Why G^y marriage is just wrong.

Firstly i'm not homophobic. and some of the most talented, nice, interesting people i have met are gay However, i believe that gay marriage is just wrong.

This guy writes a good article on it. I'll post an extract:

"Now let's turn to the issue of equal protection. Clearly this means that people who are similarly situated should be treated in the same way. So men and women, blacks and whites, straight people and gays, all have the right to vote, the right to speak their mind, and the right to marry. But gays already have the right to marry, just like the others. They have the right to marry adult members of the opposite sex. What they want, however, is the right to marry members of the same sex. This, however, is not a right enjoyed by anyone else. In other words, gays are not asking to be treated the same as everyone else. They want special rights that no one else claims or enjoys. They want to rewrite the definition of marriage.

This is just a cheap loophole to maintain a prejudice against homosexuals, no matter how much you tout you're not a homophobe.

They want the right to marry the ones they love, not live a lie and feel miserable by marrying a woman just to please other people. Marriage changes. First there was divorce, then there was interracial marriage. Hell, even a whole damn religion spawned just for the right to enable divorce and yet everyone is having a cry over two men that love each other fortifying that love and being granted benefits as a couple?

Marriage should be between two consenting adults. (I'd even go far as to say any number of consenting adults). Any shallow arguments about children and animals is absolute nonsense since they cannot give consent nor sign a legally binding government document.

a straight person has the right to marry the person that they love, and a gay person does not. That's not equality.

a straight person has the right to marry the person that they love, and a gay person does not. That's not equality.

Mr_sprinkles

And you know what? Disgusting or wrong as they may sound, multiples spouses, and marrying family should be allowed if there is agreement between all parties. Maybe it's awful to most, but who are they to judge? Children and dogs aren't able to understand the responsibility or the emotions, so those rules stand.

Gay couples should not marry in the traditional way, but instead they should make a "social contract", that gives all the rights and duties of a maried couple, but it's wrong to insist on going to church for instance. It's not all about what they feel about each other (which can be made clear for everybody by the social contract) but also respecting millenium old traditions.

We have a saying in my country: "if two people tell you that you are drunk, go to bed!!!". I think this applies here.

This is just a cheap loophole to maintain a prejudice against homosexuals, no matter how much you tout you're not a homophobe.

They want the right to marry the ones they love, not live a lie and feel miserable by marrying a woman just to please other people. Marriage changes. First there was divorce, then there was interracial marriage. Hell, even a whole damn religion spawned just for the right to enable divorce and yet everyone is having a cry over two men that love each other fortifying that love and being granted benefits as a couple?

Marriage should be between two consenting adults. (I'd even go far as to say any number of consenting adults). Any shallow arguments about children and animals is absolute nonsense since they cannot give consent nor sign a legally binding government document.

Red-XIII

Ok. someone is angry. No, despite what you think, i'm not a homophobe...

I believe the concept of marriage is being distorted. When marriage was created: it was a practice between a man and a woman. No culture has it the other way round.ever.

Secondly, how come a brother and sister couldn't marry? if they are both consenting adults they should be able to. (under the same logic)

You're willing to condemn other things which don't "Harm" anyone... but the concept of marriage is being obliterated. Moreover, some people actually consider marriage to be something quite sacred... it possibly demeans the importance of their marriage.

I'm all for equal rights. Like this guy says, gays do have the right to marry. All i'm saying is that we should keep perspective of what marriage is all about.

Gay couples should not marry in the traditional way, but instead they should make a "social contract", that gives all the rights and duties of a maried couple, but it's wrong to insist on going to church for instance. It's not all about what they feel about each other (which can be made clear for everybody by the social contract) but also respecting millenium old traditions.

We have a saying in my country: "if two people tell you that you are drunk, go to bed!!!". I think this applies here.

leeveeu

I agree. The idea of a social contract is the best way forward.

I'm seriously tired of the homophobia and discrimination against gays in this country.Its ridiculous.I already had an argument with my mom who thinks gays are wrong and mentally ill.I'm not gay but i support equal rights for all.This is silly, i thought people in this day and age would be above this nonsense.All this anti-gay marriage rubbish is foolish.Outright bigotry.

/rant.

a straight person has the right to marry the person that they love, and a gay person does not. That's not equality.

