Seriously, is there any logical argument against gay marriage?

reply to post by markosity1973


I will not go in to a deep discussion, but will leave you with this interesting topic for you and your colleague in debate to discuss:

"Homosexuality is a mental illness"

Look in to the definition of mental illness, define homosexuality, figure out why men become homosexuals when they go to prison and have intercourse with other men, whether the condition of those men can be seen as a mental illness, whether those men in prison were always homosexuals, or is homosexuality a choice (did they choose due to lack of women to turn to homosexuality in prison?), or a mental illness, or something biological. Is there any difference between a homosexual man, and a hetrosexual man (except their sexual preference? etc. etc. etc.

There is a lot to go through here, I will watch the discussion see how it goes, it should be interesting.

Sorry quadriplegia post zz

Sorry quadriplegia post zz

Sorry quadriplegia post zz

Originally posted by quietlearner

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist

Why wouldn't it be marriage?

because its not, the potential for a offspring is not there
the potential for kids and the kids growing to join the workforce is not there
its just not the same

I'm not following your correlation between marriage and procreation here. Homosexual couples can adopt, or can obtain a child through some other means. That child is their offspring. That child is their loved one. That child belongs to their family. The child can grow up and join the work force. So I'm not getting what you're saying.

Or are you telling me that marriage is about sex? Sex doesn't always result in procreation so sex =/= procreation, and sex =/= love.

Originally posted by JackofBlades

As has been asked before, sterile heterosexual couples often marry. Should their right to marry be revoked because "the potential for a offspring is not there?" Should all existing marriages involving people who can't have kids be immediately annulled?

thats nitpicking, an exception to the rule, sterility is a health condition
gay sex is what it is, the fact that two men cannot produce an offspring is not because of a health problem
these two are very different

reply to post by JackofBlades


Yes but the important point about that is that is has no religious component to it, I only object to homosexuals entering into holy matrimony because my Catholic dogma dictates that homosexuality is not compatible with that sacrament.

I don’t mind if they want to get married in the social and legal sense or with in another religion that can facilitate their marriage.

I do however object to those who argue that homosexuals should be allowed to enter into holy matrimony. The argument mostly comes from those outside of the Church, mostly from those who do not approve of religion. They are in no place to tell us who can and cannot get married in your Chapels, they should respect that homosexuality is not compatible with some of our beliefs just as we respect a homosexuals right to get married in the social and legal context.

In answer to the OP’s question, there is a very strong logical argument against homosexuals entering into holy matrimony.

Originally posted by dontshoot
The problem is that marriage never should have become a function of state. The church makes its own moral judgements, many of which have no logical reasoning even if you believe every word of the bible. So I think that Legally binding unions and "Marriages" should be separated. Let the church marry whoever they want, and let alternative lifestyles receive the same benefits(IE tax breaks) via a Legal Union. Additionally, religious marriages should have no legal relevance. To receive the same acknowledgment from the state, they legally agree to a Union in the same way. Hence, religious marriages should have no meaning beyond the religious context.

I agree with almost all of this, except that marriages should remain a function of state. There is already a distinction between being legally married and (for lack of a better term) religiously married, with the former being necessary to receive whatever benefits you get.

As far as your question, there is no logical argument that homosexuality is a sin. The only reference used, that I am aware of, is in the bible when the two Angels try to help some guy escape Sodom, and a mob of people try to buttrape them. It is clear in the bible that sex between Angels and humans is a sin, as well as(I think) non consensual gangraping. The "gay" part is really beside the point in the story. Sexual control is one of the most important tools for any Cult to maintain psychological dominance over its following, so my guess is that's the main reason for this specific interpretation. Before this time, homosexual behavior was a more socially accepted cultural phenomenon(Lots of references to it being common in Greek and Roman society anyway).

Indeed. There are a couple of references to it being frowned upon, but nothing that says homosexuality is a sin. And, as you succinctly put it, homosexual behaviour has been around probably as long as people have been around. Greek men used to have male lovers. Roman men used to have male lovers. A couple of Roman emperors actually married male slaves!
Though I think your mistaken about one thing; the Crusades pretty much proved that non-consensual gang rape is a vital part in... convincing other people God is the way forward

That being said, the church should have the right to be as illogical and moronic as it wants UNLESS their stupid brainwash the masses into giving them money garbage negatively effects people who choose not to participate in it, which it inevitably does when our laws support it. If you're looking for organized religion to have any logical arguments at all, you're really in for a disappointment.

