Gay Marriage is a fad

[princealbertofb]

Ironic that this thread was started by a "transexual man" in an OPEN straight relationship. Talk about TWISTED!

Is twisted the right word, Bob? I hope you mean this in a humorous way. Do you?

[princealbertofb]

The only thing that makes marriage a fad is the increasing amount of divorces taking place each year, it seems like people want to throw things away the minute things go wrong. Also, If religious people wanted to keep it religious then they should have fought to keep it out of the legal systems of the world.

You may have a point there, Corsac. But still, what about adopting the system that we have in France where ALL marriages have to be at least civil? ... Religious weddings are an option, but aren't recognised UNLESS they've been registered by the state.

[Corsac]

You may have a point there, Corsac. But still, what about adopting the system that we have in France where ALL marriages have to be at least civil? ... Religious weddings are an option, but aren't recognised UNLESS they've been registered by the state.

Yeah, I would love to see a system like that (we have civil partnerships recognised by the law for gay couples in the UK). You have to remember lots of people who aren't religious do use the word marriage to describe their partnership, I don't know many people who actually imply anything religious when they say they're married anyway. My parents are married but don't follow any religion, should they join a religion just to please those who are religious just so they can call their partnership a marriage still?

It all boils down to the word "marriage" and the religious interpretation of the word. As I mentioned before, it should not have been placed within the legal systems. When it comes to the legal side of a persons registered partnership, religion should have no place within it.

[Tombo]

Other than the obvious, the primary difference between a heterosexual and homosexual couple is reproduction. Reproduction is consistent one of most fundamental laws in nature. Marriage and the tax breaks that come with it happen to be the human/American form of supporting reproduction, which is a survival issue. I realize these are all complex conceptions for the liberal movement to comprehend, as they're bigoted against all things traditional, and instead support chaos and idiocracy. They want you to believe that mankind more closely resembles a seahorse instead of a common mammal.


The liberal movement suggests this is a human rights issue, but they're dead wrong. Nobody is suggesting a gay person cannot marry someone of the opposite sex, and therefore they are not descriminated. If they choose not to do this that's their business. In life we have to meet minimum requirements to enjoy certain privlidges. We don't allow 5-year olds to acquire driver's licenses, and they're not allowed to purchase alcohol. If this truly was a human rights issue, then there's no reason to restrict marriage at all. Relatives should be allowed to marry, children should be allowed to marry, and eventually, adults should be allowed to marry children. This may come as a shock, but incest and pedophilia are "normal" where their argument is concerned, and the participants happen to be human (see human rights). And after all, it's legal for adults to marry children in some countries, and incest has been around for thousands of years.


The easily swayed might convince themselves of the gay-marriage non-sense, because they're trendy, but I'll continue to call things as they are, and I'm calling same-sex marriage a deception, hoax and fad.

Gay people are attracted to people of the same gender, there should not be restrictions on being able to marry another consenting adult.

Paedophiles create a great deal of psychological harm, and physical harm, in the child and this can manifest as trauma and psychiatric disorders. It can be completely horrifying for the child. Two men or two women in love with each other, in a healthy, consenting relationship, does not cause these issues.

In terms of incest, the offspring of closely related people are at high-risk of being born with severe deficits. Also, the individuals are contained within in the institution of the family whereas 2 gay people are not, unless they are gay and incestuous.

[princealbertofb]

Yeah, I would love to see a system like that (we have civil partnerships recognised by the law for gay couples in the UK). You have to remember lots of people who aren't religious do use the word marriage to describe their partnership, I don't know many people who actually imply anything religious when they say they're married anyway. My parents are married but don't follow any religion, should they join a religion just to please those who are religious just so they can call their partnership a marriage still?

It all boils down to the word "marriage" and the religious interpretation of the word. As I mentioned before, it should not have been placed within the legal systems. When it comes to the legal side of a persons registered partnership, religion should have no place within it.

