Why christians should NOT support the ban on gay marriages.

[0roo0roo]

Wether you believe in Creation or Evolution, males and females were created/adapted to reproduce together. Right? I mean, m&m/f&f can't reproduce naturally and by the theory of the survival of the fittest, they are the weak ones.

which would be true if we didn't live in societies. some things do not get bred out. i remember a theory by leonard slain about how and why color blindness/left handedness/homosexuality all exist at about 8%. it helps in hunting groups, color blindness actually helps detect camoflaged prey, less color distraction, and the ability has been exploited in early wars. left handed people would better cover certain throwing angles, and homosexuals in low numbers would give a bonus in hunted meat as they have no family to support, a heavy drain on early societies. obviously it wouldn't help at all if everyone was gay/color blind and left handed...hehe

unless your going to ban homosexuals from adoption or raising children, its simply unethical to ban marraige. what happens to children of a parent that dies or is incapacitated? foster homes even when theres another parent, but one with no legal rights? a sadistic result of religious ferver...

and frankly, many things that don't hurt you are disgusting. the thought that your parents have sex is rather disgusting. doesn't mean you should attempt to ban it.

 

[skace]

You know what is funny about these threads? Jesus' greatest teaching was that of tolerance. And yet it is the one teaching that his followers STILL CAN'T GRASP. If there is a heaven, I really wonder how many of his followers will even make the first cut.

Let the first one without sin cast the first stone. What? That is none of you? Stop judging other peoples lives.

PlatinumGold speaks volumes above some people here. There is a huge line between killing and homosexuality. One is an act that harms someone else against their own will and the other is an act between 2 consenting adults.

Skoorb, I found your anologies hillariously accurate, it is too bad no one can argue them so they sort of faded away into the thread. Which is usually the case with good arguments around here. Whenever someone has a completely valid point, everyone ignores it and posts around it.

I also found the reproduction argument funny. Gays shouldn't be able to marry because they can't have kids. Despite the fact that no one feels anything is wrong with all the kids in orphan homes or the fact that in another country, they have so many kids that you are only allowed to have 1. Yea, looks like we need more kids. We have enough single mothers giving their babies up for adoptions to supply the entire gay population with kids.

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Both a mother and a father are exactly the same -- there is no difference between the two so why do we have two different words to discribe them?

this is simply not true.

ERA didn't pass as an amendment for a reason: we recognize that their are honest differences between males and females; nothing to make one superior to the other, but we are definitely not all the same.

Actually, I was being sarcastic.

I am against using the term "marriage" to describe a gay union but I'm not against the concept because I am for anything that promotes monogamous relationships. I just don't want to call it a "marriage". Calling it a union or something would be fine with me.

 

[steelels1]

Originally posted by: xchangx

I'm now 21, an atheist (free at last),

Well you weren't "saved" in the first place. You can't just loose your salvation.

That's why I put it in quotes. Because it's all in your head - That warm feeling of love, acceptance, safety - the one that seems to fill the void inside of you. Only a trick your mind plays on you as with all "spiritual experiences". I really believed in it all at one time. But now that I'm an atheist, I know the truth and the truth has set me free. Ironic, huh?

Then again, I could definitely see how christianity would work for someone. It supports (for the most part) good morals, gives people answers to the hard questions, and gives people hope. I just don't like it when they want to shove their principles down my throat, and act like the whole country revolves around them. That's why I believe that govenment should only enforce natural laws, and the laws necessary to keep a society afloat, as there will always be many groups with their own conflicting religious principles.

 

[StageLeft]

That's why I put it in quotes. Because it's all in your head - That warm feeling of love, acceptance, safety - the one that seems to fill the void inside of you. Only a trick your mind plays on you as with all "spiritual experiences". I really believed in it all at one time. But now that I'm an atheist, I know the truth and the truth has set me free. Ironic, huh?

You know, many atheists have said that exact same thing and are now Christians. How can you say you're free? With faith? Now THAT'S irony

 

[Indolent]

Wow, I got bored and decided to read this entire thread. There are some very valid points here. Before I read this thread I supported the ban but now I'm undecided.

A couple questions though. I see a lot of people mentioning Christians and Bush. So..

I find it hard to believe that Christianity is the only religion against gay marriages. What are some others?

Second, Kerry (the most likely Dem candidate for President) is also against gay marriages if I'm not mistaken. But, he does support gay rights. Do people that want gay marriages also disagree with Kerry and his views?

