Homosexual marriage don't make sense

[Mystic_of_God]

For homosexual advocates: sorry for putting this bluntly.
For homosexual opposers: sorry for preaching to the choir.

There is no logical argument for gay marriage. NONE!

The reason we have benefits for married couples is because of children. Since children cost money, benefits only make sense.

To give the same benefits to a relationship without the possibility of children has no reasoning behind it.

Hence it is stupid.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

For homosexual advocates: sorry for putting this bluntly.
For homosexual opposers: sorry for preaching to the choir.

There is no logical argument for gay marriage. NONE!

The reason we have benefits for married couples is because of children. Since children cost money, benefits only make sense.

To give the same benefits to a relationship without the possibility of children has no reasoning behind it.

Hence it is stupid.

Actually, many same-gender couples adopt (often many children who get passed over by other people). Also, it is not just about children, but it is about legal couple rights. There are many legal rights (visitation, inheritance, decision making for spouse, etc…) which only come from a legal marriage document. That is how the legal marriage constructs are in the US and many other countries.

 

[Harmony1988]

For homosexual advocates: sorry for putting this bluntly.
For homosexual opposers: sorry for preaching to the choir.

There is no logical argument for gay marriage. NONE!

The reason we have benefits for married couples is because of children. Since children cost money, benefits only make sense.

To give the same benefits to a relationship without the possibility of children has no reasoning behind it.

Hence it is stupid.

Please, please, please don’t go on other forums and say this stuff. This is exactly the kind of malformed statements that we have people going away from the faith. Yes, I believe logically, that gay marriages are non-sensical, but not the way you have put it.

That isn’t really much of an argument.

 

[BillP]

The reason we have benefits for married couples is because of children. Since children cost money, benefits only make sense.

To give the same benefits to a relationship without the possibility of children has no reasoning behind it.

Hence it is stupid.

YEAH! That must be why we don’t let sterile couples, or old couples get married.

Oh wait…

 

[Mystic_of_God]

YEAH! That must be why we don’t let sterile couples, or old couples get married.

Oh wait…

I will grant you this, my arguement is weak. Rather weak.

But it is a rant. Please allow me to vent.

Ignore it.

Please.

I suppose I’m just riled at this.

 

[Exalt]

The reason we have benefits for married couples is because of children. Since children cost money, benefits only make sense.

To give the same benefits to a relationship without the possibility of children has no reasoning behind it.

First of all, gay people can adopt children. So there is a possibility there.

Second of all, there are many legal aspects of marriage:

Hospital Visitation Rights - Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions. Same sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured partner in the hospital.
Health insurance - Same-sex couples have no automatic right to visit one another in the hospital or make medical decisions for one another. Having medical power of attorney documents may help, but there’s no guarantee and hospital will recognize those documents.
Spousal Privilege - Same-sex couples have no right to refuse to testify against one another. So everything you say, write, email, fax, etc. to your partner is admissible in court and can be used against. you.
Inheritance rights - Same-sex couples have no automatic rights to inheritance in the absence of a will.
Family leave - Same-sex couples have no legally protected right to unpaid leave to care for an ill spouse.
Pensions - Most pension plans only pay survivor benefits to a legal spouse. Same-sex partners get no pension support for surviving partners.
Nursing homes - Same-sex couples have no legal right to live together in a nursing home and spend their final years together.
Home protection - The laws that protect married couples from being forced to sell their homes to cover high nursing home bills don’t apply to same-sex couples. A same-sex partner can be forced to sell, and forced out of the home to satisfy nursing home bills if he/she lives in the home but does not own it.
Retirement savings - Married people can roll over a deceased spouses 401(k) into an IRA without paying taxes. Same-sex partners must withdraw everything, pay income taxes on it, and lose the tax deferral benefits.
Taxes - Marries spouses may inherit unlimited property from a deceased spouse, tax free. Same-sex partners pay taxes on any amount over set state and federal limits.
Social Security benefits - Unless you’re married, you get no Social Security from a dead spouse. If you have kids, they will get it and you may be custodian of it until they’re adults.

