For those against gay marriage...

ForceofNature101ForceofNature101 Posts: 1,282
edited July 2010 in A Moving Train
What is your reasoning for being against it? Every single person's reason that I have spoken to purely base it on their own religious beliefs of what is right and wrong in terms of mariage.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • AELARAAELARA Posts: 803
    Religion and especially Christianity is responsible for discrimination against homosexuals. At least this is my opinion.. I think gay pairs should be free to live the life of their choice and unite their lives in the way they choose..
    I am mine!
  • hedavehedave Posts: 201
    I'm not against gay marriage. I'm against the people who oppose the voters that voted against gay marriage (specifically California). It's just as constitutional to vote against a proposition as it is to vote for it. Such a facet of humanity isn't the same as a sign a store owner posted sending "blacks" to another bathroom. The people voted. It's also just as democratic to challenge the vote as unconstitutional, taking it to the appellate and Supreme Court. When the smoke clears, I can't tolerate the posturing and the name calling by the conquered. If someone's vote is motivated religiously, so what. If a specific component of citizenry puts into question the perception and partnership of marriage, why can't another group oppose such a question? For some people, freedom is supposed to be one-sided...at least for them.
    He who forgets will be destined to remember...
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    it musta took awhile to think up this topic.......TRAIN WRECK AHEAD !!!!!!!! :o



    Godfather.
  • ha yeah im sure i will regret asking it once more replies start coming in :D
  • BinauralJamBinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    Cant get married? they don't know how good they have it.
  • haffajappahaffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    I agree with the religion thing.
    Ask people who oppose it and they say some sort of religious excuse that marriage is between a man and a women in the eyes of God.

    Why not let them get married, and if God has a problem with it, let him come down and deal with it ...though you may be waiting a while.

    I usually ask, in what way does it physically harm you, or disrupt your life, that you don't want two people of the same sex to get married?
    They usually can't answer that...
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    hedave wrote:
    I'm not against gay marriage. I'm against the people who oppose the voters that voted against gay marriage (specifically California). It's just as constitutional to vote against a proposition as it is to vote for it. Such a facet of humanity isn't the same as a sign a store owner posted sending "blacks" to another bathroom. The people voted. It's also just as democratic to challenge the vote as unconstitutional, taking it to the appellate and Supreme Court. When the smoke clears, I can't tolerate the posturing and the name calling by the conquered. If someone's vote is motivated religiously, so what. If a specific component of citizenry puts into question the perception and partnership of marriage, why can't another group oppose such a question? For some people, freedom is supposed to be one-sided...at least for them.

    i see your point but just because a vote is democratically won doesn't make it right ... in canada gay marriage is allowed simply because of our charter of human rights ... and this is indeed a human rights issue ... if there was a vote to deny any minority group privileges that are afforded others - it's an issue of equality, justice and fairness ... the people you are opposed to in this case are fighting for equal rights similar to those that fought for the blacks and women not so long ago ...
  • pjfan021pjfan021 Posts: 684
    hedave wrote:
    I'm not against gay marriage. I'm against the people who oppose the voters that voted against gay marriage (specifically California). It's just as constitutional to vote against a proposition as it is to vote for it. Such a facet of humanity isn't the same as a sign a store owner posted sending "blacks" to another bathroom. The people voted. It's also just as democratic to challenge the vote as unconstitutional, taking it to the appellate and Supreme Court. When the smoke clears, I can't tolerate the posturing and the name calling by the conquered. If someone's vote is motivated religiously, so what. If a specific component of citizenry puts into question the perception and partnership of marriage, why can't another group oppose such a question? For some people, freedom is supposed to be one-sided...at least for them.

    well see....there's supposed to be seperation of church and state..so when you have people voting on something purely based on religious reasons it kinda goes against the whole "they have a constitutional right to vote against it" not to mention voting against their right to get married also goes against the "all men are created equal" portion of what we believe in.
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    haffajappa wrote:
    I agree with the religion thing.
    Ask people who oppose it and they say some sort of religious excuse that marriage is between a man and a women in the eyes of God.

    Why not let them get married, and if God has a problem with it, let him come down and deal with it ...though you may be waiting a while.

    I usually ask, in what way does it physically harm you, or disrupt your life, that you don't want two people of the same sex to get married?
    They usually can't answer that...

    I not real informed on roman history but I think you might want to look at what events and social flaws led up to the fall of the roman empire, from what little I know those guys went off the charts with thing's that led them to a path of distruction. as I say not real sure but worth a look.

    Godfather.
  • dasvidanadasvidana Grand Junction CO Posts: 1,349
    KO282453 wrote:
    Cant get married? they don't know how good they have it.
    :lol:
    It's nice to be nice to the nice.
  • OnTheEdgeOnTheEdge Posts: 1,300
    Well, i'm not very religious so I guess i'm just prejudice.
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    i just do not think it is right to keep an entire section of the population from enjoying the same freedoms as those of us that are heterosexual. i say let them get married. many of those people are in committed relationships that last a lifetime and when the partner dies they have no legal right to make decisions and can not have next of kin status. i think that is wrong also.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • haffajappahaffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    Godfather. wrote:
    haffajappa wrote:
    I agree with the religion thing.
    Ask people who oppose it and they say some sort of religious excuse that marriage is between a man and a women in the eyes of God.

    Why not let them get married, and if God has a problem with it, let him come down and deal with it ...though you may be waiting a while.

    I usually ask, in what way does it physically harm you, or disrupt your life, that you don't want two people of the same sex to get married?
    They usually can't answer that...

    I not real informed on roman history but I think you might want to look at what events and social flaws led up to the fall of the roman empire, from what little I know those guys went off the charts with thing's that led them to a path of distruction. as I say not real sure but worth a look.

    Godfather.
    gay marriages were the fall of the roman empire? :shock:
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • Drew263Drew263 Birmingham, AL Posts: 602
    I'm a southern, christian, conservative, white male from Alabama.

    I do not care one bit if gays can marry. If they want to marry, let them. It does not affect my life whatsoever. I have gay couples as neighbors, my parents do as well and are good friends with them(they throw a great neighborhood Halloween party every year :D ).

    Who is it hurting?
  • he still standshe still stands Posts: 2,835
    Drew263 wrote:
    Who is it hurting?

    The xenophobic.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    Is the search function not working?
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    haffajappa wrote:
    Godfather. wrote:
    haffajappa wrote:
    I agree with the religion thing.
    Ask people who oppose it and they say some sort of religious excuse that marriage is between a man and a women in the eyes of God.

    Why not let them get married, and if God has a problem with it, let him come down and deal with it ...though you may be waiting a while.

    I usually ask, in what way does it physically harm you, or disrupt your life, that you don't want two people of the same sex to get married?
    They usually can't answer that...

    I not real informed on roman history but I think you might want to look at what events and social flaws led up to the fall of the roman empire, from what little I know those guys went off the charts with thing's that led them to a path of distruction. as I say not real sure but worth a look.

    Godfather.
    gay marriages were the fall of the roman empire? :shock:

    good grief.......re-read my post, :roll:

    Godfather.
  • he still standshe still stands Posts: 2,835
    Godfather. wrote:

    good grief.......re-read my post, :roll:

    Godfather.

    I did... it clearly implies that you think gay marriage was the fall of the Roman Empire. This is a thread about gay marriage... the context of the discussion was gay marriage... then you say "you might want to look at what events and social flaws led up to the fall of the roman empire, from what little I know those guys went off the charts with thing's that led them to a path of distruction" which is incredibly ambiguous, but in this context it means that acts of homosexuality caused the fall of the Roman Empire. If that isn't what you meant, you should use the english language to clear things up rather than smugly saying that isn't what you meant.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    I have mixed views on marriage - homosexual or otherwise.

    My biggest thought is the government should stop sanctioning marriage altogether. Let that be a private thing/contract/agreement between individuals that has nothing to do with the government.

    I also do not think that marriage is a "right". I believe it's a privilege.