 

[Indolent]

Originally posted by: steelels1

Originally posted by: xchangx

I'm now 21, an atheist (free at last),

Well you weren't "saved" in the first place. You can't just loose your salvation.

That's why I put it in quotes. Because it's all in your head - That warm feeling of love, acceptance, safety - the one that seems to fill the void inside of you. Only a trick your mind plays on you as with all "spiritual experiences". I really believed in it all at one time. But now that I'm an atheist, I know the truth and the truth has set me free. Ironic, huh?

Then again, I could definitely see how christianity would work for someone. It supports (for the most part) good morals, gives people answers to the hard questions, and gives people hope. I just don't like it when they want to shove their principles down my throat, and act like the whole country revolves around them. That's why I believe that govenment should only enforce natural laws, and the laws necessary to keep a society afloat, as there will always be many groups with their own conflicting religious principles.

As was argued before, many people think procreation is a natural law.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Indolent
Wow, I got bored and decided to read this entire thread. There are some very valid points here. Before I read this thread I supported the ban but now I'm undecided.

A couple questions though. I see a lot of people mentioning Christians and Bush. So..

I find it hard to believe that Christianity is the only religion against gay marriages. What are some others?

Second, Kerry (the most likely Dem candidate for President) is also against gay marriages if I'm not mistaken. But, he does support gay rights. Do people that want gay marriages also disagree with Kerry and his views?

Kerry supports civil unions for same-sex couples. Same as Edwards and Dick Cheney. None of them, however, support Bush's fanatical Constitutional Amendment.

So, I disagree with Kerry, Edwards and Bush/Cheney. Let them have marriages. It's hurting no one.

 

[StageLeft]

There are some very valid points here. Before I read this thread I supported the ban but now I'm undecided.

That speaks either of the fact that once in a blue moon a debate on the 'net can have a meaningful influence on somebody, or you're just more open minded than 90% of the people here!

Second, Kerry (the most likely Dem candidate for President) is also against gay marriages if I'm not mistaken. But, he does support gay rights. Do people that want gay marriages also disagree with Kerry and his views?

He's pussyfooting and trying to play both sides. He wants civil unions so that he can say he supports equal rights, and yet doesn't want gay marriages, so as not to offend haters of it.

 

[Indolent]

Originally posted by: conjur

Kerry supports civil unions for same-sex couples. Same as Edwards and Dick Cheney. None of them, however, support Bush's fanatical Constitutional Amendment.

So, I disagree with Kerry, Edwards and Bush/Cheney. Let them have marriages. It's hurting no one.

yeah, civil unions. That's the term I was looking for when I said gay rights. Couldn't think of it.

Originally posted by: Skoorb

There are some very valid points here. Before I read this thread I supported the ban but now I'm undecided.

That speaks either of the fact that once in a blue moon a debate on the 'net can have a meaningful influence on somebody, or you're just more open minded than 90% of the people here!

I try to be.

 

[steelels1]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

That's why I put it in quotes. Because it's all in your head - That warm feeling of love, acceptance, safety - the one that seems to fill the void inside of you. Only a trick your mind plays on you as with all "spiritual experiences". I really believed in it all at one time. But now that I'm an atheist, I know the truth and the truth has set me free. Ironic, huh?

You know, many atheists have said that exact same thing and are now Christians. How can you say you're free? With faith? Now THAT'S irony

No, faith is a belief that doesn't depend on logic or material evidence. My beliefs do depend on logic and material evidence. Seems you would have to be rather desperate to throw logic away and put your faith in something so intangible. When I did have "faith", I'll admit that I was desperate - I guess that's why there's so many deathbed "conversions" - fear of death, the unknown, etc. But now I do feel free - I can face life, death, and the fear of the unknown without the crutch so many others seem to need. Famous last words perhaps? We'll see...

 

[steelels1]

As was argued before, many people think procreation is a natural law.

I know Catholics do, but certainly not everyone. I would think common sense would dictate the need for population controls (contraceptives, etc.) lest we overpopulate this world and all starve to death. We're already doing so many things that aren't "natural", namely living longer than ever, and with infant mortality at an all-time low.
It would make sense that homosexuality is a "natural" population control...

 

[bozack]

letter of the law should be changed to union for everyone, homosexual or straight....leave the term marriage to religion and then your problem is solved....basically it is like the post above which referred to removing geneder specific terms from usage only on a much smaller scale, instead you will create a bigger rift between the govt and religion since they will no longer share the same terminology (word marriage) which I think adds alot of fuel to this fire....

