Why Is Gay Marriage Wrong?

[martha]

Gay ppl can't get "married" but can have a long term committed relationship as married ppl do. Nobody in this thread is objecting to that.

That said:

1- I don't think the main reason people get married is to "celebrate their commitment to one another" it's one of the reasons, apparently you do as well as most secularists I suppose think it's a main reason -it appears based on yours and others posts.

2-It will be interesting to see once gay committed relationships become legalized to track their success rate compared to the "bigoted" married crowd.


Get to me once the data starts to trickle in and we may have something to chat about.

thanks-
<>

You still haven't given any reasons except the dictionary.

 

[Irvine511]

i can give secular arguments as to why separate-but-equal institutions like "civil unions" have problems, but i cannot give one about marriage equality.

it is the only fair thing to do.

 

[' Bleuart]

The usual non-religious argument raised here, though I don't tend to agree with it, is that children raised by gay parents could be more likely to be bullied.

Yes, that's the reason.
A child raised by a homosexual couple would be discriminated and exposed to ridicule , becouse like we all know.. kids are cruel.. adults worse.

If people were tolerant, if everyone could respect different options, everything would be different, unfortunately most of the thoughts of our world are 'limited'.

 

[martha]

Yes, that's the reason.
A child raised by a homosexual couple would be discriminated and exposed to ridicule , becouse like we all know.. kids are cruel.. adults worse.

Are you saying this is a legitimate reason for continuing to outlaw gay marriage?

 

[Diemen]

Yes, that's the reason.
A child raised by a homosexual couple would be discriminated and exposed to ridicule , becouse like we all know.. kids are cruel.. adults worse.

If people were tolerant, if everyone could respect different options, everything would be different, unfortunately most of the thoughts of our world are 'limited'.

Go back a few years and that quote might look like this:

Yes, that's the reason.
A child born to an interracial couple would be discriminated and exposed to ridicule , becouse like we all know.. kids are cruel.. adults worse.

If people were tolerant, if everyone could respect different options, everything would be different, unfortunately most of the thoughts of our world are 'limited'.

 

[Dreadsox]

It is a wonder that my cousin has survived to the 37 years old. It is a wonder that he has now married and has children.

He apparently survived being raised by two lesbians.

Apparently their relationship of being together, loving each other for longer than any of my parents ten marriages means squat.

 

[VintagePunk]

Varitek would be someone to ask about that.

I don't agree with that argument either, I think it's stupid. Kids are gonna get bullied no matter what. It's almost like saying people shouldn't have children with disabilities because they are more likely to be bullied. Kids look for any excuse to bully others these days.

I had never read Varitek's thread till last night. Thanks so much for linking to it, Mia.

This should be required reading for every anti-gay marriage/gays adopting/gays as parents poster in this forum.

Kudos to Varitek, her willingness to share, and her eloquence.

 

[' Bleuart]

I said that that was one of the reasons , but not that i'm agreed with her.

 

[' Bleuart]

Go back a few years and that quote might look like this:


Quote:
Yes, that's the reason.
A child born to an interracial couple would be discriminated and exposed to ridicule , becouse like we all know.. kids are cruel.. adults worse.

If people were tolerant, if everyone could respect different options, everything would be different, unfortunately most of the thoughts of our world are 'limited'. [/B]

From bad to worse ..

 

[Diemen]

But is it an argument against gay marriage or against bigotry?

 

[diamond]

Many non white people feel used by those who try and make a allegorial genetic argument in favor of homosexuality.

One nationally renowned black pastor even said he would rather ride with the KKK before he'd support Gay marriage, and his message is stop using he and his people-to advance an agenda.

Rev. Gregory Daniels
By Brentin Mock


CHICAGO — The Rev. Gregory Daniels walks into the South Side's famous Dixie Kitchen restaurant wearing a full-length chocolate mink coat and glass frames the icy blue color of toothpaste gel.
He knows why he's been asked for an interview and immediately delves into the sizzling declaration reported in The New York Times in February 2004: "If the KKK opposes gay marriage, I would ride with them."

It was quite a statement for a black man.

Despite what Daniels now describes as a mere "parable," the president of United Voters for Truth and Change (UVTC) says he does not hate homosexuals. After all, if it weren't for a few kind twists of fate, he says, he, too, could have turned out gay.

When he was a teenager, Daniels says, an older man repeatedly propositioned him with money for sex. The young Daniels was broke at the time, so he seriously considered the indecent proposal. His saving grace, he says, was a job offer that solved Daniels' financial problems. He told the older man to stop calling him.