This guy is now my new hero

reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist


The Anglican Church I think does recognise homosexual marriage, however it is a very controversial practice. I am Roman Catholic, and as such cannot condone homosexual marriage with in my church.

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist

I'm not following your correlation between marriage and procreation here. Homosexual couples can adopt, or can obtain a child through some other means. That child is their offspring. That child is their loved one. That child belongs to their family. The child can grow up and join the work force. So I'm not getting what you're saying.

Or are you telling me that marriage is about sex? Sex doesn't always result in procreation so sex =/= procreation, and sex =/= love.

edit on 22-5-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)

I'm sure if a gay couple adopt a kid they will love him/her but we all know creating a new life is not the same as adopting a kid

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by akushla99

 

Christ also said “whatever you hold true on earth I shall hold true in Heaven”. A controversial statement, as it makes the Church’s authority infallible but it is in the bible.

And would you say this applies to the Crusades and the Inquisition?
Surely, i agree, a controversial statement.
When the 'Church' is able to follow Christ to the letter, i will grant that infallabilty...lol
Do as i do, not as i say!
Rmember this?
Akushla

Originally posted by quietlearner
thats nitpicking, an exception to the rule, sterility is a health condition
gay sex is what it is, the fact that two men cannot produce an offspring is not because of a health problem
these two are very different

Its very much not nitpicking. Men sometimes have a vasectomy before they marry. Women sometimes have their tubes tied. That isn't natural. Its a lifestyle choice. And its a lifestyle choice that means there marriage is going to be devoid of children.
Would you stop them marrying?

Originally posted by kevinunknown
Yes but the important point about that is that is has no religious component to it, I only object to homosexuals entering into holy matrimony because my Catholic dogma dictates that homosexuality is not compatible with that sacrament.

I don’t mind if they want to get married in the social and legal sense or with in another religion that can facilitate their marriage.

Ah okay. I think we're coming to understand each other.

I do however object to those who argue that homosexuals should be allowed to enter into holy matrimony. The argument mostly comes from those outside of the Church, mostly from those who do not approve of religion. They are in no place to tell us who can and cannot get married in your Chapels, they should respect that homosexuality is not compatible with some of our beliefs just as we respect a homosexuals right to get married in the social and legal context.

Speaking as one of those outside the Church (and just giving my thoughts on that) I personally think it's fair to oppose something that directly challenges what you believe.

In answer to the OP’s question, there is a very strong logical argument against homosexuals entering into holy matrimony.

I think that is where people are getting confused... the OP's question wasn't about holy matrimony at all. Just marriage. I guess half of us are seeing marriage, and the other half are seeing holy matrimony.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist

 

The Anglican Church I think does recognise homosexual marriage, however it is a very controversial practice. I am Roman Catholic, and as such cannot condone homosexual marriage with in my church.

A sect of the Roman Catholic faith could spring up that recognizes homosexual marriages, supposing one doesn't already exist. Or the Vatican could one day change its stance on matrimony to fully recognize same-sex marriages. The Vatican has changed its stance on things several times throughout history, so it is possible.

I was born and raised Roman Catholic as well. Whether or not I am still a part of the faith is debatable, but nonetheless I recognize and support same-sex marriages under God.

Originally posted by confreak
reply to post by markosity1973

 

I will not go in to a deep discussion, but will leave you with this interesting topic for you and your colleague in debate to discuss:

"Homosexuality is a mental illness"

Look in to the definition of mental illness, define homosexuality, figure out why men become homosexuals when they go to prison and have intercourse with other men, whether the condition of those men can be seen as a mental illness, whether those men in prison were always homosexuals, or is homosexuality a choice (did they choose due to lack of women to turn to homosexuality in prison?), or a mental illness, or something biological. Is there any difference between a homosexual man, and a hetrosexual man (except their sexual preference? etc. etc. etc.

