[margog85]

Without using religion, citing scripture, or bringing god into the equation, please explain why you believe that homosexuality is wrong, why gays should not have the right to marry, and what kind of impact you feel homosexuality has on society.

[ebaines]

If you don't want religion, or citing scripture, or God as part of the answer, why did you ask this in the Christianity forum? Why didn't you post it under "issues and causes" or some other non-religous forum? Are you looking for responses from christians who don't rely on their faith?

[sassyT]

I just don't see why the state should be forced to recognise such unions because where do you draw the line? If you allow people to have abnormal marriage unions and then force the state to recognise it, then if someone wants to marry their Dog or horse, on what basis could you refuse? That means the state should also accept that marriage as valid to make "fair".

[ChihuahuaMomma]

There is a difference between two HUMAN consenting adults marrying and a person marrying an animal. That's really a ridiculous comparison. That is my opinion.

I honestly find no reason why ANY two ADULTS shouldn't be able to marry. Like one of my favorite quotes say, "If you allow one minority (homosexuals) to be discriminated against, you open the door for ALL minorities to be discriminated against".

Now I am not saying that homosexuals are a minority, I am drawing a comparison. If we don't allow two people of the same sex to marry, why let people of different races marry?

[sassyT]

There is a difference between two HUMAN consenting adults marrying and a person marrying an animal. That's really a ridiculous comparison. That is my opinion.

I honestly find no reason why ANY two ADULTS shouldn't be able to marry. Like one of my favorite quotes say, "If you allow one minority (homosexuals) to be discriminated against, you open the door for ALL minorities to be discriminated against".

Now I am not saying that homosexuals are a minority, I am drawing a comparison. If we don't allow two people of the same sex to marry, why let people of different races marry?

It is not ridiculous.. because if some human with rights want to marry an animal on what basis should we stop them if the lines on what defines marriage are so blurred. That human wanting to marry a do can also argue that they have right and the they are a minority too.

So if we allow the definition of marriage to be changed from one man and one woman, then we have no right to set bounderies on anyone else who want to marry anything else like animals, kids, pets etc. The state would also have to accept those marriages in the name of "fairness" right?

[ChihuahuaMomma]

Yes, it IS r-i-d-i-c-u-l-o-u-s. You are comparing one human with rights marrying a creature with no ability to speak for itself to two consenting human beings. That's ridiculous.

Wrong. Those marriages are wrong for one simple reason, the other party cannot consent.

[Synnen]

Where in the name of Pete are you getting the idea that people would want to marry an animal, anyway? I'd like to hear of TEN WHOLE PEOPLE in the US that want THAT to happen.

The thing is--allowing something to happen between two consenting adults; and please--focus on those last two words: Consenting meaning "giving permission" and adults meaning "over 18" (so in other words, NOT CHILDREN), isn't giving blanket permission for the rest of what you're predicting to happen. That's like saying because Christian priests have been molesting small children for decades that EVERY religion is allowing their priesthood to molest small children. Or, for instance, that because a black man may become president, the next thing you know it will be women, and then homosexuals, and then *gasp* non-Christians!

[excon]

Where in the name of Pete are you getting the idea that people would want to marry an animal, anyway?

Hello Synn:

Rush Limprod. And, Bill O'Reilly too. THEY know! So, there.

excon

[sassyT]

Where in the name of Pete are you getting the idea that people would want to marry an animal, anyway? I'd like to hear of TEN WHOLE PEOPLE in the US that want THAT to happen.

The thing is--allowing something to happen between two consenting adults; and please--focus on those last two words: Consenting meaning "giving permission" and adults meaning "over 18" (so in other words, NOT CHILDREN), isn't giving blanket permission for the rest of what you're predicting to happen. That's like saying because Christian priests have been molesting small children for decades that EVERY religion is allowing their priesthood to molest small children. Or, for instance, that because a black man may become president, the next thing you know it will be women, and then homosexuals, and then *gasp* non-Christians!!

