As a muslim, I believe it is wrong, not because I'm a muslim, but just generally. But as I tell a lot of people, regardless of what I or anyone else believe, if there are some who believe it is right, then we should respect what they think.
And you're an expert in the field are you? Whether they are born gay or not is irrelavent. What is relevant is that people don't choose to be gay. So whether you want to blame god or not, you can't blame the person.
There's nothing to blame anyway - there is nothing wrong with being gay. Whoever thinks it is, perhaps they have something wrong with them. It doesn't in any way affect them if someone is gay, so why do they feel that they should say whether it is right or wrong.
I am not religious, anymore.
It was existent. The religions that oppose the concept do so because it was social taboo in the cultures they arose from.
I personally believe it do be a mixture between biology and sociology. A "gay" gene has been identified, but is not necessarily expressed. I think that personal social development is the catalyst. Regardless of whether i'm right or wrong, it is certain that there is no choice.
I don't think that's relevant. If you enter into a relationship purely for the purpose of producing offspring, I pity you.
I support same-sex or "gay" marriage. I don't use the term gay marriage, because I'm not gay, yet I'm attracted to men. So if I were to get married, could it really be called a gay marriage? It's far too one-dimensional. I'm also attracted to women.
In response to your question, sorry, comrade, I support same-sex marriage. I don't consider it "wrong". I would support, love and allow my children (which I don't as yet have, though I expect I will) regardless of the gender of the people they fall in love with. Furthermore, I would continue to support them if they chose to get married to the person they loved, regardless of gender combinations.
I do so because of my own feelings for both genders, because I recognise that sexuality is a choice, and because I favour liberty.
It was existent. The religions that oppose the concept do so because it was social taboo in the cultures they arose from.
I dont know why they prefer same sex maybe some mental calamity which brought some hormonal changes.
I personally believe it do be a mixture between biology and sociology. A "gay" gene has been identified, but is not necessarily expressed. I think that personal social development is the catalyst. Regardless of whether i'm right or wrong, it is certain that there is no choice.
I don't think that's relevant. If you enter into a relationship purely for the purpose of producing offspring, I pity you.
I support same-sex or "gay" marriage. I don't use the term gay marriage, because I'm not gay, yet I'm attracted to men. So if I were to get married, could it really be called a gay marriage? It's far too one-dimensional. I'm also attracted to women.
In response to your question, sorry, comrade, I support same-sex marriage. I don't consider it "wrong". I would support, love and allow my children (which I don't as yet have, though I expect I will) regardless of the gender of the people they fall in love with. Furthermore, I would continue to support them if they chose to get married to the person they loved, regardless of gender combinations.
I do so because of my own feelings for both genders, because I recognise that sexuality is a choice, and because I favour liberty.
There are no justifications for bigoted world-views, only excuses.
I agree that we need to stop discriminating on the basis of personal sexual preference by gender.
I believe that Homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as Heterosexuals. I believe that a person's religious beliefs should have no bearing on the personal lives of others, and they should not try to force their beliefs onto other people. I think that those who claim that they are protecting marriage need to establish how Gay Marriage is a threat to Straight Marriage and Relationships and without citing religious reasons.
They need to prove the negative effect that Gay Marriage and Relationships would have on Straight Marraiges and Relationships. Much like, those in favor of banning Ephedra supplements had to prove the negative effects that it had on people's health. Those those in favor of the ban presented proof of these ill effect, Ephedra was then banned.
That said, those in favor of this, will need to do the same and without citing the Bible, or any other religious literature. Those saying that a child would be targeted for having gay parents, forget that children are targeted for other reasons, when the parents are straight. Having gay parents would not change this. In my opinion, I think that allowing Gays to marry would help decrease the divorce rate, seeing as how, they are the ones whom want to be married, and the commitment it represents so much, that they might be the ones who wouldn't take it for granted, and screw it up like Straight people have since the beginning.
I think that the gays are the ones who would actually get married for the right reasons. I mean, just look at the divorce rate.. we can't exactly blame the Gays for that now can we?
They need to prove the negative effect that Gay Marriage and Relationships would have on Straight Marraiges and Relationships. Much like, those in favor of banning Ephedra supplements had to prove the negative effects that it had on people's health. Those those in favor of the ban presented proof of these ill effect, Ephedra was then banned.