Mr_sprinkles

Gay people do have the right to marry...

Nice. The "Homosexuality leads to Beastuality" argument.

But gays already have the right to marry, just like the others. They have the right to marry adult members of the opposite sex. What they want, however, is the right to marry members of the same sex. This, however, is not a right enjoyed by anyone else. In other words, gays are not asking to be treated the same as everyone else. They want special rights that no one else claims or enjoys.Stumpt25

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]

a straight person has the right to marry the person that they love, and a gay person does not. That's not equality.

Stumpt25

Gay people do have the right to marry...

[QUOTE="Stumpt25"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]

a straight person has the right to marry the person that they love, and a gay person does not. That's not equality.

Mr_sprinkles

Gay people do have the right to marry...

Ah! touche my friend.

[QUOTE="Stumpt25"] But gays already have the right to marry, just like the others. They have the right to marry adult members of the opposite sex. What they want, however, is the right to marry members of the same sex. This, however, is not a right enjoyed by anyone else. In other words, gays are not asking to be treated the same as everyone else. They want special rights that no one else claims or enjoys.dooly420

That's true. It's one of his arguements which i would disagree with.

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]

a straight person has the right to marry the person that they love, and a gay person does not. That's not equality.

Stumpt25

Gay people do have the right to marry...

Yeah, because a gay person would marry someone of the opposite sex. :roll: Your logic is astounding! Love does not discriminate between straight or gay not giving gays the right to marry the person they love is downright wrong and there are no if, ands, or buts about it. And comparing a person wanting to marry a dog to two homosexual humans wanting to marry each other is just silly.

I believe the concept of marriage is being distorted. When marriage was created: it was a practice between a man and a woman. No culture has it the other way round.ever.

Stumpt25

But, here is an argument for your side, since you're being flamed into oblivion here. Unless I'm wrong, marriage was created as a religious ceremony strictly, and is just recognised by the government, so the government ought not to have a say, and the original rules for it should not be tampered with by it. A new type of legal binding could be made by the government, but maybe marriage, as a religious practice cannot be changed, just like any other.

But who knows.

[QUOTE="Stumpt25"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]

a straight person has the right to marry the person that they love, and a gay person does not. That's not equality.

stevenk4k5

Gay people do have the right to marry...

Yeah, because a gay person would marry someone of the opposite sex. :roll: Your logic is astounding! Love does not discriminate between straight or gay not giving gays the right to marry the person they love is downright wrong and there are no if, ands, or buts about it. And comparing a person wanting to marry a dog to two homosexual humans wanting to marry each other is just silly.

We all have rights. Whether gay people want to excercise their marital rights is a different story.

Marriage is not about: "a loving couple"

its about: "a consenting man and woman"

It always has been in every culture and religion.

[QUOTE="stevenk4k5"][QUOTE="Stumpt25"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]

a straight person has the right to marry the person that they love, and a gay person does not. That's not equality.

Stumpt25

Gay people do have the right to marry...

Yeah, because a gay person would marry someone of the opposite sex. :roll: Your logic is astounding! Love does not discriminate between straight or gay not giving gays the right to marry the person they love is downright wrong and there are no if, ands, or buts about it. And comparing a person wanting to marry a dog to two homosexual humans wanting to marry each other is just silly.

We all have rights. Whether gay people want to excercise their marital rights is a different story.

Marriage is not about: "a loving couple"

its about: "a consenting man and woman"

It always has been in every culture and religion.

[QUOTE="stevenk4k5"][QUOTE="Stumpt25"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]

a straight person has the right to marry the person that they love, and a gay person does not. That's not equality.

Stumpt25

Gay people do have the right to marry...

Yeah, because a gay person would marry someone of the opposite sex. :roll: Your logic is astounding! Love does not discriminate between straight or gay not giving gays the right to marry the person they love is downright wrong and there are no if, ands, or buts about it. And comparing a person wanting to marry a dog to two homosexual humans wanting to marry each other is just silly.

We all have rights. Whether gay people want to excercise their marital rights is a different story.

Marriage is not about: "a loving couple"

its about: "a consenting man and woman"

It always has been in every culture and religion.

And now times have changed.

