EPTGay Marriage has come to Portland - Page 5
| Forum Index > Closed |
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
| ||
|
TigG
Spain369 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:45 Excalibur_Z wrote: The REAL argument against gay marriage is one that Beyonder never mentioned, though he came close. It perverts the institution of marriage, and here's why: marriage has a religious foundation. You get married to your partner in the eyes of God. However, God does not approve of homosexual relationships. Therefore He will not allow them to be married. As such, any marriage between two gay people is void. So, they must resort to being joined in a civil union by a justice of the peace. Many atheists choose this route because they don't want to have to partake in a religious ceremony, and that is the only option for gays. I don't have a problem with gays joined in civil unions, just as long as they aren't married. They are NOT the same thing. I know I'm going to get a lot of flak from anti-religious infidels who supposedly want equal rights for gays, but hey I don't make the rules. It has nothing to do with equal rights, and everything to do with perverting the institution of marriage in the way I described. Did you call god and asked him what he thought about gay marriage, and he told you he didn't aprove it? Man, you really screwed it there. You could say "Christian religion doesn't aprove gay marriage" or jewish or whatever, but not God... | ||
|
TigG
Spain369 Posts
| ||
|
Fedaykin
Netherlands2003 Posts
Marraige is NOT a religious bond betweet two poeple. Marraige is a promis towards each other and (basically) signing a piece of paper making you a couple towards the law. And if this is not the case, than why did a friend of mine who recently got married had two seperate ceremonies, one in city hall and the other one in a church. Because he *and his wife) is/are religious and wanted to ask for God's blessing over his marraige. But since the ceremony in the church took place after the one in city hall they were already married then. The religious meaning of marraige isn't what decided whether a couple is married or not. It's just that if you are religious I can understand that you don't consider yourself married unless the church pronounces you man and wife. For non-religious couples the declaration of man and wife before the law is enough. So, marriage has evolved... If it didn't then, well... a very high percentage of the married couples in this world wouldn't be married. Anyway, bottemline, marraige isn't and shouldn't be bound with religion, although it's roots are based therein. Unless you want everyone to be forced into a religion and make it impossible for people to achieve the state of maried couple without the blessing of the church (and thereby base the whole law on the bible and go back to the middle ages) | ||
|
Ready2[ESC]
Hungary1436 Posts
 | ||
|
Bill and Bill
United States167 Posts
On March 05 2004 03:58 Excalibur_Z wrote: Liberals, for some reason, want marriage to include gay couples. not really. i'd like to add: I don't agree with gay marriage, I don't care if they get married, I won't be losing any sleep, and humans are very strange. | ||
|
Muhweli
Finland5328 Posts
| ||
|
FreeZEternal
Korea (South)3396 Posts
| ||
|
koehli
Germany350 Posts
You claim marriage is a religious institution which involves a man and a woman and is sacred by god. I assume you are a christian although I wouldn't read all that much love out of your posts as I would ideally expect from a true christian. American society nowadays is a secular Society. Secularism was invented in "old Europe" at about the time of French revolution. It's only principle is to strictly divide between anything religious and any matters of state to provide for freedom of religion. So any post using weird "interpretations" from the bible - and you seem to interprete the Old Testament much more intensely than you mind for the New One - is completely uncalled for in a legal debate. Another thing: Compare a straight christian couple, a straight hindu couple and a mixed christian/hindu gay couple. Do you notice that only one of these can claim the "holy christian bound of marriage". Yet you surely would agree that the hindu couple has by current law all right to get married and anything else would be religious discrimination. Which just proves that marriage nowadays is not only a christian sacrament. It has evolved, a point that you have so violently denied until I pointed this out to you ;-) Peace to the bible belt, may they no longer ignore their god given brain ;-p koehli | ||
|
CrazedZergling..
Norway8 Posts
| ||
|
SChasu
United States1505 Posts
| ||
|
Jim
Sweden1965 Posts
Ps. SS-guy even if that may be true(I dont think so) why cant you just ignore them. They cause no harm.(If you feel they do, the problem lies with you not them) | ||
|
Vietnam_Oi
Vietnam120 Posts
| ||
|
Bill and Bill
United States167 Posts
the numbers in US are something like 56% against and 30 some odd percent for gay marriage. | ||
|
rOm
Latvia1208 Posts
On March 05 2004 06:26 Muhweli wrote: It all comes to that!THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN THEY'LL HAVE | ||
|
Meat
Netherlands3751 Posts
On March 05 2004 07:57 SS-guy wrote: i agree with crazed zergling except that i do have a problem with gays... if i meet them i dont show hate or anything like that, but being gay isnt natural and they arent "born gay" they can change if they want to... they just think they are born gay to make themselves feel good, even though when they see a naked chick they get a boner Sorry, but who are you to judge about that? They told you that or is it proven by good independ studies? I believe it's proven that from many gay men the brain is more siding to the female functioning then from hetero men. | ||
|
no.1
516 Posts
who cares? just have fun and give a fuck on all these ignorants, if two people want to live together..let them | ||
|
pyogenes
Brazil1401 Posts
can you link me to a page that explains it? | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
In a completely platonic way. Bey said! : 2. Marriage is for procreation. The proponents of that argument are really hard pressed to explain why, if that's the case, that infertile couples are allowed to marry. I, for one, would love to be there when the proponent of such an argument is to explain to his post-menopausal mother or impotent father that since they cannot procreate, they must now surrender their wedding rings! That would be fun to watch! Again, such an argument fails to persuade based on the marriages society does allow routinely, without even a second thought. How many times have homosexual males gotten each other pregnant? I ask because I know of cases in which "infertile" couples have conceived. If there is only a .0001% chance of a heterosexual couple conceiving, thats a) still justifiable for marriage and b) a much higher chance than a pair of homosexuals have. As far as impotent/post-menopausal couples, well, they already did that song and dance, and I don't think they'll be doing it anymore, eh? Drop your anti-Biblical bias for a second and consider the term "One flesh". Keeping that in mind, try for once to assume a purely logical position and consider the human anatomy. Male + Male = excess! Female + Female = lack! Male + Female = I think we have a winner! C'mon, now. It isn't that hard to see that there is a way the world is supposed to work, is it? | ||
|
DV8
United States1623 Posts
On March 05 2004 08:06 Jim wrote: Since its pretty impossible to argue successfully over the internet I decided not to. However I would like to share a bit of information. 60% in Sweden support gay marriage. What are the numbers in the US? Ps. SS-guy even if that may be true(I dont think so) why cant you just ignore them. They cause no harm.(If you feel they do, the problem lies with you not them) I think its like 60% oppose it here in the states. WorldNetDaily shows that 60% of polled americans are against. | ||
| ||