That said, those in favor of this, will need to do the same and without citing the Bible, or any other religious literature. Those saying that a child would be targeted for having gay parents, forget that children are targeted for other reasons, when the parents are straight. Having gay parents would not change this. In my opinion, I think that allowing Gays to marry would help decrease the divorce rate, seeing as how, they are the ones whom want to be married, and the commitment it represents so much, that they might be the ones who wouldn't take it for granted, and screw it up like Straight people have since the beginning.
I think that the gays are the ones who would actually get married for the right reasons. I mean, just look at the divorce rate.. we can't exactly blame the Gays for that now can we?
Legally and physically, gay marriage doesn't harm anyone or any one group of people. To me, it's a no-brainer that Yes, it should be legal.
Religiously, if your religion doesn't accept it, that fine. If it does accept it, that, too, is fine. Religious acceptance (or lack of) shouldn't way the legalities of it when the legalities don't interfer with religion.
Naturally, same sex unions happen, yet they don't produce offspring. Thus, it can't be said it's not natural (but neither is driving a car). It can be said that it's not typical.
To me, the argument against it has no valid point other than "I think it's gross and I don't like it!".
Leviticus is pretty clean on the subject and there's nothing in the NT to override that prohibition.
Purely from a religious perspective I'm not sure how it can be acceptable.
No, you're looking at individuals rather than hetero or homosexual unions as a whole.
Men and women can produce offspring even if specific couples do not or cannot. Men and Men or women and women cannot even if they would wish to do so - it is natural that same sex couples cannot and not natural that they would suppose they could. So, from a purely biological/medical perspective same sex unions which cannot produce offspring are not natural.
Overstated.
Most couples that marry remain married until one spouse dies.
Most couples that marry twice divorce.
Those marrying a third time have a divorce rate, iirc, over 70%
So, serial marriers skew the stats
Last edited:
Looking at individuals and unions is, as is rather or not offspring is created from such a union, irrelevant to the fact that same sex couplings happen in nature. If it happens in nature, it's natural.
If offspring is the ultimate test of if something is considered natural or not, then any plant or animal that never gets to reproduce would be considered unnatural.
If you like, but the state's interest in promoting traditional marriage is family. Same sex couples can't naturally produce children.
Again, a plant or an animal is an individual. Plants and animals as plants and animals can produce offspring.
If it happens in nature its natural... it isn't just the odd same sex coupling that happens. Incest, as we'd define it, is not at all uncommon amongst wolves. We could find all kinds of things that occur naturally according to your definition that are very undesireable. That something may occur between individuals in nature does not provide a legal basis for same sex marriage.
Last edited:
The state issue you refer to I wasn't considering. So in that regard, I may agree it's not in their interest, but only to a point. Gay people, typically, have more disposable income than their straight counterparts. Once a state see the monetary potential a gay couple bring into their economy, they will change their tune (I believe).
To your point of nature - yes: a lot of things happen in nature that we would detest. And same sex coupling may fall into that category for some. The point I was making isn't what one deems acceptable or not, but rather or not it's natural.
In regards to the legality of it, that has nothing to do with nature but acceptance of human rights and the hatred fear breeds. There is no legitimate reason why a gay couple shouldn't be allowed to legally marry (other than the current laws
- some of which are being over turned).The only reason that a person can honestly say there shouldn't be legal gay marriage is out of fear of what they don't understand. Gay marriage will not end society, it won't destroy morals, it doesn't hinder religious belief, it doesn't spoil the water, it doesn't cause droughts, it won't make straight people turn gay, it won't stunt the population growth, etc.
The only reason that exists that makes people want to say NO to legal gay marriage is their own insecurities, which eventually breeds fear, then, finally hatred.
How would same sex marriage change that one iota?
And I'm not sure that just because something happens that it is natural. Murder happens. Does that make it natural?
In regards to the legality of it, that has nothing to do with nature but acceptance of human rights and the hatred fear breeds. There is no legitimate reason why a gay couple shouldn't be allowed to legally marry (other than the current laws
Excepting that the state's interest in sanctioning marriage is to acknowledge the traditional nuclear family as the preferred environment for raising children.
Um... huh? I think people understand homosexualiy in so far as some people are gay. They understand marriage as a concept. I suspect they can put the two together.