[QUOTE="Stumpt25"][QUOTE="stevenk4k5"][QUOTE="Stumpt25"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]

a straight person has the right to marry the person that they love, and a gay person does not. That's not equality.

dooly420

Gay people do have the right to marry...

Yeah, because a gay person would marry someone of the opposite sex. :roll: Your logic is astounding! Love does not discriminate between straight or gay not giving gays the right to marry the person they love is downright wrong and there are no if, ands, or buts about it. And comparing a person wanting to marry a dog to two homosexual humans wanting to marry each other is just silly.

We all have rights. Whether gay people want to excercise their marital rights is a different story.

Marriage is not about: "a loving couple"

its about: "a consenting man and woman"

It always has been in every culture and religion.

The difference is, that was a trend which went with the male dominated society of the past.

There's nothing in marriage and marital ceremony which requires women to be personal slaves to men.

1. It's not about love. I thought I made that clear, it's about marriage!

2. Marriage, in the TRADITIONAL way, has some rituals that CANNOT be changed (the laws of our God, and the laws of God in ALL religions). If you want to do it while being gay you cannot. You can fool yourself, but cannot fool God.

3. Because people that love each other, no matter the sex should be able to protect each other and have rights that society give to MARRIED heterosexual couples, the social contract is the best way to declare and protect their LOVE.

Now, it wasn't too hard to understand, right?

Ok. someone is angry. No, despite what you think, i'm not a homophobe...

With a title like Gay marriage is just wrong" in it, there's undertones of homophobia already. If you care enough to inhibit gay rights, then that's pretty much homophobia.

I believe the concept of marriage is being distorted. When marriage was created: it was a practice between a man and a woman. No culture has it the other way round.ever.

What you 'believe' is irrelevant to the rights and freedoms of others. Why don't you do something useful for marriage by protesting Vegas shotgun weddings, The Bachelor and fad marriages of Hollywood celebrities instead of inhibiting two men who want to marry for all the right reasons?

Who created marriage? If you say God, then I might as well just leave this thread. It's been around for thousands of years and it was a cultural practice not a law in ancient society. Oh, and European culture has it the other way round.
Like I already said, marriage changes. Catholics used to make it for eternity, then the Church of England was formed to allow divorce. That already changed marriage. It used to be forbidden to marry others of another race until recently. Marriage changed there.

Really, when did marriage become about tiring, outdated traditions? Doesn't anyone consider the love of two individuals?

Secondly, how come a brother and sister couldn't marry? if they are both consenting adults they should be able to. (under the same logic)

A brother and sister cannot marry because they are genetically related, like that article you posted stated. It is detrimental to the gene pool of our species. It's even outlined in the constitution somewhere. And no, it's not the same logic for the reason that it harms other people; their offspring.

You're willing to condemn other things which don't "Harm" anyone... but the concept of marriage is being obliterated. Moreover, some people actually consider marriage to be something quite sacred... it possibly demeans the importance of their marriage.

What am I condeming?

Yes, some people do consider marriage to be sacred. Good luck to them. But marriage can also be done outside of a religious institute.

If two people getting married for love demeans another couple's marriage, then they have some serious insecurities. I find the concept that married couples think other couples shouldn't get married to be rather selfish.

I'm all for equal rights. Like this guy says, gays do have the right to marry. All i'm saying is that we should keep perspective of what marriage is all about.

If you will allow a heterosexual to marry someone they love but not a homosexual, then no, you're not standing for equality. It seems to me you're a bit misplaced what marriage is all about: Love.
If two men can marry for love and maintain that relationship for a lifetime, then they're already doing more for the idea of marriage than 50% of heterosexuals that marry.

Stumpt25

[QUOTE="Stumpt25"][QUOTE="stevenk4k5"][QUOTE="Stumpt25"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]

a straight person has the right to marry the person that they love, and a gay person does not. That's not equality.

xxDustmanxx

Gay people do have the right to marry...

Yeah, because a gay person would marry someone of the opposite sex. :roll: Your logic is astounding! Love does not discriminate between straight or gay not giving gays the right to marry the person they love is downright wrong and there are no if, ands, or buts about it. And comparing a person wanting to marry a dog to two homosexual humans wanting to marry each other is just silly.