I think alot of the blue collars and minorities which are the biggest supporters of anti homosexual marriage would be more accepting of the term union as many are highly religious....and those that are already married wouldn't complain about their definition legally changing as really it is only under the church they care about as long as their taxes and benefits status stays the same.

Take marriage out of government and the complaining will go down, however many homosexual marriage supporters I have talked with *must* have the term "marriage" to mainstream their lifestyle and shove it in the religious rights face that they finally got what they were denied, just as many pro religion supporters will stop at no cost to deny homosexuals the term marriage.....

Heck homosexuals could even get married under my plan as long as they attend a church that will perform the ceremony, that way they get their cake and can eat it too...benefits for everyone and marriages for everyone, just not state/government sanctioned marriages but rather unions for all.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: steelels1

Originally posted by: Skoorb

That's why I put it in quotes. Because it's all in your head - That warm feeling of love, acceptance, safety - the one that seems to fill the void inside of you. Only a trick your mind plays on you as with all "spiritual experiences". I really believed in it all at one time. But now that I'm an atheist, I know the truth and the truth has set me free. Ironic, huh?

You know, many atheists have said that exact same thing and are now Christians. How can you say you're free? With faith? Now THAT'S irony

No, faith is a belief that doesn't depend on logic or material evidence. My beliefs do depend on logic and material evidence. Seems you would have to be rather desperate to throw logic away and put your faith in something so intangible. When I did have "faith", I'll admit that I was desperate - I guess that's why there's so many deathbed "conversions" - fear of death, the unknown, etc. But now I do feel free - I can face life, death, and the fear of the unknown without the crutch so many others seem to need. Famous last words perhaps? We'll see...

Faith is what one adheres to when they don't have all the facts, and when you said that "I know the truth and the truth has set me free." you can't claim to know all the facts either. Without knowing every detail of the universe and everything else, you can't really be certain of whether or not God exists or does not. Religious faith is a crutch for some, and for others they are cognizant of the fact that they will never know all there is to know, and they're willing to entertain ideas that perhaps there is something more to the world than what can be proven in front of them.

 

[steelels1]

Faith is what one adheres to when they don't have all the facts, and when you said that "I know the truth and the truth has set me free." you can't claim to know all the facts either. Without knowing every detail of the universe and everything else, you can't really be certain of whether or not God exists or does not. Religious faith is a crutch for some, and for others they are cognizant of the fact that they will never know all there is to know, and they're willing to entertain ideas that perhaps there is something more to the world than what can be proven in front of them.

I certainly do not, nor do I ever expect to. I probably should've rephrased that as you are correct - you can't prove a universal negative.
I guess what's "real" for you isn't necessarily "real" for me and vice-versa.

At least you seem to know what you believe. Many of the "christians" I know don't seem to even know what they believe or why they believe it, they just blindly follow the man in the pulpit.

EDIT: 35,000+ posts?? Do you live here?

 

[AEnigmaWI]

Originally posted by: Amorphus

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Perhaps one day I'll come upon a good reason why legally gays cannot marry. I keep throwing this comment out here, but I've yet to hear it, so I guess it's bigotry, ignorance, homophobia, as I mentioned in another thread, that's keeping people from supporting the legal act of marriage for gays.

Unless you view homosexuality as sin and abomination, in which case it is responsibility and morality which keeps me from supporting such a thing.

The way one person views homosexuality from within their personal moral framework is completley valid. What is not valid, is making laws on the basis of said moral framwork.

This country's legal system is based on ethical principles such as those described by John Locke. (state of nature, natural law etc.) Several of the founders of this country weren't Christian at all, they were ethical humanists. Why does this matter? Because our legal and legislative system is not and should not be influcenced by a particular morality, religious or otherwise. The purpose of ethics is to reach decisions that are good for people in general, not just those of one bent or another. The purpose of the laws and government of this country is to support all the people. Not just Christians.

Gay marriage offends people's sensibilities because they either have a prejudice about homosexual behavior, or are opinionated against it as dictated by some form of morality they have chosen to subscribe to. One is not, in any objective sense, born a Christian. Yet, one is definitely, biologically wired to be hetero, bi, or homosexual (or some degree in between). For those people that are towards the ends of the spectrum, the "choice" of sexuality is made for them. A stable, committed relationship between two men is in no way ethically different from one between a man and woman. There is no ethical basis for the arguments against gay marriage.