Of course not. But that's not why they object.
For example... Bob murders Jay. Morals, religious belief, water, drought etc do not follow as a consequence. So, using your logic that permitting action X doesn't hinder others can't be the standard (and ftr - I am no way comparing same sex marriage to a crime and don't think of it even remotely like that - merely plugging a differnt act into your argument to illustrate what it can yield)
disagree... why not simply accept a preferred alternative?
that I pick a filet over a strip doesn't mean I hate strip steak
More gay couples would be willing to move to a state where gay marriage is legal.
That's not what I said. I said when it happens "in nature" (meaning, within the natrual state of things) it's natural. Murder is a term designated for human on human killing. Maybe murder is natural to the human psyche...?
Wrong. It's simply an acknowledgement of a traditional nuclear family - nothing more.
They understand what it is only. The concept that it's a choice shows people don't truly understand it. People don't even fully understand heterosexuality...
There no supporting data to make this a fact, but only an opinion.
What do you mean?
they may be but I doubt the decision would be so simple. Jobs, family, etc etc would also factor into the decision just as it would for anyone else.
Murder happens within the natural state of things. Murder is the intentional killing of a human with malice aforethought and is older than civilization. What could be more natural?
lol. sure. The reason the state gives its imprimatur to traditional marriage is because it recognized, ackowledges, accepts, and even prefers two parent (male/female) households. As I said, that's the generic ideal - there are awful traditional families and worderful non-traditional families. However, we are not talking about individuals but the institution as a whole.
Yes, they understand what it is. I doubt it is a choice though I find efforts to locate some kind of genetic "cause" deeply troubling. For my part it is simple enough to acknowledge that some people are gay - end of story.
And your declaration that opposition top same sex marriage flows from, "their own insecurities, which eventually breeds fear, then, finally hatred." is?
There is no reason to presume opponents of same sex marriage do so out of insecurities, fear and haterd.
That one form is prefered to others does not require that those not chosen are hated. You're offering up a false choice. That society prefers a married mom and dad raising thier children doesn't mean that society hates single parents... nor does it mean that they hate homosexuals.
Nothing with gov't is simple
Happening within the natural state of things is different than happening within nature itself. There is no murder in nature.
How so? Why?
An opinion of course. Not once was it said to be anything other.
Then there must a be good reason - let's hear it:
I haven't heard anyone state a good, legitimate reason that would support "no gay marriage". Have you? If so, what is it?
Nothing with gov't is simple
Isn't that the truth!
Tell that to the dead lion cubs when a new lion takes over the pride. Believe it or not even on a farm if a new tomcat takes over he'll seek out all the kittens that are not his and kill them.
Efforts to find a genetic "cause" are troubling because the next step for many would be finding a "cure." If this genetic cause could be detected in utero some would terminate those pregnancies.
nor was my comment
Why would telling you a third time be any more likely to sink in?
Ok, society can choose from options what it regards as ideal, worst case, criminal, immoral etc etc.
The traditional nuclear family of mother and father raising thier children together is the societal ideal in the west and has been for millenia. It is also true in most other places around the world. Holding up that form as an ideal over other alternativesw does not equate to hating the options not chosen.
Like I said much earlierm, picking a filet over a strip doesn't mean I hate the strip - it means I prefer the filet.
Yes. That's part of nature. It's not murder as murder is when a person kills another person.
Ah...good point.
I said a good reason.
To a point, yes.
Perhaps. Ideal in what way? When did this concept start? When it started, was it any more "ideal" than the concept it replaced?
Fact is, holding onto traditions (meaning not changing) in a world what is changing is the making for a potential disaster. As an example, look at the auto industry. The Big 3 didn't change their ways until the late 90's early 2000's. Now they are battling back to become relevant again.
Not sure how true that statement is.
It depends on the people involved.
The fact is, pro-gay marriage people are asking for their family style to 'replace' the traditional family, simply exist along side it. Many in the traditional family set don't only refuse this idea, but accepting gay marriage at all. That, to me, isn't tolerance nor acceptance. That's fear and hate pure and simple.
PS - sorry for messing up your quotes - sometimes when I click QUOTE not everything copies over as a QUOTE
Last edited:
Similar threads
