Top 17 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

Post Reply New Topic

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").

a: i'm not griff.

b. how do extreme examples illustrate your point? all it does is to insult the topic at hand. i mean all you've done is bring up points that no one else has even thought to discuss nor are any of them especially coming to ahead anytime soon. so what i guess i'm trying to say is that it doesn't illustrate anything...it just implies* that you think of gay marriage on the same level as necrophilia, incest, and pedophilia.


*implies is the operative word here. it insults those who are pro-gay marriage (the legal issue, not church issue) and it gives the ignorant people another stupid thing to say. and yes, it is stupid because if you apply even the most basic of logic, you can see how those issues cannot be argued anywhere near the same as gay marriage.

Amen, brother!

Seperation of church and state is a good thing. It is a very good thing. We do not want to confuse between between the two spheres of influence. But keeping them clean of each other is damned near impossible. When the church becomes the state, the Taliban appears.

well the problem is that many religious leaders fear irrelevance and so they try and force such "hot button" issues with their congregation and they encourage ignorance and they preach in vague but very emotional terms on issues that are very specific and very well defined (like gay marriage and then implying pedophilia).

Okay, fair enough. I'm just trying to provide some support for gays being able to marry. How many straight guys are willing to say what I'm saying? As far as rainbow supporters go, I'm a commodity.

Religious leaders are right to fear irrelevance. The body of believers form the basis of ecclesiastical power, and can push any issue on their clergy at any time.

Er, I got mixed up. I didn't mean I supported Zendell, I meant I supported the other person, the gay person/people he was attacking, possibly people like you CityAsylum (assuming you are homosexual). My bad, I made a mistake. Zendell is just a hate-ridden megalomaniac, like many sheep, who believes it is their "god-given right" to belittle and oppress others who are different from themselves.
However, this same mentality is also present on the left wing too though, just on the other extreme. "Political Correctness" is often just racism against whites, or sexism against males, etc. (chock full of unfair double standards based on things clearly out of our control today, things that happened over 200 yrs ago). I haven't witnessed any gay hate groups trying to attack heteros, but I have seen radical feminist groups that are heavy on man-hating, and black and hispanic "pride" groups that are centered on racism against whites.
I just try to call things down the middle though, I try to represent everyone equally through my perspective. "Liberal" and "conservative" labels just restrict individual thought and keeps people divided in ignorance. Liberals are biased against majorities, conservatives are biased against minorities. At the end of the day, we've all just got to get along, stop fighting one another, and work together. Let the past go, it'll only hold us back from our greater potential as a species. We need to look at the present and the future. That is my greatest hopes and aspirations for mankind, though sadly I know this will fall on def ears.

Last edited by snake321 on 10 Apr 2008, 2:24 pm, edited 4 times in total.

If you hate gay people you are gay.

Thanks. I didn't write that post, however, out of picking any sides. That's the same oppinion and view point that I started with, period. And I also thanked you, Greyhound for being one of the people who had the balls to actualy reply with what the thread was meant for.

Heh, I was wondering about that . . .

Don't be so sure, snake.

Not necessarily, although it's very common.

Hatred of gays is a pretty brilliant cover for repressed homosexuality. It would not suprise me if Pastor Fred Phelps turned out to have a raging case of Gay.

Ya, and why was this posted in the PPR area? Is debate welcome? I'm confused.

because it has to do with the political issue of whether homosexuals should be allowed to enter into the legal contract of marriage or not.




always! unfortunately, pointing out fallacies on the con side seems to just result in circular arguments with no real reasoning behind their decision and explanation on how it affects society (afterall, we're supposed to be talking law here, not scripture).






you've established this for us many times in many many other threads dealing with evolution, gay marriage, the middle east, and maybe some other things i've missed (or maybe not).

I was joking, suggesting that nobody should impose gay people something as "horrible" as marriage.
Although I was kidding, most marriages really do suck =P