The US is not, never has been, and never shall be a "Christian" nation. We strive as a country to evolve as people, and as a society. The only way to do this is to use ethical systems for legislation, as they can evolve with us. Christian morality, as several people have pointed out, has been fundamentally the same for thousands of years. The institutions it promotes are sometimes good and sometimes bad, but when seen as the fixed and unchancing word of "God", it cannot serve as the basis for a dynamic and diverse country.

Marriage as a "Christian institution" has been around for thousands of years.. why change it? It works right? We should never question such a thing should we?

There was another "institution" for thousands of years that was supported by a majority of the Christan populace. It took broad, ethical law making to change this institution, and ultimately it was done away with all together, when we as a people decided it was not ethically sound. Of course, it took a war to do it. Slavery anyone?

The point is that times changes, and thankfully people evolve. We may not be growing gills, but we are evolving externally at an astounding rate. Let's not set ourselves back a few hundred years by forcing people to all live by one narrow morality.

 

[AznMaverick]

Originally posted by: AEnigmaWI

Originally posted by: Amorphus

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Perhaps one day I'll come upon a good reason why legally gays cannot marry. I keep throwing this comment out here, but I've yet to hear it, so I guess it's bigotry, ignorance, homophobia, as I mentioned in another thread, that's keeping people from supporting the legal act of marriage for gays.

Unless you view homosexuality as sin and abomination, in which case it is responsibility and morality which keeps me from supporting such a thing.

The way one person views homosexuality from within their personal moral framework is completley valid. What is not valid, is making laws on the basis of said moral framwork.

This country's legal system is based on ethical principles such as those described by John Locke. (state of nature, natural law etc.) Several of the founders of this country weren't Christian at all, they were ethical humanists. Why does this matter? Because our legal and legislative system is not and should not be influcenced by a particular morality, religious or otherwise. The purpose of ethics is to reach decisions that are good for people in general, not just those of one bent or another. The purpose of the laws and government of this country is to support all the people. Not just Christians.

Gay marriage offends people's sensibilities because they either have a prejudice about homosexual behavior, or are opinionated against it as dictated by some form of morality they have chosen to subscribe to. One is not, in any objective sense, born a Christian. Yet, one is definitely, biologically wired to be hetero, bi, or homosexual (or some degree in between). For those people that are towards the ends of the spectrum, the "choice" of sexuality is made for them. A stable, committed relationship between two men is in no way ethically different from one between a man and woman. There is no ethical basis for the arguments against gay marriage.

The US is not, never has been, and never shall be a "Christian" nation. We strive as a country to evolve as people, and as a society. The only way to do this is to use ethical systems for legislation, as they can evolve with us. Christian morality, as several people have pointed out, has been fundamentally the same for thousands of years. The institutions it promotes are sometimes good and sometimes bad, but when seen as the fixed and unchancing word of "God", it cannot serve as the basis for a dynamic and diverse country.

Marriage as a "Christian institution" has been around for thousands of years.. why change it? It works right? We should never question such a thing should we?

There was another "institution" for thousands of years that was supported by a majority of the Christan populace. It took broad, ethical law making to change this institution, and ultimately it was done away with all together, when we as a people decided it was not ethically sound. Of course, it took a war to do it. Slavery anyone?

The point is that times changes, and thankfully people evolve. We may not be growing gills, but we are evolving externally at an astounding rate. Let's not set ourselves back a few hundred years by forcing people to all live by one narrow morality.

you all feel as if our society is evolving and advancing. i feel that it's slowly beginning to go downhill and slowly getting out of control. not just because of gay marriage, although it is one reason.

 

[Wuffsunie]

Originally posted by: AznMaverick
you all feel as if our society is evolving and advancing. i feel that it's slowly beginning to go downhill and slowly getting out of control. not just because of gay marriage, although it is one reason.

Every civilization dies and crumbles, it's a well known and understood fact. And almost all of them didn't think it'd happen to them either. If it is true, it's certainly interesting to be on the downslope of one! Wonder what'll replace it...

Of course, people have been arguing the decay and fall of Civilization as a whole for thousands of years now. You'd think we would have hit bottom by this point...

