I think gay marriage should be legal. Is that wrong?

[TK421]

Do I believe that gay marriage is okay? No. But why? Because it goes against my religious beliefs. However, I don’t think it’s fair to say, “This goes against MY religion, therefore, nobody can practice it.” And this isn’t like abortion. Abortion is murder, which is why it should be illegal. But gay marriage is a sexual sin, where both people are choosing to partake. I mean, premarital sex is also a sexual sin, and is just as bad as homosexuality. But nobody protests against that, or wants to ban that. Almost everybody will agree that premarital sex should not be illegal. So why should gay marriage be?

Premarital sex has no form of legal status. You don’t go to a government office to get papers so that you can fornicate in private with your high school sweetheart. People just do it. Opposition to the legal recognition of gay marriage is a non-negotiable that sons & daughters of the Church do not have liberty to dissent from.

Laws that undermine the conjugal relationship within traditional marriage are an official way of harming society and devaluing the vocation of marriage, which is the procreation and healthy nourishing of children within stable, happy homes. In fact, marriage is not understood as a vocation by many people. It’s a glorified friendship with a fancy word attached to it + sex, which really isn’t in any way different to how their relationship was prior to getting a marriage certificate.

It’s easy to become intimidated on the gay marriage debate because of how quickly it gained support in the 90s and 00s, but don’t be. The West and its reformists values are running off of momentum and are already showing signs of fatigue and decay at the cosmopolitan level (even if internally within a handful of countries it doesn’t look that way), and it’s going to lose in the long run. Evangelical Orthodoxy has endured, fought, and KO’d empires from the Romans to the Soviets.

 

[gmx2014]

I would love to know how gay marriage is a detriment to society and to children.

Because homosexuality is now a cultural atmosphere, and a social choice. When it’s popular, “in” and “cool”, and people want a popular social life, gay is the choice of the day! Gay is the choice to make! Because it’s popular. Because it’s cool. Because it’s fashionable.

I know people getting bullied into being gay, when they’re not. It. makes. me. ANGRY.

 

[white_sheep]

I guess I look at it like this. If people are going to put so much effort into protesting homosexuality and gay “marriage”,

Who does? You’re just making things up that don’t exist. It’s the gays who are doing all the protesting and raising the issue.

then those same people should also put the same amount of effort into protesting premarital sex.

I’m sorry, what? Are fornicators taking to the streets demanding that the government give their behavior approval?

 

[holyrood]

Not just tax benefits, but medical decisions, hospital visitation, and survivorship/next of kin rights.

I get very tired of the hospital visitation thing. My ex-husband did security in a hospital. They didn’t care who went up to visit, as long as there was no danger or legal necessity to protect the patient from someone.

 

[EasterJoy]

Not just tax benefits, but medical decisions, hospital visitation, and survivorship/next of kin rights.

I had some sympathy for this argument, until the gay lobby in Oregon rejected giving all adult couples not currently eligible to marry access to the same package of benefits. They didn’t want that–that is, to give the same rights to adults in mutual care who were not sexual partners. They want the same status *as sexual partners *as heterosexual partners get. They don’t want the “right to love each other.” They want to imitate marriage.

 

[white_sheep]

I would really like to know when the last time was that people took to the streets and protested homosexuality.

 

[on_the_hill]

I"m feeling very oppositional this evening. But I can’t help it. I was born this way.

The more I read posts against gay marriage, the more I do this:

I don’t care. Let 'em marry.

 

[white_sheep]

I had some sympathy for this argument, until the gay lobby in Oregon rejected giving all adult couples not currently eligible to marry access to the same package of benefits. They didn’t want that–that is, to give the same rights to adults in mutual care who were not sexual partners. They want the same status *as sexual partners *as heterosexual partners get. They don’t want the “right to love each other.” They want to imitate marriage.

Right. They want approval. They want to be told it is ok and not a sin.

They use those other issues as cannon fodder. Like hospital visitation. Hospitals don’t check marriage certificates. They let anyone in. And why should they need benefits at work? The purpose of that whole setup is because one spouse is going to be unemployed or underemployed most of the time to take care of the children produced in that marriage.