We all have rights. Whether gay people want to excercise their marital rights is a different story.

Marriage is not about: "a loving couple"

its about: "a consenting man and woman"

It always has been in every culture and religion.

And now times have changed.

That's not exactly for you to just "decide"

It's like if someone said:

"That's it, easter isn't about the crucifiction of christ anymore! It's gonna be about Chuck Norris"

"But the bible says....."

"COMON MAN GET WITH THE PICTURE! times have changed!"

it's stupid

1. It's not about love. I thought I made that clear, it's about marriage!

2. Marriage, in the TRADITIONAL way, has some rituals that CANNOT be changed (the laws of our God, and the laws of God in ALL religions). If you want to do it while being gay you cannot. You can fool yourself, but cannot fool God.

3. Because people that love each other, no matter the sex should be able to protect each other and have rights that society give to MARRIED heterosexual couples, the social contract is the best way to declare and protect their LOVE.

Now, it wasn't too hard to understand, right?

leeveeu

1.Marriage is about love.

2.Your assuming that this tribal, ritualistic deity exists.

3.I partially agree with this statement.

[QUOTE="dooly420"][QUOTE="Stumpt25"][QUOTE="stevenk4k5"][QUOTE="Stumpt25"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]

a straight person has the right to marry the person that they love, and a gay person does not. That's not equality.

Stumpt25

Gay people do have the right to marry...

Yeah, because a gay person would marry someone of the opposite sex. :roll: Your logic is astounding! Love does not discriminate between straight or gay not giving gays the right to marry the person they love is downright wrong and there are no if, ands, or buts about it. And comparing a person wanting to marry a dog to two homosexual humans wanting to marry each other is just silly.

We all have rights. Whether gay people want to excercise their marital rights is a different story.

Marriage is not about: "a loving couple"

its about: "a consenting man and woman"

It always has been in every culture and religion.

The difference is, that was a trend which went with the male dominated society of the past.

There's nothing in marriage and marital ceremony which requires women to be personal slaves to men.

[QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="Stumpt25"][QUOTE="stevenk4k5"][QUOTE="Stumpt25"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]

a straight person has the right to marry the person that they love, and a gay person does not. That's not equality.

Stumpt25

Gay people do have the right to marry...

Yeah, because a gay person would marry someone of the opposite sex. :roll: Your logic is astounding! Love does not discriminate between straight or gay not giving gays the right to marry the person they love is downright wrong and there are no if, ands, or buts about it. And comparing a person wanting to marry a dog to two homosexual humans wanting to marry each other is just silly.

We all have rights. Whether gay people want to excercise their marital rights is a different story.

Marriage is not about: "a loving couple"

its about: "a consenting man and woman"

It always has been in every culture and religion.

And now times have changed.

That's not exactly for you to just "decide"

It's like if someone said:

"That's it, easter isn't about the crucifiction of christ anymore! It's gonna be about Chuck Norris"

"But the bible says....."

"COMON MAN GET WITH THE PICTURE! times have changed!"

it's stupid

[QUOTE="Stumpt25"]

I believe the concept of marriage is being distorted. When marriage was created: it was a practice between a man and a woman. No culture has it the other way round.ever.

OfficialJab

But, here is an argument for your side, since you're being flamed into oblivion here. Unless I'm wrong, marriage was created as a religious ceremony strictly, and is just recognised by the government, so the government ought not to have a say, and the original rules for it should not be tampered with by it. A new type of legal binding could be made by the government, but maybe marriage, as a religious practice cannot be changed, just like any other.

But who knows.

I agree.

Gays,Straights and whatever else there is do not have the right to change a tradition which has been going on for thousands of years.

[QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="Stumpt25"][QUOTE="stevenk4k5"][QUOTE="Stumpt25"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]

a straight person has the right to marry the person that they love, and a gay person does not. That's not equality.

Stumpt25

Gay people do have the right to marry...

Yeah, because a gay person would marry someone of the opposite sex. :roll: Your logic is astounding! Love does not discriminate between straight or gay not giving gays the right to marry the person they love is downright wrong and there are no if, ands, or buts about it. And comparing a person wanting to marry a dog to two homosexual humans wanting to marry each other is just silly.

We all have rights. Whether gay people want to excercise their marital rights is a different story.