-- Jack

Our earth is degenerate these latter days. There are signs that the world is speedily coming to an end. Bribery and corruption are common.
-- Inscription, 4800 year-old tablet

 

[MainFramed]

Originally posted by: notfred
I want to see the passages from the bible that say marriage is an institution of god. I never remember reading that part.

you didin't really read it then, or close enough

man you guys...:frown:

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Your arguement is flawed, not because the KKK and with burnings weren't terrible, but because somehow you're saying that morality and human rights are not related. If our country truly acted in the best interests of only its citizens, with no basis in morality, then there would be more war, more racism and more hate, not less.

we have many laws based on morality; Not the least of which are the equal opportunity laws and anti-slavery laws.

yea, and not to mention its illegal for car dealerships to be open on sunday (in colorado). but you can still buy beer after noon. if that isnt a morality issue i dont konw what is. :lips:

 

[dds14u]

Many religious people ARE hypocrites. Since "times do change" I agree with steelels1 how religions bend to the times. So what makes this any different? The thing is it isn't different than any other conflicts between what is religiously right and wrong...Hasn't anybody studied history and seen how the old radical ideas becomes the new conservative ideas? Legal gay marriage is inevitable, its just a matter of time, and that time will be when the majority of Americans feel they are ready for the change. Why rob someone of their own freedom. If science does come to prove that being homosexual is not by choice, which I don't believe it is, then not allowing a homosexual to get married means if the individual does want someone to share the rest of his/her life with someone else while also receiving the same benefits as other couples, than marrying the opposite sex is the only alternative. For heterosexuals...on the flip-side if being homosexual was normal, that'd be like forcing heterosexual individuals to marry another individual of the same sex. Is sexual orientation by choice?? That's the question. And I doubt it in most cases.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Eli
Oh brother.

Anybody who says homosexual marriage should be against the law is not only a bigot, but a victimizer.

Not to mention highly discriminatory, invidious, calumnious, hateful, defamatory, obnoxious, and last but not least, repugnant.

what a judgmental anti-semetic statment.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: dds14u
Many religious people ARE hypocrites. Since "times do change" I agree with steelels1 how religions bend to the times. So what makes this any different? The thing is it isn't different than any other conflicts between what is religiously right and wrong...Hasn't anybody studied history and seen how the old radical ideas becomes the new conservative ideas? Legal gay marriage is inevitable, its just a matter of time, and that time will be when the majority of Americans feel they are ready for the change. Why rob someone of their own freedom. If science does come to prove that being homosexual is not by choice, which I don't believe it is, then not allowing a homosexual to get married means if the individual does want someone to share the rest of his/her life with someone else while also receiving the same benefits as other couples, than marrying the opposite sex is the only alternative. For heterosexuals...on the flip-side if being homosexual was normal, that'd be like forcing heterosexual individuals to marry another individual of the same sex. Is sexual orientation by choice?? That's the question. And I doubt it in most cases.

one could also say many PEOPLE are hypocrites and still be just as correct.

btw, that part of your statement doesn't really help the rest of your post.

 

[EXman]

So what about common sense reasons just like what Clinton came up with on the defense of marriage act? Yup it was those damn democrats that started this

Marriage is the foundation which upon all relationships are based on religious or not. The fundamental foundation of the family. Why change it after thousands of years? If you do not care if they get married or not which it sounds like you all do (by the poll in the P&N forum) then leave well enough alone and don't side with the ULTRA left minority.

There is no discrimination!!! The laws that have passed bind everyone equally. Homosexuals can get married anytime they want! What??? How??? Get married to the opposite sex. Yup they are married. So if they don't choose to get married and keep the homosexual lifestyle it is their choice.

I'm not a Homophobe. I do not the Gay Agenda. I do not hate homosexuals except the few that gang raped my roomate 11 years ago. I think that Ross guy on Leno is funny as crap! His Oscar interviews were the best! I have plenty of rational reasons not to like them and no irrational fears. I don't have to answer to any homosexual lubber here call me a bigot like Moonie does but he's probably the irrational person on the boards so who cares what he says no one listens to him anyhow.

It is arrogant for the ultra left ACLUer's to try and force the cheapening the definition of marriage watering it down to include whatever fringe groupe that cries discrimination discrimination!! Whaaa get a tissue and some lube!:Q

Lastly I have yet to hear a good arguement why homosexuals need a wedding license? It sure isn't for the marriage penalty?!

 

[EXman]

The US is not, never has been, and never shall be a "Christian" nation.

wanna bet? Why were the first pilgrims here ding dong? You need to pick up a history book you're fooling yourself.