There is no rational reason to stop same sex marriage

[Evales]

It's hard for me to view homosexuality as that bad of a thing if someone is born to be that way. I could not judge them against it if they were born that way.

Ok, but what if it turns out to be entirely a matter of choice? Would you judge them against it then? If so, what harm, to others or themselves, would you invoke?

Homosexuality

Point 1) If biological it is something that God created and thus we should not be punished for it since it is natural.

Point 2) That being even if it is still a sin (or not biological) the people who commit acts of homosexuality are fully allowed (by God) to commit as many sins as they like. God gave us the freedom of choice to commit sins or to chose to follow him how we like.

Point 3) Also since not everyone believes there is an afterlife we have no reason to stop them from committing these "sins" if they do not hurt anyone. The only person they hurt is themselves (according to theists) because they will then go to Hell, a place that they do not even believe exists.


There is no rational reason for us to stop same sex marriage.
Throughout history ignorant and oppressive people have stopped certain minorities from gaining certain rights but we see a trend that these minorities are gradually allowed these rights.

To be honest I'm surprised we still oppress homosexuals and bisexuals. How archaic.

[Thought Criminal]

I know it's not really all that much 'fun' when most people agree on something, but you've got to admit it's heartening. I voted 'yes' too, but then I'm one of your secular, liberal (spit - it's a swear word now, apparently) Limeys. I am, however, slightly puzzled by the lack of 'nay' votes, given the somewhat unforgiving nature of many of the comments on homosexuality in other threads.

I suspect they know what they're in for if they come in here and claim the Bible justifies bigotry.

TC

[Easyrider]

I know it's not really all that much 'fun' when most people agree on something, but you've got to admit it's heartening. I voted 'yes' too, but then I'm one of your secular, liberal (spit - it's a swear word now, apparently) Limeys. I am, however, slightly puzzled by the lack of 'nay' votes, given the somewhat unforgiving nature of many of the comments on homosexuality in other threads.

I suspect they know what they're in for if they come in here and claim the Bible justifies bigotry.

TC

Personally, I suspect the politically correct know what they're in for if they come in here and think their anti-Biblical views justifiy bigotry against Bible-believing Christians.

[Fallibleone]

I know it's not really all that much 'fun' when most people agree on something, but you've got to admit it's heartening. I voted 'yes' too, but then I'm one of your secular, liberal (spit - it's a swear word now, apparently) Limeys. I am, however, slightly puzzled by the lack of 'nay' votes, given the somewhat unforgiving nature of many of the comments on homosexuality in other threads.

I suspect they know what they're in for if they come in here and claim the Bible justifies bigotry.

TC

Personally, I suspect the politically correct know what they're in for if they come in here and think their anti-Biblical views justifiy bigotry against Bible-believing Christians.

I'm not quite sure how that would explain the lack of 'no' votes. I'm also not quite sure how saying that homosexuals should be allowed to marry is bigotry against Bible-believing Christians. No one is asking them to marry same-sex partners.

[Easyrider]

I'm also not quite sure how saying that homosexuals should be allowed to marry is bigotry against Bible-believing Christians. No one is asking them to marry same-sex partners.

The trashing of Bible-believing Christians (being called homophobes, hypocrites, etc.) for believing what the Bible says about gay sex being a sin is what constitutes the bigotry I was referring to.

[melodious]

Great topic Evales

Early Gnostic Christians abhorred the Old Testament and sided with the bad guys. They equated Jehovah with a more sadistic version of Platos demiurgos, and were completely open and liberal sexually (not saying that they were necessarily promiscuous), much like the ancient Greeks. Pauls writings against homosexuality are a complete forgery of the venerable Gnostics words and teachings (only about half the letters attributed to Paul are authentic).

Plain and simple: As a Gnostic and Sophian Christian, I support same-sex marriage. If one does not, it is an oppression of the individual's will to love freely whom they wish. The persecution and oppression of homosexuality must end if we are to ever see a truly free world. Fundamental Christianity is a hallmark enemy of this.

[Fallibleone]

I'm also not quite sure how saying that homosexuals should be allowed to marry is bigotry against Bible-believing Christians. No one is asking them to marry same-sex partners.

The trashing of Bible-believing Christians (being called homophobes, hypocrites, etc.) for believing what the Bible says about gay sex being a sin is what constitutes the bigotry I was referring to.

Ah - well, I agree that personal comments don't belong on a debate forum - I guess we are in accord.

So the trashing of gays (being called sinful, self-serving and an abomination, etc.) for their lifestyle and wanting to be able to marry each other constitutes...what?

[melodious]

So the trashing of gays (being called sinful, self-serving and an abomination, etc.) for their lifestyle and wanting to be able to marry each other constitutes...what?

Exactly! By definition the "bible-believing" Christian is being hypocritical. It seems they always want to play the "victim." Atheists and secularists are always beating up on them, aren't they?. {|= Maybe it's their karma? I don't know but... {|=

[jgh7]

OK, I'll come out into the open and say I voted "no". To me marriage is meant to be between a male and a female. I admit I am a bit of a traditionalist when it comes to things like this and yeah, there may be still be a small portion of homophobia involved and sure, there may be no real good reason to be against gay marriages, but then that's just my feeling on it.

I havent voted on this topic, mainly because Im too conflicted. Im confused by your response, and I would like some further clarification. So lets pretend this is the real world and a real vote for the decision on gay marriage where you live. Also assume that you have to vote; there's no getting out of it. Based on your previous response, would you vote "no"? In other words, you would be trying to prevent gays from being allowed to marry, and simply because you have slight homphobia and have what you call "traditional" views of marriage? Now the thing that confuses me is that I also share similar views to this, but I find them insufficient to vote against gay marriage. They don't seem to be a good enough reason to treat gay people unequally, so I would have no choice but to vote "yes".

So, my question is: how do you think that the reasons you listed are sufficient reasons for you to be against gays having equal rights in terms of marriage?

[Evales]

Point 2) That being even if it is still a sin (or not biological) the people who commit acts of homosexuality are fully allowed (by God) to commit as many sins as they like. God gave us the freedom of choice to commit sins or to chose to follow him how we like.

Point 3) Also since not everyone believes there is an afterlife we have no reason to stop them from committing these "sins" if they do not hurt anyone. The only person they hurt is themselves (according to theists) because they will then go to Hell, a place that they do not even believe exists.

Easyrider you address Point one which is about the biology of homosexuality. But as you see Point 2 says that even in it IS a sin or not biological it doesn't matter because it is about freedom to choose. Something that God gave us. What do you say to points 2 and 3?

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

OK, I'll come out into the open and say I voted "no". To me marriage is meant to be between a male and a female. I admit I am a bit of a traditionalist when it comes to things like this and yeah, there may be still be a small portion of homophobia involved and sure, there may be no real good reason to be against gay marriages, but then that's just my feeling on it.

I can admit that the term "marriage" might, by technical definition, refer to a union between a man and a woman, but don't you think that a gay couple should at least have some kind of partnership so they can get the same rights and financial benefits of a straight married couple? Denying gays the right to marry wouldn't be such an issue if married couples didn't receive tax breaks, joint custody of children (If a gay couple adopts, only one is a legal guardian in most cases so if they die, the child gets taken away from the parent that is still living), and other benefits that gay couples (whether they are in a domestic partnership, civil union, or whatever) don't get. This is clearly prejudice against homosexuals by a government who is supposed to be blind to race, creed, religion, and sexual orientation.

So, is your discomfort limited to gay marriages, or would you also object to civil unions that give homosexuals the same benefits?

(Just to throw in my $0.02, I am a strong supporter of gay marriage)