 

[thewanderer]

I guess I look at it like this. If people are going to put so much effort into protesting homosexuality and gay “marriage”, then those same people should also put the same amount of effort into protesting premarital sex. They should also be protesting pornography. I don’t think it should be looked at like, “Well, at least premarital sex is between a man and woman.” or, “Well, at least porn is just something you watch.” That’s like saying, “Well, this guy’s a killer, but he only kills men. At least he doesn’t kill women and children”. Either way, killing is wrong, just like either way, sexual sins are wrong. Once again, I believe that homosexuality is a sin, and I definitely don’t agree with the people who choose to partake in it. I also don’t agree with the people who have premarital sex, or the people who look at porn. But, if that stuffs not getting attention, then why is homosexuality? Why should being gay be illegal, yet this other stuff shouldn’t be?

carlj, your missing the main point, that being that if you reserve marriage to hetersexuals premarital sex, pornography, lust, and homosexual sex will be on exactly the same level. All are immoral yet all are legal. The question is whether the government should give people benefits simply because they have homosexual sex. I am just as much against that as I am against the government giving people benefits for having pre-marital sex or for watching porn. When we talk about “same-sex marriage” we aren’t talking about whether homosexual sexual relationships will be permissible in our society, we are talking about whether our legal government should give a certain group of people benefits (some at the expense of other tax-payers). It seems to me that very obviously, the first question to ask is what legitimate governmental purpose exists for expanding certain benefits to include same-sex romantic relationships. Since homosexual sex, premarital sex, pornography etc all currently have the exact same standing with respect to the government it is useless to appeal to them, we are talking about asking the government to expand benefits to a particular group of people, now, if the government is going to expand these benefits (especially since other citizens will pay for them with their taxes) It is more than fair to ask for a legitimate governmental reason to give benefits to that group of people. So, since you wish to argue for the government giving benefits to those in romantic same-sex realtionships, I must ask you, what do you consider to be the legitimate governmental reason for the government to give benefits to those in homosexual same-sex relationships?

I had some sympathy for this argument, until the gay lobby in Oregon rejected giving all adult couples not currently eligible to marry access to the same package of benefits. They didn’t want that–that is, to give the same rights to adults in mutual care who were not sexual partners. They want the same status *as sexual partners *as heterosexual partners get. They don’t want the “right to love each other.” They want to imitate marriage.

This is my largest problem with those who argue for same-sex marriage. There is no good reason for the government to give people benefits because they have sex. There are certain benefits that make sense for people who are committed to sharing their life together (whether they be romantically involved or not) and there are certain benefits that make sense as an encouragement for people with kids to make their relationship work so that the state can have productive well-adjusted citizens in the future. But neither of these line up with the thoughts of most people who argue for SSM, either argue for something that has nothing to do with sex, argue for something whose purpose is for the kids, or argue for the state to have both, but don’t argue for some weird mix between the two that ends up failing to fulfill either purpose.

 

[Sparkythedog]

I would love to know how gay marriage is a detriment to society and to children.

1. A gay person getting married has NO impact on your marriage, your family, or your life. If you are against gay marriage, don’t marry a gay person!
2. I would love to know how gay marriage is a detriment to children. How is ANY committed relationship where two people want to love a child a detriment to that child? Answer: it’s not.

Two intellectually disabled individuals who are competent enough to consent can marry and reproduce, which certainly would be a detriment to a child, and yet two people of sound mind and body are somehow less capable of raising a child?

The state is not forcing churches to marry ANYONE. Religion should have no place in affording legal protection to a committed couple- gay or straight.

And this whole argument of “we must make straight people get married and have sex to keep our population up” argument is complete bollocks. There have been and always will be infertile couples, or couples who are child-free by choice.

There are 143 million orphans in the world. Until they all have a home there’s no reason that we need to be worried about humans going extinct.

 

[holyrood]

The question is whether the government should give people benefits simply because they have homosexual sex. I am just as much against that as I am against the government giving people benefits for having pre-marital sex or for watching porn.

…So, since you wish to argue for the government giving benefits to those in romantic same-sex realtionships, I must ask you, what do you consider to be the legitimate governmental reason for the government to give benefits to those in homosexual same-sex relationships?

There is no good reason for the government to give people benefits because they have sex.

Very well said.

Giving people benefits for having gay sex…what in the world have we come to, America?

 

[Iron_Chariot]

All we’re talking about with gay marriage is the paperwork you fill out at the courthouse and the benefits that it comes with. The same paperwork every couple has to fill out for their marriage to be recognized as legally valid, regardless of whether you married in a church or not.
That’s it. In a secular government where all citizens are to be granted equal rights (marriage has been viewed as a civil right since the 60s when bans on interracial marriages were struck down) and protections under the Constitution, this should really be a non-issue.

Since we don’t pay fathers dowries of livestock in exchange for our brides as property, I’d say we’re several centuries too late on the redefining marriage thing.

