Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 100

Thread: For Those Against Gay Marriage...

  1. #1
    Member Mindcrime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    3,640

    For Those Against Gay Marriage...

    Please explain, in quantifiable terms, how a homosexual marriage affects heterosexual marriages in any way. Where's the threat?

    Or better yet, explain why "traditional" one woman-one man marriages are so sacred and ethically superior. 'Cause I just don't see it.
    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. No one is entitled to their own facts.

  2. #2
    Member DansDarkSide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    West side of Buffalo
    Posts
    103
    Ok, for the sake of argument. For 1 marriage is a religious thing hence why its sacred. I'm not saying gays can't be religious, but it kinda does contradict itself, seeing as how most major religious(if not all) see it as a sin. And if you go right down to the bottom of our and all animals most basic instinct is to survive and procreate, to carry on the species.
    The tree of man was never quiet:
    Then 'twas the Roman, now 'tis I.
    - A. E. Housman

  3. #3
    Member Yankeefan2009's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,234
    Quote Originally Posted by DansDarkSide View Post
    Ok, for the sake of argument. For 1 marriage is a religious thing hence why its sacred. I'm not saying gays can't be religious, but it kinda does contradict itself, seeing as how most major religious(if not all) see it as a sin. And if you go right down to the bottom of our and all animals most basic instinct is to survive and procreate, to carry on the species.
    Exactly. Gay marriage serves no purpose. The bottom line is that people need to procreate to carry on the species, and two men or two women simply fail to do this naturally.
    "We're the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad." --Barack Obama

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    58
    Since when did it require a marriage to procreate?

  5. #5
    Member nogods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9,330
    Quote Originally Posted by Yankeefan2009 View Post
    Exactly. Gay marriage serves no purpose. The bottom line is that people need to procreate to carry on the species, and two men or two women simply fail to do this naturally.
    But one man and 12 women would be even better for procreation - so if that was the object of marriage, then polygamy would be the norm and marriage would be outlawed for people who are sterile or who don't intend to have children.

  6. #6
    Member nogods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9,330
    Quote Originally Posted by DansDarkSide View Post
    Ok, for the sake of argument. For 1 marriage is a religious thing hence why its sacred. I'm not saying gays can't be religious, but it kinda does contradict itself, seeing as how most major religious(if not all) see it as a sin. And if you go right down to the bottom of our and all animals most basic instinct is to survive and procreate, to carry on the species.
    First, the one true Christian religion, The Episcopal Church, has no qualms with homosexuals.

    Second, we don't need every man and woman to procreate to continue our species. In fact, if every man and woman did procreate our species would probably soon eliminate itself.

    Third, for those who don't follow the one true Christian religion, well, (a) you'll be sorry when you find yourself spending eternity in hell, and (b) religion does not rule our laws.

    Now excuse me, I have to go get some throwing stones.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Amherst
    Posts
    11,438
    To an earllier point, marriage for 3000+ years has been a religious sacrament and govt is supposed to sperate church and state!

    Currently, I'm 100% against gay "marriage", but am 100% for gay unions which carry EVERY right a marriage does, just a different title... Like being gay or straight! I mean this is something the left shouldn't have a problem with because they seem to have the need to label everyone as party of some group!
    "I know you guys enjoy reading my stuff because it all makes sense. "

    Dumbest post ever! Thanks for the laugh PO!

  8. #8
    Member Yankeefan2009's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Dougles View Post
    To an earllier point, marriage for 3000+ years has been a religious sacrament and govt is supposed to sperate church and state!

    Currently, I'm 100% against gay "marriage", but am 100% for gay unions which carry EVERY right a marriage does, just a different title... Like being gay or straight! I mean this is something the left shouldn't have a problem with because they seem to have the need to label everyone as party of some group!
    Many gays also feel the same way as you. This is why Elton John doesn't think being gay warrants "marriage".
    "We're the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad." --Barack Obama

  9. #9
    Member run4it's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Buffalo
    Posts
    5,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Dougles View Post
    To an earllier point, marriage for 3000+ years has been a religious sacrament and govt is supposed to sperate church and state!

    Currently, I'm 100% against gay "marriage", but am 100% for gay unions which carry EVERY right a marriage does, just a different title... Like being gay or straight! I mean this is something the left shouldn't have a problem with because they seem to have the need to label everyone as party of some group!
    Because 'Separate But Equal' always works so well...

    I'm happy to turn this around on you and have the government sanction no marriage, but rather universal "civil unions", and let the churches who bless them call them a "marriage" if they so choose.
    But your being a dick
    ~Wnyresident

  10. #10
    Member Yankeefan2009's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,234
    Quote Originally Posted by run4it View Post
    Because 'Separate But Equal' always works so well...