That wasn't Daniels' only rejection of homosexuality, he says. As a child growing up among nine brothers and one sister, he usually chose to play with his sister and her paper dolls, rather than horsing around with his brothers. In high school, he adds, he was teased by the guys because he cooked and cleaned house for his mother.

One day, Daniels says he told his mother, "People are thinking I'm gonna be a sissy."

"Well, are you?" she replied.

At that point, Daniels explains, he chose not to be.

Today, Daniels says he doesn't believe that a "special interest" group — men who he believes simply adopted homosexuality — should be entitled to marriage rights. After all, he has been a heterosexual husband of 25 years, a man who "chose" to go straight.

Today, Gregory Daniels is a key player in the religiously based black anti-gay movement. As head of UVTC, his own religious right voter education organization, he has traveled around America, from the Midwest to Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal. He has made his way to Washington, D.C., to confront and lobby lawmakers on issues related to homosexuality.

And he has campaigned to bring more blacks into the Republican fold. During the last presidential campaign, he wrote on Beliefnet.com, a religious news website: "This is our mission — to help President George W. Bush change the wind of destruction to a new wind of freedom and justice for all."

The church that Daniels used to pastor, Greater Shiloh Missionary Baptist, sits on a block on Chicago's South Side just across the street from one of relatively few still-standing high-rise public housing projects in America. The ground is littered with empty liquor bottles and patrolled by drug-addicted, drug-peddling teens, and an atmosphere of despair pervades the place. But Daniels doesn't stress drugs, alcohol and gangs as damaging to inner-city African Americans.

Homosexuality, he tells the Intelligence Report, "is what has destroyed the black community."

Now, I ask you, is the Rev a bigot?

Or will you resort to name calling or claim he is unlearned and your views are superior?

<>

 

[Diemen]

What a crap article. Honestly. You think that some guy propositioning you for sex for money is going to turn you gay?

Yep, It's all just a choice not to be a "sissy."

And yes, he is a bigot.

 

[VintagePunk]

Now, I ask you, is the Rev a bigot?

Or will you resort to name calling or claim he is unlearned and your views are superior?

<>

My gut reaction to that article? He's totally closeted and in denial.

 

[diamond]

My gut reaction to that article? He's totally closeted and in denial.

i will ignore the predictable posters who result to name calling.

fresh take, VPunk.
i turned down money for sex with men a few times in my youth, what's that make me?

discretionary?
choosey?
prigish?
a bigot?



<>

 

[VintagePunk]

i will ignore the predictable posters who result to name calling.

fresh take, VPunk.
i turned down money for sex with men a few times in my youth, what's that make me?

discretionary?
choosey?
prigish?
a bigot?



<>

What makes me think that is mainly that he strongly implies homosexuality is a choice, and that he opted for heterosexuality. Sexual orientation is not a choice; we don't get to choose a or b, we simply are what we are. That he made a choice at all tells me that he probably is gay, but has been suppressing it all this time. Never, at any point in my life, did I have to stop and think "gee, the straights seem like they have a great thing going, I think I'll join them." I just was.

To a lesser extent, the story about the older man sets off alarm bells, too. Granted, there probably are some straight people who engage in gay sexual activity out of economic desperation, but the fact that he held the man at bay while considering it a possibility up until he got a job, along with what I mentioned in the first paragraph screams "gay man in denial" to me.

 

[Diemen]

i will ignore the predictable posters who result to name calling.

Tell me diamond, how is he not a bigot?

Given all that has plagued African American communities in America, this man has chosen to blame the downfall of the black community on homosexuality. That's such a far-fetched notion that it's not just bigotted, it's ignorant. I would like to see anyone, anyone find some solid evidence to back his claim up.

 

[diamond]

Tell me diamond, how is he not a bigot?

Given all that has plagued African American communities in America, this man has chosen to blame the downfall of the black community on homosexuality. That's such a far-fetched notion that it's not just bigotted, it's ignorant. I would like to see anyone, anyone find some solid evidence to back his claim up.

By suggesting that because he doesn't agree that skin pigmentation and sexual orientation are the same thing doesn't make him a bigot, it means his views and beliefs systems are different, in which he is entitled.




I think he's aggravated that he feels some in the black community are being "duped" by this ideology.

Other sub groups are starting to speak out, so to avoid this turning into a timber box and raging fire my suggestion is this:

keep the definition of marriage what it is -a union either religious or secular between a man and a woman.

and people who want to divert from that and be joined as one can have the word "matrimony".

gay-matrimony, malematrimony, femalematrimony. maleholymatrimony
etc etc.