 

[thewanderer]

All we’re talking about with gay marriage is the paperwork you fill out at the courthouse and the benefits that it comes with. The same paperwork every couple has to fill out for their marriage to be recognized as legally valid, regardless of whether you married in a church or not.
That’s it. In a secular government where all citizens are to be granted equal rights (marriage has been viewed as a civil right since the 60s when bans on interracial marriages were struck down) and protections under the Constitution, this should really be a non-issue.

Since we don’t pay fathers dowries of livestock in exchange for our brides as property, I’d say we’re several centuries too late on the redefining marriage thing.

I have three questions for you.

1. Do you believe this civil paperwork and benefits should be available for siblings and other relatives (mother and son or mother and daughter).
2. If you answered no to question 1, why did you do so. If this civil paperwork and benefits is a right then why would you discriminate against relatives by banning them from being able utilize this right?

and
3. What purpose does the government have in giving a benefit to married people in the first place?

 

[Rau]

Do I believe that gay marriage is okay? No. But why? Because it goes against my religious beliefs. However, I don’t think it’s fair to say, “This goes against MY religion, therefore, nobody can practice it.” And this isn’t like abortion. Abortion is murder, which is why it should be illegal. But gay marriage is a sexual sin, where both people are choosing to partake. I mean, premarital sex is also a sexual sin, and is just as bad as homosexuality. But nobody protests against that, or wants to ban that. Almost everybody will agree that premarital sex should not be illegal. So why should gay marriage be?

Gay marriage is not illegal - it’s just that (in many jurisdictions) the State says the criteria for marriage is an opposite sex couple.

Could you explain why you thus advocate for the State to extend the institution of marriage to same sex couples?

In the case of a gay couple living together, or premarital sex - the State does not take a position - it has “no position” on those things. That’s a far cry from what you advocate for gay marriage.

So - why would you say the State should sanction gay marriage - meaning the State moves from a “non-position” to a positive position that same sex persons can marry - just like opposite sex couples?

 

[Nicea325]

I would love to know how gay marriage is a detriment to society and to children

.

How? Really? God made two distinct species in animals,insects,reptiles,etc for a reason…how is that for starters? Two dudes isn’t what God set-up for society.

1. A gay person getting married has NO impact on your marriage, your family, or your life. If you are against gay marriage, don’t marry a gay person!

Wrong! It does have an impact! Two females kissing in front of my kids,family and life is morally wrong! Relativism is not absolute Truth.

1. I would love to know how gay marriage is a detriment to children. How is ANY committed relationship where two people want to love a child a detriment to that child? Answer: it’s not.

U-huh. And when that child of two gay men is picked on or pushed around the answer is…IT IS detriment to children! Explain how a gay man can attend ANY event geared for a little girl and an adult female? Answer: THEY CANNOT!

Two intellectually disabled individuals who are competent enough to consent can marry and reproduce, which certainly would be a detriment to a child, and yet two people of sound mind and body are somehow less capable of raising a child?

Nice try. Relativism at its best!

The state is not forcing churches to marry ANYONE. Religion should have no place in affording legal protection to a committed couple- gay or straight.

I got news fr you! God is ABOVE all states and humans! Strike out again!

And this whole argument of “we must make straight people get married and have sex to keep our population up” argument is complete bollocks. There have been and always will be infertile couples, or couples who are child-free by choice.

And this whole argument the gay life style is normal is pure trash! Gay people should stop convincing themselves that they are gay. Always trying to throw “gayness” into mainstream society.

There are 143 million orphans in the world. Until they all have a home there’s no reason that we need to be worried about humans going extinct.

U-huh…and let me know when two gays can reproduce all on their own?

 

[Nicea325]

Part of what laws do, or should do, would be to attempt to promote what is benefiical, healthy, and good for society.

Laws often try to discourage what will hurt its people, over the long run.

You already know what God thinks about this. So, let’s put all that aside, and I’ll address this from a purely secular perspective.

Have you ever actually looked at some statistics on homosexuality? If not, I’d invite you to do that before condoning this.

Did you realize the murder rate of homosexuals is 100 times that of the normal population?
The suicide rate is 25 times higher.

People say condomns are great, but they have about a 15% failure rate, and what about AIDS? Yes, I know that heterosexuals can also get AIDS; but homosexuality puts a person into a high risk category, for example, with even blood donation. It’s similar to someone who uses IV drugs.

The life span of homosexuals is also significantly shorter.

Statistics on their relationships shows that promiscuity with it goes hand in hand. Yes, I know heterosexuals can also be promiscuous. However, what I’m saying is that the statistics show that homosexual promiscuity has been demonstrated to be much greater.

I’ve seen stats that 28% of homosexuals have had sex with more than 1,000 partners, that 79% of their partners were strangers.

