Gay Marriage: Yes or No

Yes or No to Gay Marriage

  • Yes

    Votes: 38 73.1%

  • No

    Votes: 10 19.2%

  • I'm not sure

    Votes: 4 7.7%
  • Total voters
    52
Nicola Jane said:
Oh no, I'm not saying they would fornicate or anything. I don't think they're bad people lol! I guess it just boils down to the fact that I am a traditionalist. Plenty of same sex couples have adopted children and I'm sure more will continue to do so. And this is fine, I'm not going to go crazy about it or go to protests yno. I just personally believe that it's not the way that things should ideally be, that God made woman and God made man, and they possessed the right attributes to make a well balanced family emotionally. Some same sex couples will do a great job, I'm not disputing that.
Click to expand...

You aren't a traditionalist. I've yet to meet a traditionalist who would admit that any same sex couples are capable of raising children as well as a heterosexual couple could.

Traditionalists are generally the ones who argue that homosexuality needs to be illegal, potentially carrying a death penalty. The kinder ones call it a mental disorder and demand that homosexuals remain celibate their entire lives. Traditionalists also generally believe in a "gay agenda" that's goal is to recruit children into the homosexual "lifestyle" and marriage and adoption are simply means that gays are using to achieve that end.
 
Last edited:
Satya said:
You aren't a traditionalist. I've yet to meet a traditionalist who would admit that any same sex couples are capable of raising children as well as a heterosexual couple could.

Traditionalists are generally the ones who argue that homosexuality needs to be illegal, potentially carrying a death penalty. The kinder ones call it a mental disorder and demand that homosexuals remain celibate their entire lives. Traditionalists also generally believe in a "gay agenda" that's goal is to recruit children into the homosexual "lifestyle" and marriage and adoption are simply means that gays are using to achieve that end.
Click to expand...

Oh no! I don't believe in any of that. That's just all ignorance Maybe I fall somewhere in between then, I don't know really.
 
I also want to comment on the history of marriage.

From a biological standpoint, the reason why animals exhibit monogamous behavior is an evolutionary development to ensure paternity.

For most nonmonogamous animals, the way it usually works is that males court several females and usually mate with several different partners. This has the advantage of spreading their genes out. However, females may mate with more than one male, and as a result, it isn't assured that the female will bear any particular male's offspring. So monogamy developed as a way to ensure paternity. Rather than courting and mating with several females, the males found one female, courted her, and protected her from other males. Males developed courting behaviors which involved providing food to the female or building nests as a means of demonstrating that they could provide. To further ensure that their offspring would survive to spread their genes, some animal species developed so that the male remained by to help raise the offspring.

Humans are the only primate to exhibit life long pair bonding. All other primates live in groups of extended families called tribes. The evidence is that humans lived this way in the prehistoric times and that monogamous behavior is actually a fairly recent development in human evolution. However, the origins of marriage are the same as the monogamous roots. It has always been an institution by which a male ensures his paternity. Polygamy evolved later for wealthier men who could support more than one wife.

In the ancient world, women began to be seen as property. As such, marriage was largely an economic deal in the ancient world, a means by which households were united and resources were exchanged. The subjugation of women gave birth to the patriarchal society, which was further affirmed by Holy Scriptures which gave dominion of a man over his wife. Holy Scriptures actually became the first form of sexual control in society and the means by which males were able to continue to ensure their paternity. Hence why adultery became a sin worthy of death.

It was only in the 16th century that marriage became the spiritual institution that it is today. This was largely the result of the Protestant Reformation which took marriage from the Church and proclaimed it a relationship between a man, woman, and God.
 
Last edited:
I have never seen marriage as a religious thing.
I have always seen marriage as a public declaration for the love between to individuals, gay or straight it doesn
 
Marriage is not religious. Me and my husband are atheists.

Marriage hugely implies with civil rights, and is also a commitment made to the public and to the parts involved, it respects the family institution and doesn
 
Why only two people?
Can't three people love each other, and raise children?

I'm not being facetious; I honestly don't understand why people who support same sex marriage don't also advocate polygamy/polyandry...
 
Last edited:
I don't see why gay couples shouldn't be married. Two, consenting adults have the right to be with who they want to be with, and if they want to make their union formal and sanctioned by law, why would it be in anybody's interest to stop them?

Mind, I do have a problem with the gay community trying to force the issue on the church, and demanding that priests, rabbi, or other religiously ordained ministers marry them in a church ceremony. It is one thing to say that the church has no business in dictating social issues and government (and it doesn't), but the church does have the right to maintain its doctrine and its derivative definition of marriage.

I think the key on both sides of the issue is tolerance. The Church may not choose to condone homosexuality, but it does not have to demonize or propogate scorn towards those who follow such a lifestyle. Meanwhile, the gay community, while it may not be happy with an institution that chooses not to acknowledge them, does not have to demonize or propogate scorn towards those who identify with the Church.

That's my two cents.
 
Last edited:
I voted "I'm not sure" because I do think that a church should have a right to deny marrying same-sex couples. I do not believe in the eyes of God, this type of marriage is valid. However, I do think that a same-sex union should be recognized by the state, and same-sex couples should at least receive all of the benefits that heterosexuals receive. I can think of several gay couples who have been together longer than most married couples, and I don't have any problem with any of them raising children, as long as the child is in a nurturing home.

One thing that is irritating is that there are so many verses in the Bible condemning divorce, yet people act as if marriage is nothing...but then you have no more than 6 verses in the Bible condemning gay marriage, and people throw fits over it.
 
TheDaringHatTrick said:
Mind, I do have a problem with the gay community trying to force the issue on the church, and demanding that priests, rabbi, or other religiously ordained ministers marry them in a church ceremony.
Click to expand...