For census reporting and alot of other reasons this could keep things orderly and a win win for all parties.

There's your solution, but of course this won't sit well for some as it's funner and more exciting to argue than reach agreement.

Rack up those post counts FYMinders.



<>

 

[martha]

So, the only two reasons anyone has coughed up are:

1. The dictionary says what marriage is and we shouldn't change it. (and DB was serious)

2. Won't somebody think of the children! (and those two posters were just bringing it up)

And we've been treated once again to stories about missed income opportunities (like those have anything to do with gays getting married), and articles by terrified "straight" men about how the gays are to blame for _________.


So much for secular arguments against gay marriage.

Ok now.

 

[DrTeeth]

So much for secular arguments against gay marriage.

Ok now.

I think we've had this debate more than I care to remember, and it usually boils down to emotionally insecure boys objecting to something 'icky' joining their exclusive club.

We've had same-sex marriages for years now, and everybody's doing fine over here.

 

[martha]

We've had same-sex marriages for years now, and everybody's doing fine over here.

You lie.

 

[diamond]

So, the only two reasons anyone has coughed up are:

1. The dictionary says what marriage is and we shouldn't change it. (and DB was serious)

2. Won't somebody think of the children! (and those two posters were just bringing it up)

And we've been treated once again to stories about missed income opportunities (like those have anything to do with gays getting married), and articles by terrified "straight" men about how the gays are to blame for _________.


So much for secular arguments against gay marriage.

Ok now.

See my census reason.

Don't call it marrige because that denotes something else.

So the Govt can track all subgroups fairly (who are bethrothed-straightly or gayly) and be sure all ppl receive benefits equally this way there would be automatic checks and balances for sub groups.


How's that for my secular progressive open minded some what religious govt loving agency folk?

<>

 

[martha]

Don't call it marrige because that denotes something else.

What?

 

[the iron horse]

Why is homosexual* marriage wrong?

First>>>

The Flintstones had a gay* ole time!

(my small part in trying to recover the word to it's original meaning)


Why?

I believe the scriptures teach that it is a sin.
It is against the natural order of a woman and man raising a child together.

It is wrong.

That is what I believe.

 

[diamond]

What?

Man and a Woman.

<>

 

[yolland]

I don't think the main reason people get married is to "celebrate their commitment to one another" it's one of the reasons, apparently you do as well as most secularists I suppose think it's a main reason -it appears based on yours and others posts.

What would you say is the main reason?

 

[martha]

I believe the scriptures teach that it is a sin.
It is against the natural order of a woman and man raising a child together.

It is wrong.

That is what I believe.

That ain't secular.

 

[martha]

Man and a Woman.

Definitions change.

 

[Irvine511]

I believe the scriptures teach that it is a sin.
It is against the natural order of a woman and man raising a child together.

It is wrong.

That is what I believe.

could you unpack *why* it is wrong? could you tell me where the bible talks about gay marriage? could you tell me why it is not wrong, then, to eat shellfish and to have sex with your wife while she is having her period?

i just want to know. because it seems the selectivity with which the solemn, holier-than-thou "it is wrong/that is what i believe" really only applies when we'd like to defend the indefensible.

as for children ... that's such a simplistic understanding of what goes into a family that it doesn't seem based in reality whatsoever. how are two gay people any different than two straight people who choose not to have children together? is that equally unnatural?

as for diamond's example -- it really doesn't surprise me that straight black men would blame gay black men for their shortcomings. after all, white people blame Mexicans for things, why would black people be any more exempt from scapegoating. and many conservative white people draw a sense of superiority from notions of American-ness, that they somehow liberated France in 1945 and personally put a man on the moon, and so why wouldn't some black people draw a false sense of pride out of not being gay?

wildly disappointed by the anti-marriage equality folks.

this all you got?

 

[martha]

It is against the natural order of a woman and man raising a child together.

So is divorce then. Let's outlaw that.

 

[BVS]

Why is homosexual* marriage wrong?

First>>>

The Flintstones had a gay* ole time!

(my small part in trying to recover the word to it's original meaning)


Why?

I believe the scriptures teach that it is a sin.
It is against the natural order of a woman and man raising a child together.

It is wrong.

That is what I believe.

Not only is this disappointing in the sense that you don't quite grasp the bible, but it's also VERY disappointing that you completely dismiss your libertarian views for your own bigotry...