I think you are miss understanding what I am saying. I am not saying that is what is going to happen, I am just saying if the definition of marriage is not defined and becomes blurred anyone could also argue their case to allow other abnormal unions.

[ChihuahuaMomma]

Defined as what? Elitist? Religious? Not everyone (straight or gay) that wants to marry is religious. There can still be a definition of marriage, I personally just think that it needs to include every PERSON who wants to marry another PERSON.

Abnormal is really an opinion, and in some case just a person being brain-washed. Not saying you, but I'm not saying you. Just people.

[spitvenom]

I see no reason why Homosexuals can not get married. I see what sassy is trying to say but an animal can not say yes I want to marry this person so that might not be the best argument. And the entire religious aspect of it I just throw out the window. Cause if marriage actually meant what it used to mean we wouldn't have such a high divorce rate. IF two guys or two girls want to marry each other I'm all for it.

[bushg]

Well, too late on the animal argument some man already petitioned the courts to allow him to marry his dog... not sure of what happened... but yea it has already happened. Don't doubt me because I may not know about gay marriages but I do know about dogs.
Btw I don't think it is gay peoples fault that this wacko wanted to marry his dog.

[Synnen]

Hello Synn:

Rush Limprod. And, Bill O'Reilly too. THEY know! So, there.

excon

Hello Ex,

Those people are idiots who can't find their rear ends with two hands and a flashlight. They probably think someone wants to marry THEM too.

Love,

Synn

[sassyT]

I don't have a problem with a man wanting to marry another man or a man wanting to marry their pet hamster, we all free to do what we want, however I just don't see why the State should be forced to recognise such unions as valid.

[ChihuahuaMomma]

Because people are people. You shouldn't discriminate one group because of their sexuality. Nor should you limit their rights.

[margog85]

Well, I posted this out of curiousity, to see what other arguments were most common, besides the religious ones I've heard so often. I wanted to hear from Christians, who are often, in my experience, adamantly anti-homosexuality and anti-gay rights... and see if there was any basis for their dislike of homosexuality outside of their religious views.

The only one which has been raised so far is the 'slippery slope' argument- which has been successfully rebutted here as well.

Are there other reasons aside from your religious beliefs? If not, then why are so many against gay marriage, particularly Christians? If it is against your religion, then don't allow homosexuals to marry in your church. And don't marry someone of the same sex. But why cause hardship for others who don't share those same specific RELIGIOUS morals? Why should the religious beliefs of one group be forced upon those who don't share those religious beliefs? This is what I have such difficulty grasping... when and how did it become okay in peoples' minds to cross that line?

[Synnen]

I dont have a problem with a man wanting to marry another man or a man wanting to marry thier pet hamster, we all free to do what we want, however I just dont see why the State should be forced to recognise such unions as valid.

I don't care whether the CHURCH recognizes those unions as valid, but I do care that the state recognize them and here's why: There are rights and privileges that are associated with heterosexual marriages--such as inheritance laws, child custody, medical information/care, visitation for incarcerated people, etc. I basically feel that if ALL people can't have those rights/privileges, then NONE of us should have them just from "getting married".

By all means, let's give the lawyers more work by making it impossible for marriage to bestow those rights and privileges and make EVERYONE have to have legal documents that cover EACH of the situations that right now are covered simply by getting married.

[margog85]

I dont have a problem with a man wanting to marry another man or a man wanting to marry thier pet hamster, we all free to do what we want, however I just dont see why the State should be forced to recognise such unions as valid.

Because the reason gay people want marriage is for legal protection- and without state and federal recognition of marriage, then nothing is accomplished. Gay people who are raising children, buying homes together, supporting one another... they want the same protection as a committed couple that would be afforded to a straight committed couple through the institution of marriage.

[ChihuahuaMomma]

Bravo Bravo you two! I would have to agree with everything said!

[simoneaugie]

I recognize all life as valid. The state "recognizing marriage as valid" is contrived. The grass grows. Humans love one another. Humans are not naturally monogamous. What a shame that Humans have laws written to "protect" when they could be loving and honest towards one another.