Some thing by promoting gay “marriage”, it will help with these stats, but that doesn’t seem to be the case, either. Some seem to do this strictly for the benefits, be it health insurance, etc., not that they have any intention of being faithful.

It’s been said when gays marry, it mainly means they won’t bring their other partners to the house.

Again, religion aside, it’s a government’s obligation to promote what’s in society’s best interest. When gay laws come in, it often kills Christian businesses and organizations, and those of people of faith. Often the work these people of faith does is great…their service to society. Yet, many gays resent anyone disagreeing and will stop at nothing to shut them down, put them in prison, make sure they are fined.

So, we must not back gay marriage, because after gay marriage, what next? Gay adoption? Then what?

Christians have had all they can do to defend themselves, often losing in court, having even the most basic religious protections denied.

Gays can be some of the most intolerant people, will retaliate against people of faith, given the opportunity, unfortunately.

There are many ramifications, and these are just a few reasons why we must not accept gay “marriage”.

:clapping: AMEN!

 

[Nicea325]

Strawman argument. A child cannot consent to marriage, therefore pedophilic marriage will not be legalized as a result of same-sex adult marriage.

An animal cannot consent. It is not human. A marriage of two consenting humans will not set a legal precedent for humans marrying non-human species.

As for polygamy- I can’t for the life of me understand why someone would want more than one spouse, but if consenting adults want to have a marriage of 3 or more, frankly it’s none of my business.

Strawman only when you’re hit straight-on! Your argument holds no weight at all. While you argue for gay marriages another can argue for marriage between an adult and a 14 year old. Consent is irrelevant to a 30 year old and a 14 old who want to marry.

 

[UnCatholicBride]

Strawman only when you’re hit straight-on! Your argument holds no weight at all. While you argue for gay marriages another can argue for marriage between an adult and a 14 year old. Consent is irrelevant to a 30 year old and a 14 old who want to marry.

A child who is 14 had not reached the age of legal majority. They cannot legally consent to marriage without the consent of their parents in a court of law. And the vast majority of states in the US prohibit marriages of anyone under 15, regardless of if the parents give consent.

 

[EasterJoy]

A child who is 14 had not reached the age of legal majority. They cannot legally consent to marriage without the consent of their parents in a court of law. And the vast majority of states in the US prohibit marriages of anyone under 15, regardless of if the parents give consent.

That is because the voters of those states imposed their morals about what was right for a 14 year old. There have been many civilizations that we consider “great” in which younger people than that were groomed and given into various sexual arrangements or allowed to choose those arrangements, and that was allowed according to the moral sense of those civilizations.

There is no question that if the law did not prohibit marriage at a young age, some young people would choose it. If the law did not prohibit polygamy, there would be polygamous marriages. You and I both know that if people were allowed to take an animal in marriage, someone would do it. Where prostitution is legal, those businesses flourish, and every kind that people can imagine would take place, if it were allowed.

If no one is willing to impose their moral sense when writing laws, then the laws will have no moral sense to them. It is just that simple. To equate homosexual unions with heterosexual ones encourages not just homosexual acts, but pregnancies achieved outside marriage, including surrogacies. Yes, women are finding employment as broodmares for gay men, so gay men can pretend they are in a real marriage, can pretend they can be biological parents together like a heterosexual couple. Yet people continue to say, “oh but they love each other, leave them alone.”

 

[EasterJoy]

This is how Neil Patrick Harris described the situation where he and David Burtka paid a woman to become pregnant with fraternal twins for them. The twins are biologically related only through their mother; one is Harris’ child and the other is Burtka’s:

“The way that they were brought into this world was very unique and weirdly scientific, and the technology involved in it, I think, is remarkable. It came because we really, really wanted kids. We really had thought it through financially, emotionally, relationship wise. We didn’t accidentally get pregnant and decide that now we need to make this work. These kids come in to our world with nothing but love.”

Neither of these men loves their child’s mother, they neither name her nor show her in public and probably have no relationship with her whatsoever, she got pregnant by men who would never marry her in a million years and did so with the plan of giving her twins up to raise in her place–one of the men even claims to be “the more maternal” in their relationship!!!–she undoubtedly did it in exchange for money, but the kids came into the world with “nothing but love.”

You pay your child’s mother to have your children for you, you take her children from her, and yet you insult natural conception by claiming that your child was conceived in “nothing but love.” Whether a heterosexual star said it or a homosexual star said it, that is totally warped. The difference with homosexual “marriages” is that this is the only way that a homosexual can have a biological child: that is, with a consort from outside the marriage.

Why on earth is that something to encourage?