There is a lot to go through here, I will watch the discussion see how it goes, it should be interesting.

I for one think that there is no way to know for sure, it could be just one of the reasons you posted or it could be all of them for different people. I'm not gay so i lack the personal experience and even if i had personally experienced it I would not assume all gays are the same.
I would leave these discussion to professional researchers with big trials but i bet even then we will not know for sure

Originally posted by quietlearner

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist

I'm not following your correlation between marriage and procreation here. Homosexual couples can adopt, or can obtain a child through some other means. That child is their offspring. That child is their loved one. That child belongs to their family. The child can grow up and join the work force. So I'm not getting what you're saying.

Or are you telling me that marriage is about sex? Sex doesn't always result in procreation so sex =/= procreation, and sex =/= love.

edit on 22-5-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)

I'm sure if a gay couple adopt a kid they will love him/her but we all know creating a new life is not the same as adopting a kid

But what does creating a life have to do with marriage? People create life and abort life all the time without getting hitched first. People who are married have children and put them up for adoption, people who are married have sex without the intent of producing a child, married couples get abortions because they don't want any kids or don't want anymore kids, married couples who cannot have kids adopt kids, married couples get married for a day in Vegas and get a divorce the next day without even the thought of having a child.

Those are just a few examples where marriage isn't about procreation.

Originally posted by JackofBlades


Its very much not nitpicking. Men sometimes have a vasectomy before they marry. Women sometimes have their tubes tied. That isn't natural. Its a lifestyle choice. And its a lifestyle choice that means there marriage is going to be devoid of children.
Would you stop them marrying?

I would not stop them from marrying. as I would not stop gays from getting a civil union
my point was that traditional marriage and gay marriage are not the same
you example is another exemption to the rule

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

If you’re going to call it “marriage” then fair enough, if it does not have a religious component in my mind it is not a true marriage however it is social recognised by it is not recognised in the eyes of the Church.

Well... As has been pointed out, marriage was an institution in MANY cultures, separated widely, and by many religions. And it was not Me that called it "marriage." It was the court. As per the certificate.

If this thread is about homosexuals entering into a civil partnership/ union or some other social and legal recognition of their partnership I have no objection.

But You want to define "marriage" for everyOne?

If this thread is about homosexuals entering into holy matrimony then I have a very big objection.

"Holy matrimony" is a religious overlay on the institution of marriage, and certainly has a religious connotation. But that overlay is not the institution itself. Marriage is the conjoining, legally and in the eyes of the community, of two who love One another. "Holy matrimony" puts a religious spin on in.

There is always two brides or two grooms missing.

Just kidding. Whatever waves you flag)))

Originally posted by quietlearner
I would not stop them from marrying. as I would not stop gays from getting a civil union
my point was that traditional marriage and gay marriage are not the same
you example is another exemption to the rule

And what, pray tell, is the difference (besides the fact that both parties are of one gender)?

Originally posted by Amaterasu
"Holy matrimony" is a religious overlay on the institution of marriage, and certainly has a religious connotation. But that overlay is not the institution itself. Marriage is the conjoining, legally and in the eyes of the community, of two who love One another. "Holy matrimony" puts a religious spin on in.

Indeed. That's what I've been trying to say. Marriage is civil, holy matrimony is blatantly religious. And the OP's question wasn't about holy matrimony, it was about marriage.

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist

But what does creating a life have to do with marriage? People create life and abort life all the time without getting hitched first. People who are married have children and put them up for adoption, people who are married have sex without the intent of producing a child, married couples get abortions because they don't want any kids or don't want anymore kids, married couples who cannot have kids adopt kids, married couples get married for a day in Vegas and get a divorce the next day without even the thought of having a child.

Those are just a few examples where marriage isn't about procreation.

edit on 22-5-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)

normally after a couple marriages, having kids is the next logical and expected step. once the kids are born, a real family is created.
imo having kids and marriage are very much related, also the benefits that the government gives like tax breaks were meant to help the family with the burden or raising a kid, they are not just "wedding presents"
and yes people abort baby's and people have sex without the intent to procreate, however I don't see why their actions have anything to do with our discussion. are you saying two wrongs make a right?