    I'm happy to turn this around on you and have the government sanction no marriage, but rather universal "civil unions", and let the churches who bless them call them a "marriage" if they so choose.
    Why change something that has worked for thousands of years?
    "We're the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad." --Barack Obama

  11. #11
    Member BorderBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Dougles View Post
    Currently, I'm 100% against gay "marriage", but am 100% for gay unions which carry EVERY right a marriage does, just a different title... Like being gay or straight! I mean this is something the left shouldn't have a problem with because they seem to have the need to label everyone as party of some group!
    I agree. As others have stated "marriage" is a religious sacrament (sacrement?) which is concurrently sanctioned by the state as a "contract." Which is why we must "sue" for divorce with the state and why some religions (Catholics) don't accept divorce at all.

    We speak of "slippery slope" arguments often in these cases. Let's look at some of the slippery slopes we have slipped down so far.

    Gay and Lesbian "couples" can currently adopt children. Children are a doctrine in most religious marriages, the very reason for sex in the Catholic faith, no? Gay and Lesbian couples can even make babies of their own, certainly not by each other, but by "other means."

    But they have no rights to the benefits that the STATE provides to married men and women, tax benefits, health insurance family coverage. In many places a hospital cannot legally provide information on your health status to your partner. (yes, some of these have change, some have not and many could be the "slippery slope." and some have the the subject of lawsuits and public rhetoric)

    I am against gay marriage as well because even as a lapsed Catholic (the indoctrination is strong), I still have enough respect for the faith that I would oppose the day when a gay couple would want to, no, force their way into a Catholic Church to say their vows, when the faith still opposes the relationship (well the "act.") as sin.

    Civil unions? A relationship sanctioned by the state as a contract with the same benefits afforded to men and women sanctioned by the state. I have no problem with that either.





    b.b.
    Last edited by BorderBob; August 9th, 2010 at 10:14 AM.

  12. #12
    Member run4it's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Buffalo
    Posts
    5,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Yankeefan2009 View Post
    Why change something that has worked for thousands of years?
    So we should go back to polygamy...and why not slavery while we're at it? It worked well for thousands of years, right...at least in Biblical lore?
    But your being a dick
    ~Wnyresident

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    7,769
    Quote Originally Posted by run4it View Post
    So we should go back to polygamy...and why not slavery while we're at it? It worked well for thousands of years, right...at least in Biblical lore?
    We currently have it with illegal immigrants doing our cheap work for us.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Amherst
    Posts
    11,438
    Quote Originally Posted by run4it View Post
    Because 'Separate But Equal' always works so well...

    I'm happy to turn this around on you and have the government sanction no marriage, but rather universal "civil unions", and let the churches who bless them call them a "marriage" if they so choose.
    I think that's exactly what i was trying to say!

    As for "separate but equal", If i beat a gay man because he's gay, i get 5 years extra in jail, but if he beats me because i'm straight, he get's nothing extra...
    "I know you guys enjoy reading my stuff because it all makes sense. "

    Dumbest post ever! Thanks for the laugh PO!

  15. #15
    Member Linda_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    God's Own Country ... the Southern Tier
    Posts
    8,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Dougles View Post
    To an earllier point, marriage for 3000+ years has been a religious sacrament and govt is supposed to sperate church and state!
    No, it hasn't, so stop making up bull manure based on your ignorance of history.

    In the ancient world, marriage was a societal institution that provided for familial supports and inheritance. Marriage for the Greeks and Romans was frequently a political and economic union. The ancient Hebrews introduced the idea of Yaweh blessing marriages, but marriage remained a civil institution to guarantee societal order, child rearing, inheritance, etc. Marriage as a "sacrament" only involved the Christian religion, but like the Hebrews, Christians didn't ignore the civil implications of marriage. The religous aspects were just added on, especially in Medieval Europe where the Church was the only institution equipped to produce and maintain records.

    Did Henry the Second of England marry Eleanor of Aquitaine because he was madly in love with her -- or because her wealth made him the most formidable ruler in Europe?

    Did Henry the Eighth of England break with the Catholic Church and divorce his first Queen, Catharine of Aragon, because he tired of her -- or because he needed a male heir to the throne?

    Marriage has always been about societal or civil order. If marriage was so much about religion, why did even peasant women have to have dowries to marry in almost all European societies well into the 19th century? Among the ruling classes, marriage has always been about dynasties, politics, and economics going back to ancient Egypt. The religious aspect of marriage has overlaid that in some societies, but the civil aspect remains.

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Approve gay marriage
    By kernwatch in forum Albany NY State budget Capital and Governor Andrew Cuomo
    Replies: 170
    Last Post: January 23rd, 2010, 07:55 AM
  2. Paterson says gay marriage bill will pass in NY
    By kernwatch in forum Albany NY State budget Capital and Governor Andrew Cuomo
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: October 23rd, 2009, 07:41 PM
  3. Paterson To Introduce Same-Sex Marriage Bill
    By steven in forum Morning Breakfast - Breaking News
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: April 14th, 2009, 10:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •