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.

[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.

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?

Who's trashing them? Not me. If the Bible is legit and they need to repent of their sins, then they won't come to a knowledge of sin and repentance and be saved via the politically correct crowd. They first need to come to the truth that they have sinned. Unless you acknowledge you're a sinner you have no need for a Savior. The PC crowd patting them on the back, then, and defending their sin is not their friend. They very likely wind up in Hades going that route. But they just might get saved once they come to the truth about their sin and repent and receive Christ. Who then is acting in their eternal best interests? The one who leads them to the truth and salvation. That's the part people either keep missing or don't want to acknowledge. Thus, the real "trashing" down the path to perdition is done by PC people who masquerage as their friends.

[Easyrider]

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?

Sure, they have the freedom to act out their sin. The rest of the story on that is that, as unrepentant sinners, they are decidely making a reservation for eternity in the Pit. Where then is their "freedom" in the long run?

On # 3 Hell doesn't magically disappear just because people don't believe it exists.

[melodious]

On # 3 Hell doesn't magically disappear just because people don't believe it exists.

Can you prove that it does exist in the afterlife? Heaven and hell are here and now.

His disciples said to him, "When will the repose of the dead come about, and when will the new world come?"
He said to them, "What you look forward to has already come, but you do not recognize it."

[Zzyzx]

.

Hell doesn't magically disappear just because people don't believe it exists.

Correction: Hell doesn't magically appear because worshipers of one of the gods think it exists.

"Hell" is a Christian concept that cannot be shown to exist -- but the story evidently frightens children (and some adults).

[melodious]

.

Hell doesn't magically disappear just because people don't believe it exists.

Correction: Hell doesn't magically appear because worshipers of one of the gods think it exists.

"Hell" is a Christian concept that cannot be shown to exist -- but the story evidently frightens children (and some adults).

Hell is a very real thing but it has nothing to do with an afterlife, necessarily. Hell is created by one's own karma, just as heaven is. Homosexuals could only experience hell if they were not able to accept their own sexuality and it became a torment to their psyche. But this would very likely be the result of religious programming and fear of some fierce judgment from a tyrannical god.

[OnceConvinced]

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?

I'll admit it, I'd vote no without hesitation. If people disrespect me because of that, well then that's the risk I take. Even though I now believe homosexuality to be genetic and that they are not evil people I'd still vote no on gay marriages. I admit that I have no real sufficient reason to vote "no" apart from my own prejudices. I used to be a very homophobic and bigoted person when I was yonger, but that is gradually changing. I do still use the F word from time to time, but never to someone's face. I try to treat homosexuals with the same respect as others. But I'm just not ready to accept Gay marriages just yet. Maybe that will change.

[Thought Criminal]

I'll admit it, I'd vote no without hesitation. If people disrespect me because of that, well then that's the risk I take. Even though I now believe homosexuality to be genetic and that they are not evil people I'd still vote no on gay marriages. I admit that I have no real sufficient reason to vote "no" apart from my own prejudices. I used to be a very homophobic and bigoted person when I was yonger, but that is gradually changing. I do still use the F word from time to time, but never to someone's face. I try to treat homosexuals with the same respect as others. But I'm just not ready to accept Gay marriages just yet. Maybe that will change.

I don't hate you because I don't know you well enough for this to be personal. Then again, I'm never going to because I don't respect you enough to consider knowing you any better. It's one thing if a vulgarity slips out when you least expect it -- I can easily forgive that -- but if you allow what you know is a mere prejudice to affect your premeditated vote then you haven't gone nearly far enough to be on higher moral ground than the other homophobes who'be been posting here lately.

TC

[OnceConvinced]

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?

I've got no problem with some kind of legal arrangement under the law that recognises them as a couple. Call it a Civil union if you like, that's what we have over here. But the whole wedding ceremony thing should be between a man and a woman IMO.

[jgh7]

I'll admit it, I'd vote no without hesitation. If people disrespect me because of that, well then that's the risk I take. Even though I now believe homosexuality to be genetic and that they are not evil people I'd still vote no on gay marriages. I admit that I have no real sufficient reason to vote "no" apart from my own prejudices. I used to be a very homophobic and bigoted person when I was yonger, but that is gradually changing. I do still use the F word from time to time, but never to someone's face. I try to treat homosexuals with the same respect as others. But I'm just not ready to accept Gay marriages just yet. Maybe that will change.

I'm still very confused by this. You're obviously no longer a Christian, and you state that you believe that homosexuality is genetic. Upon what morals are you still claiming that gays don't deserve to marry? Whether it's a good or a bad reason, you have to have a reason. People don't just do/believe things for absolutely no reason.

Well, you said apparently that you have prejudices, but that you treat homosexuals with the same respect as others. So your prejudices only apply to when they want to marry? If you're not even religious, than all marriage accounts for is a man-made idea that a man and a woman commit to spending the rest of their lives together. What's the big deal about extending this to a man and a man, or a woman and a woman? I'm sure there's plenty of gays who have a better committment to each other than certain heterosexuals who get married.

I'm not asking these questions to ridicule you. I just don't understand what your motivation is for believing what you do when you're not even religious anymore.

[Thought Criminal]

I've got no problem with some kind of legal arrangement under the law that recognises them as a couple. Call it a Civil union if you like, that's what we have over here. But the whole wedding ceremony thing should be between a man and a woman IMO.

Ah, the old "separate but equal". That's exactly like saying you're fine with, say, a white woman and a black man getting married, just so long as we don't call it a marriage. Marriage is for white couples only, right? Please tell me how this idea isn't completely bigoted.

TC