#1- Gay Marriage y/n?

[Freezak]

I'm a believer and im against such marriages. Even the fact that i am, completely excludes my accept on gay marriages. I wont explain my reasons in english as im not that good in it and probably i wont say what i want, but seems like i completely agree with this:

1. It Is Not Marriage

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

2. It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution

In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”

If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.

The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:

"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."

10. It Offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.

Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)

The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).

Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)

Source: http://www.tfpstudentaction.org

[banditofdoom]

NO! Steven Bucket here, tea time employee and retired ice cream man. I think the fruitcakes of the world should NOT be allowed to marry. They will slowly descend on our territory that is non-fruitcakes! Then, they will want more and more power. First they will want fruitcakes in office, then in congress, THEN IN THE PRESIDENTIAL SEAT! My good people, vote no on fruitcake marriage so we can stop them while they are rising up. Hear me brothers! THIS ALL DEPENDS ON YOU!

[Rowan13]

15:38 - ☩ KHS RΩωαη_13 [HIA] ☩: r u gay?
15:41 - Apple Bot™: yes

[buffalobagingi]

Seeing as I'm gay, YES!

Let the buttbuddies be buttbuddies. My answer is yes.

People should be allowed to do whatever they want on this subject, after all it's their life.

I'm certainly FOR it, I don't see why so many people have a problem with it when it doesn't concern them or have any impact on their own lives.
As for gay parents adopting there's no reason why two male parents can't be as good a heterosexual couple.

Are you people saying that it is or not beneficial for society?

What exactly do you mean by beneficial? Normal marriage isn't usually beneficial so why would you want to have a discussion about it? You're practically saying "Is gay marriage better than normal marriage?" You're making absolutely no sense.

It's not beneficial for society, but it's also not UNbeneficial for society. It doesn't affect us at all, it's just to decide whether or not gay people are really people (which they obviously are) and whether or not they should get the same rights as us. (Which they should. We've been through this before with people of other skin colors, genders, etc)

[Rowan13]

What exactly do you mean by beneficial? Normal marriage isn't usually beneficial so why would you want to have a discussion about it? You're practically saying "Is gay marriage better than normal marriage?" You're making absolutely no sense.

It's not beneficial for society, but it's also not UNbeneficial for society. It doesn't affect us at all, it's just to decide whether or not gay people are really people (which they obviously are) and whether or not they should get the same rights as us. (Which they should. We've been through this before with people of other skin colors, genders, etc)

I have posted the reasons why it is beneficial (check Rowan's text-wall nº1).
Recognizing straight marriages is also beneficial, the benefits the couple receives creates a safer infrastructure for their offspring, for example.

brb typing text wall to Freezak

[Deriptz]

I voted for because I don't see any reason why not. If people like their own gender, I don't get what is wrong with that.

[DoomDude1]

@ Freezak

I highly object point 10, as it does not cover the God of every religion.

[Rowan13]

1. It Is Not Marriage

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

The nature of marriage has changed in definition and make-up many times over the centuries. Marriage today isn't at all like what it was two millennia or even two centuries ago. The changes in marriage have been broad and fundamental. A lot of these changes have moved the power given in marriage away from the families and to couples, and made women more equal than they used to be. Lets give some examples:

• Legalization of divorce;
  
• Criminalization of marital rape and recognition of the concept;
  
• Legalization of contraception;
  
• Legalization of interracial marriage;
  
• Recognition of a woman’s right to property.
  
• Removing dowries;
  

...and more.

Spoiler :

Elimination of parents arranging marriages with pre-determined spouses, removal of childhood marriage, no more betrothals, no more polygamy, an existence of a large number of unmarried people, its no longer mandatory for women to adopt their spouse’s last name, changing emphasis from money and property rights to actual love and personal fulfillment.

Notice how these revisions benefit women?
For the longest time marriage wasn't in any way a real ‘partnership’, and was more of a way for men to control women. They were considered property back in the old testament times. Only very recently has western civilization began to use marriage as an actual partnership and made it mutual.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Its not like these where minor reforms, only very recently can we look at the interracial marriage debate which is nearly fully documented.
The exact same arguments are coming up against gays now. Between one man and a woman, funny how it differs from the old definition of “between one white man, and one white woman”. So all the changes made above, the ones that changed women from property to equals, turned polygamy into monogamy, all of which were pretty much as massive and as controversial as gay marriage is today.

There’s also the fact that gay marriage is not unheard of in human history. There are quite a few societies’ that permitted it. Back on track, though. Marriage has been primarily about unions which made good economic sense. Rich people married other rich people in order to solidify political alliances and economic futures. Poor people married other poor people with whom they thought they could create a liveable future — someone who was a hard worker, reliable, strong, etc. Love existed, but it was a minor consideration next to simply surviving.
Today, the relative positions of the two have switched. Economic issues aren't totally irrelevant and few people rush to marry someone who appears unreliable and with no economic future. At the same time, though, romantic love has been made the most important basis for marriage.

When was the last time you saw someone praised for marrying for economic considerations?


Props go to Hati Hróðvitnisson, a friend of mine that has taken the time to draft most of the post reply to reezak

[Freezak]

I really appreciate your time spent on replying to me, but i won't change my mind. Of course everyone is free and can choose his way. And please add a source to your post: http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/...efinit.htm

[Enzyme]

Why the hell not?

I was raised to respect everyone, despite sexuality, and I've never seen any issues with gay marriage, or gay people.. As long as they don't "force their way on to me", then they can do what they want.

Oh.. and this guy? Gay in real life:
[Image: 50938384.jpg]