You should also support research into reversible sterilisation. Once you have a method that works, tie everyone's tubes before they are old enough to make babies, untie them only when someone has made a positive decision to have one. That should cut the abortion rate by at least 95%.

That should resolve most of the conflicts in the design of human sexuality. Will you now advocate this programme?


She does have facts. I look forward to your response.

Last edited by Gromit on 07 Apr 2008, 1:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sorry, Jeanne. I was raving against Zendell and Parakeet. Mainly Zendell. Parakeet, at the very least, occasionally shows himself to have an ounce of integrity. Zendell has never proven himself to be anything but a freaking braindead partisan, and that's what he always will be. Parakeet, at least, has a chance to be something other than a ninny, which is really why I give him such a hard time. I actually think that getting this guy to THINK might PRODUCE something. Zendell is just a hypocrite, and he'll never be anything BUT a hypocrite.

PARAKEET! Wake up, man! This issue goes far beyond the moral status of homosexuality. There's not just one side to this. It's always wrong to disrupt people's lives over nothing but some offense to your religious beliefs. The way that the Christians were treating homosexuals before the revolution in the 60's and for a long time after was vile. It was wrong, and it was evil. Until you have given some honest examination to the evils that have been commited against homosexuals, then your views don't have any credibility whatsoever. This isn't about homosexuality. It's about the wrongs that have been commited against those who are homosexual. You will never acknowledge that, you FILTH, because your agenda doesn't have anything to do with what is or isn't moral. It's about justifying your filthy cult's violence against gays, lesbians, and transsexuals. You're trying to justify some of the most horrible crimes in human history. That's what this is about. It's about defending your pathetic cult's historical viciousness toward the gay community, and that's all it will ever be. Stop being pathetic for one minute, and try to see your behavior for what it is.

funny list. i think there should be a different #1 though. it boils down to what the whole argument is about.

"THEY'RE f*****g QUEER!"

I can't believe how iffy and preachy some of these members get when it comes to those little sex organs and the belief of what is the morally right way and morally the wrong way to use them. Sounds like listening to wolves in sheeps clothing, very suspicious.

Who does that? Even if I did, how is that a reason to do so?

So you feel amused instead of angry.

Still, using fake arguments doesn't discount the opposition. What it does is indoctrinates. That is if you actually believe the opposition has nothing to say, like as implied.

Round and round he goes again, where he stops, nobody knows.

Shh! Quiet, I'm trying to kill the thread!