(Source)

 

[Holly3278]

Actually, many same-gender couples adopt (often many children who get passed over by other people). Also, it is not just about children, but it is about legal couple rights. There are many legal rights (visitation, inheritance, decision making for spouse, etc…) which only come from a legal marriage document. That is how the legal marriage constructs are in the US and many other countries.

Exactly! And if you ask me, homosexual couples deserve to have the same legal rights as other couples.

 

[Newbie2]

Exactly! And if you ask me, homosexual couples deserve to have the same legal rights as other couples.

Unmarried heterosexual couples included? What then constitutes a “couple”? Commitment? What constitutes commitment?

A pandora’s box, when one gets away from Church teachings.

 

[Holly3278]

Unmarried heterosexual couples included? What then constitutes a “couple”? Commitment? What constitutes commitment?

A pandora’s box, when one gets away from Church teachings.

Hmmm, I’ve never thought of it like that before. I believe that unmarried couples should have rights as well if they want them.

 

[Newbie2]

Hmmm, I’ve never thought of it like that before. I believe that unmarried couples should have rights as well if they want them.

How about two unmarried brothers, sisters or a brother-sister (platonic) “couple”?

 

[Holly3278]

How about two unmarried brothers, sisters or a brother-sister (platonic) “couple”?

Umm, incest is wrong as is shown in the Bible. Therefore, I cannot support legal rights for incestuous relationships.

 

[Newbie2]

Umm, incest is wrong as is shown in the Bible. Therefore, I cannot support legal rights for incestuous relationships.

Go look up platonic.

 

[Holly3278]

Go look up platonic.

I just did but I don’t see your point.

 

[Newbie2]

I just did but I don’t see your point.

OK, my point is that why put a limit when it comes to what we might call “rights” or ''fairness" in how society treats couples? If we’re going to say that we should treat homosexual couples like married heterosexual couples in a societal sense (tax advantages and all the other stuff that’s been previously listed), why wouldn’t we include, say, two siblings that decide to live together? Or even two friends that decided to live together? In other words, what defines a “couple” and why should they be treated “more specially” (bad grammar, I know ) than two people that just want to live together, regardless of the basis of their relationship?

See what I’m saying?

 

[Holly3278]

OK, my point is that why put a limit when it comes to what we might call “rights” or ''fairness" in how society treats couples? If we’re going to say that we should treat homosexual couples like married heterosexual couples in a societal sense (tax advantages and all the other stuff that’s been previously listed), why wouldn’t we include, say, two siblings that decide to live together? Or even two friends that decided to live together? In other words, what defines a “couple” and why should they be treated “more specially” (bad grammar, I know ) than two people that just want to live together, regardless of the basis of their relationship?

See what I’m saying?

Yes, I see what you’re saying. I guess somewhere along the line you have to define what a couple is. I would say that a couple is two adults who love each other and who are not in an incestuous relationship or otherwise illegal relationship.

 

[Newbie2]

Yes, I see what you’re saying. I guess somewhere along the line you have to define what a couple is. I would say that a couple is two adults who love each other and who are not in an incestuous relationship or otherwise illegal relationship.

Good start. But there’s still those who would argue against that definition; why not include incestious relationships if we include homosexual relationships?

 

[Holly3278]

Good start. But there’s still those who would argue against that definition; why not include incestious relationships if we include homosexual relationships?

Because incestuous relationships are against the law.

 

[feetxxxl]

its called seperation of church and state. the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

homosexuals have not been found wanting in any sector of society compared to heterosexuals. they are not less a brother,doctor, counselor, friend, pastor, soldier…etc

homosexuals bond out of mutual love, attraction, respect, devotion, and trust for a shared committed life together, the same as heterosexuals.

and guess what …scripture has never said homosexuality was a sin.

 

[ForwardProgress]

and guess what …scripture has never said homosexuality was a sin.

Ahem:

“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

Also:

Passage Romans 1:25-27:
25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Sounds to me that male-male copulating is a very grave sin.

 

[Maxply]

Homosexual acts are sins.

The concept of homosexual marriage is a distortion of marriage.