Marriage is not about: "a loving couple"

its about: "a consenting man and woman"

It always has been in every culture and religion.

And now times have changed.

That's not exactly for you to just "decide"

It's like if someone said:

"That's it, easter isn't about the crucifiction of christ anymore! It's gonna be about Chuck Norris"

"But the bible says....."

"COMON MAN GET WITH THE PICTURE! times have changed!"

it's stupid

Your holy book has no authority in a country where there is a separation of church and state.

The only rights that are being obstructed by not allowing gays to marry is that they are unable to get the legal benefits that a married couple have access to.

I think the "legal binding" idea is fine.

Can't they just live and love the dude without getting married, you don't need to get married to show you love someone.Brainkiller05

Gays are gross... I wish they would die.Squeets

This thread is heading in a better direction I think, we're all going the same kinda way gradually. The dude that had the term "social contract" hit it on the head. Marriage is religious, so no. But gays should have the right to a legal binding just as everyone else does.

a straight person has the right to marry the person that they love, and a gay person does not. That's not equality.

Mr_sprinkles

No.

Me (A straight person) = Has the right to marry a woman.
Some guy (A gay person) = Has the right to marry a woman.

[QUOTE="Squeets"]Gays are gross... I wish they would die.OfficialJab

This thread is heading in a better direction I think, we're all going the same kinda way gradually. The dude that had the term "social contract" hit it on the head. Marriage is religious, so no. But gays should have the right to a legal binding just as everyone else does.

Exactly :oops:

That's the world I wanna live in.

Your holy book has no authority in a country where there is a separation of church and state.

xxDustmanxx

It does when a ritual called "marriage" derives from religion.

The only rights that are being obstructed by not allowing gays to marry is that they are unable to get the legal benefits that a married couple have access to.

I think the "legal binding" idea is fine.

Stumpt25

I agree, i think this is a reasonable conclusion that will satisfy both parties.

[QUOTE="Stumpt25"]

The only rights that are being obstructed by not allowing gays to marry is that they are unable to get the legal benefits that a married couple have access to.

I think the "legal binding" idea is fine.

xxDustmanxx

I agree, i think this is a reasonable conclusion that will satisfy both parties.

...nice one man :)

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]

a straight person has the right to marry the person that they love, and a gay person does not. That's not equality.

Brainkiller05

No.

Me (A straight person) = Has the right to marry a woman.
Some guy (A gay person) = Has the right to marry a woman.

It's equal but it's not FAIR. Once again, if the guy is gay why would he marry a woman? You all need to stop using this tired ass argument, it's not fair either way you look at it!

[QUOTE="Stumpt25"]

The only rights that are being obstructed by not allowing gays to marry is that they are unable to get the legal benefits that a married couple have access to.

I think the "legal binding" idea is fine.

xxDustmanxx

I agree, i think this is a reasonable conclusion that will satisfy both parties.

[QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"]

Your holy book has no authority in a country where there is a separation of church and state.

Stumpt25

It does when a ritual called "marriage" derives from religion.

[QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"]

Your holy book has no authority in a country where there is a separation of church and state.

Stumpt25

It does when a ritual called "marriage" derives from religion.

And that applies to religion.It doesn't apply to the country.Other than that, no holy book should hold any authority in politics.Decisions should be made considering certain factors such as religion, but should hold no authority.

The only rights that are being obstructed by not allowing gays to marry is that they are unable to get the legal benefits that a married couple have access to.

I think the "legal binding" idea is fine.

Stumpt25

If you think the legally binding idea is fine, then why not allow it?

No one is saying that gay couples will have to be married in a church. It can be done outside of any religious institute. If we allow gay marriage, civil unions, whatever you want to call it, then:
1. It would be a legally binding contract that would grant them benefits
2. It can be done outside of a Church
3. Churches can choose to marry a gay couple or not (which I believe is how it's done in Europe already)

This way, especially with point number 3, everybody wins. If a church does not wish to wed a gay couple, then so be it. But for religious groups to go so far as to ban gay marriage altogether isn't equal opportunity.

Gays are gross... I wish they would die.Squeets

I am stunned :|

If you have children some day, and one of them says that they are gay Would you kill the child?