Could you provide one example where this have ever happened? I hear this argument used all the time, and yet I've never heard of a case where a gay couple has demanded that a church marry them in a church ceremony.
 
fatkattykat said:
One thing that is irritating is that there are so many verses in the Bible condemning divorce, yet people act as if marriage is nothing...but then you have no more than 6 verses in the Bible condemning gay marriage, and people throw fits over it.
Click to expand...

Six verses condemning homosexuality, not gay marriage.
 
I don't see the problem with homosexuals getting married. I don't see why marrying the same sex makes any difference. People who are against it for "religious reasons" (no offence to anyone, this is purely my opinion) is stupid, and shows that you're condemming people who have done no wrong to you. Sure, it may not be "normal" but if we stopped everything that wasn't normal we'd still be cavemen.
 
Satya said:
Could you provide one example where this have ever happened? I hear this argument used all the time, and yet I've never heard of a case where a gay couple has demanded that a church marry them in a church ceremony.
Click to expand...

Sure, I can provide one. Every couple of years, we get a local demonstration. Not long after I graduated, there was downtown highschool that was in the middle of a controversy with the Portuguese church across the street. There was an huge demonstration because the deacon had refused to do a service for one of its Parish whose daughter was gay. The school was Catholic, but multi-faith in practise, and a lot of the teachers were divided on the issue. It was tradition to hold liturgies at that church, but seeing as it was approaching fall graduation, a lot of students refused to hold their grad ceremony there on account of the controversy. This kaffufle went on for weeks, and weeks, before the grad ceremony ended up being held a local banquet hall and led by the school chaplain instead.

But I suppose it depends on what community you belong to, and who you brush shoulders with. Honestly speaking, it is surprising how the national media seems to gloss over this, while this is all that niche papers are able to talk about. Frankly, I think there is a bit of bias in both mediums. But either way, I think its a mistake to assume that just because you don't hear about it, that it doesn't happen, or just because that's all you hear about, then its some prevelant problem.
 
Last edited:
It isn't based on religion.
It's based on unifying families for the purposes of propagation, protection, power, and financial security.

Marriage existed before the bible.

I am for gay marriage. It's an argument of semantics. The definition of the word 'marriage' is changing. That happens with words. When religious views were dominant, marriage had a religious context. Religious views are not dominant, and now the word marriage has a more secular context.

Gays should be allowed to marry and they should be entitled to the same tax and health benefits as heterosexual marrieds. To receive any less is discrimination based on obsolete religiousity, which wouldn't even be an issue in the U.S. if we actually had Separation of Church and State.. But.. yaknow. We kinda don't.
 
Last edited:
TheDaringHatTrick said:
Sure, I can provide one. Every couple of years, we get a local demonstration. Not long after I graduated, there was downtown highschool that was in the middle of a controversy with the Portuguese church across the street. There was an huge demonstration because the deacon had refused to do a service for one of its Parish whose daughter was gay. The school was Catholic, but multi-faith in practise, and a lot of the teachers were divided on the issue. It was tradition to hold liturgies at that church, but seeing as it was approaching fall graduation, a lot of students refused to hold their grad ceremony there on account of the controversy. This kaffufle went on for weeks, and weeks, before the grad ceremony ended up being held a local banquet hall and led by the school chaplain instead.
Click to expand...

The Deacon refused to do a ceremony for someone who had a gay daughter? How is that the same as a same sex couple forcing a church to perform a church ceremony?

But I suppose it depends on what community you belong to, and who you brush shoulders with. Honestly speaking, it is surprising how the national media seems to gloss over this, while this is all that niche papers are able to talk about. Frankly, I think there is a bit of bias in both mediums. But either way, I think its a mistake to assume that just because you don't hear about it, that it doesn't happen, or just because that's all you hear about, then its some prevelant problem.
Click to expand...

Could you please provide an example of a same sex couple trying to force a church to perform a church ceremony? Frankly, I'm not convinced it has happened before. That is why I want an example of it.
 
I would quickly like to mention that I am amazed at how fast this thread went, and I'm sad I didn't notice it at the very beginning. Because I don't have the time or patience to read the entire thread, I'm just going to respond to the OP.

I'm all for gay marriage so that all person's rights are equal and as unrestricted as possible. I generally don't believe the government has the right to restrict the people from doing anything that doesn't directly harm another. However, I don't realistically see my libertarian views going anywhere large anytime soon, seeing as how many (Americans, at least, this is what I ave experience with) think of anyone who isn't Democrat or Republican as being a nutter. Therefore, right now, on this issue, equality is my thing. I know many say marriage is purely religious, and therefore, the religious institutions get to decide. They also, sometimes, say that homosexuals have the ability to have a civil union. This is true is some state (not nearly all), and some other countries, mainly European ones. I would be okay with this if, and only if, the term "marriage" were completely striped from the law. I want one term, with the same rights for all, and thus the same institution for these legal unions. Separate is not equal.

With this said, I'm also of the opinion that, beyond the legal reasons (shared ownership, next of kin rights ect.), marriage isn't very useful. If the love is true and lasting, a ceremony isn't really going to change anything. If marriage is going to have any powerful affect on the relationship, it would be to keep the people in a relationship they shouldn't be in. I'm not saying this happens often, but for those that this isn't the case, the marriage was pointless, y'all would have stayed together anyway. However, I do recognize people enjoy the means to announce to the world their thought that their love will last till their death, and I of course recognize the religious want for marriage. I practice a fertility religion for the gods' sake! I'm not suggesting we ban marriage, just make all of them legal the same
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top