People keep talking about the RELIGIOUS DEFINITION of marriage, but where exactly in the Bible (old and new testament) is there such a DEFINITION??? We have instances of married people, and of marriages and weddings, yes, but where does it say that it's a man and a woman (and only that?) ?? The fact that Israelites did not adopt other cultures' customs may have precluded same sex marriage, which does exist in other cultures (maybe even existed in Rome, (not sure) ... as it did in some Northern American cultures. But I'm not sure there's a definition in the Bible, as such. What's more there are some indications and commandments in the Bible that are no longer followed by many who call themselves Christians or Jews. Things have evolved, so why should we still be living in the 1st century, or the couple of millenia that happened before Christ?

[Corsac]

People keep talking about the RELIGIOUS DEFINITION of marriage, but where exactly in the Bible (old and new testament) is there such a DEFINITION??? We have instances of married people, and of marriages and weddings, yes, but where does it say that it's a man and a woman (and only that?) ?? The fact that Israelites did not adopt other cultures' customs may have precluded same sex marriage, which does exist in other cultures (maybe even existed in Rome, (not sure) ... as it did in some Northern American cultures. But I'm not sure there's a definition in the Bible, as such. What's more there are some indications and commandments in the Bible that are no longer followed by many who call themselves Christians or Jews. Things have evolved, so why should we still be living in the 1st century, or the couple of millenia that happened before Christ?

I said nothing about the definition of marriage from within any of the religious texts, I merely stated that the religious interpretation of the word can be different for people. As long as people ask for a gay partnership to also be called a marriage then lots of the religious leaders are going to complain about it, therefore I go back to my point that they should of fought to have it away from the legal systems.

[princealbertofb]

I wasn't actually referring to something you said, Corsac, just to other people... I agree with you. But for anyone religious to defend "THE BIBLE's definition of the Bible'' there would have to be ONE...

[Corsac]

I wasn't actually referring to something you said, Corsac, just to other people... I agree with you. But for anyone religious to defend "THE BIBLE's definition of the Bible'' there would have to be ONE...

I do apologise then, I assumed that was aimed at me since I was quoted.

[Pix]

Here's what the Bible says about marriage:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_a...riage.html

and more:

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/...riage.html

They missed one, btw, where St. Paul said that by having children women would be saved (this Bible verse greatly distressed an infertile woman, btw), so apparently men shouldn't have sex with women if they can help it but women should have kids.

But anyway a preacher moved against my me and my partner before...it's a long story I'd rather not get into. But suffice to say he and I got into a talk while he was driving me and my girl home and mentioned...oh, what do you know, those links missed ANOTHER Biblical statement of marriage, the one the preacher used...hang on, let me see if I can find it again...ok, took me about 5 minutes, but it's Matthew 19: 4-6 which you can read the KJV (which that preacher preferred) here:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...rsion=NKJV

Unfortunately I wasn't able to check that passage as we were in a car but later found out that just a few verses down Jesus also said that the ONLY legite reason for divorce was infidelity (and technically he said man put his wife away, so I'm not certain if a woman could divorce a man for the same reason if one holds strictly to a literal interpretation). That means a great many people out there are living in sin. But by the time I realized this me and that preacher were no longer on speaking terms.

But I DID point out that the definition of marriage has changed before, even in the Bible, such as men who had many wives, and he said that was because life was so harsh and brutal that it was necessary to survive as a tribe to have as many children as possible. And I responded that in our age of global overpopulation maybe it was God's will that we do all that we can to keep the numbers of new children down, from birth control to letting gays marry (and those who adopt can take those unwanted) but of course he wasn't willing to even consider the possibility (I think that was when he mentioned the Matthew bit).

And, of course, they associate "religious" as "Christian" as all other religions are false. But here's more on how variable the Biblical definition of marriage can be (sometimes very silly but it does reference a lot of actual verses):

[Kiid]

This is marrage



^A PICE OF PAPER

Also I don't believe in gay marriage. Who gay marries anyone? Marriage should be kept to the church and the out of the government. I don't care if a church doesn't wana marry me. But I suppose there would be discrimination problems. Any way you look at it there are going to be people who have a problem with it. (Maybe rantfull)