    I have not seen a compelling argument from either side either pro or against gay marriage.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • haffajappahaffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    Godfather. wrote:

    good grief.......re-read my post, :roll:

    Godfather.

    I did... it clearly implies that you think gay marriage was the fall of the Roman Empire. This is a thread about gay marriage... the context of the discussion was gay marriage... then you say "you might want to look at what events and social flaws led up to the fall of the roman empire, from what little I know those guys went off the charts with thing's that led them to a path of distruction" which is incredibly ambiguous, but in this context it means that acts of homosexuality caused the fall of the Roman Empire. If that isn't what you meant, you should use the english language to clear things up rather than smugly saying that isn't what you meant.
    whew i thought i was going crazy there for a moment... i re-read it three times and couldn't figure out where the part was where he put it all in context
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • hedavehedave Posts: 201
    There will always be a separation of church and state. The separation is precisely why the Federal government has passed the vote on gay marriage to the states. That's what "separation" defines. The states wield that "separated" power at times. Hence, the legality of abortion in some states. But listen: It comes down to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for every American. However, people misconstrue happiness with expectation. It's not "life, liberty" and expectation. Just because you want it doesn't mean you'll get it. Suck it up. Somehow, I think Americans have forgotten that. Pursuit is not a guarantee. You can't always get what you want (Those are words from a song. Why can't I remember what song?).
    He who forgets will be destined to remember...
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    I'm against gay marriage because I don't like marrying a guy.
    But, I really don't give a shit if other people prefer to... I mean, who am I to say who gets to marry whom? No one put me in charge of the definition of marriage. If you want to have sex with that one person... forever and ever... until it kills you... er, I mean, until you die... fine. That's your gig and I hope you're happy with it. If the two of you love each other and make each other happy... why is that any of my business?
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    Godfather. wrote:

    good grief.......re-read my post, :roll:

    Godfather.

    I did... it clearly implies that you think gay marriage was the fall of the Roman Empire. This is a thread about gay marriage... the context of the discussion was gay marriage... then you say "you might want to look at what events and social flaws led up to the fall of the roman empire, from what little I know those guys went off the charts with thing's that led them to a path of distruction" which is incredibly ambiguous, but in this context it means that acts of homosexuality caused the fall of the Roman Empire. If that isn't what you meant, you should use the english language to clear things up rather than smugly saying that isn't what you meant.
    ...
    But you have to give him credit on this:
    Godfather. wrote:
    "I not real informed on roman history..."
    he was 100% correct on this point
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • WaveCameCrashinWaveCameCrashin Posts: 2,929
    i just do not think it is right to keep an entire section of the population from enjoying the same freedoms as those of us that are heterosexual. i say let them get married. many of those people are in committed relationships that last a lifetime and when the partner dies they have no legal right to make decisions and can not have next of kin status. i think that is wrong also.


    +1 but I still prefer camel toes... :)
  • OutOfBreathOutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    Godfather. wrote:
    I not real informed on roman history but I think you might want to look at what events and social flaws led up to the fall of the roman empire, from what little I know those guys went off the charts with thing's that led them to a path of distruction. as I say not real sure but worth a look.

    Godfather.
    Well, read up some further on greek and roman history. They were doing that stuff right through their golden ages as well. Old respectable men having young boy "proteges" were pretty regular, at least in high society. Hell the greeks even thought male on male sex purer since it involved two intelligent people. (Yup, they really had a nice view of women)

    So, since this was definitely going on since ever, I hardly think it had much to do with the fall of the empire. It had a damned good run as empires go, and they all "fall" at some point. I'd like to quote my history teacher at university "The question is not why the roman empire fell, but why it lasted as long as it did." And even after "the fall" of the western part in the 4-700s, the eastern part of it went on as the Byzantine empire up until the 1400s, stretching it across almost 2 millennia. In fact the empire didn't start to come apart until after christianity settled as state religion (300s). Does that mean christianity is to blame for the fall of the western empire? The wandering tribes set off by the nomadic barbarians to the east is a much more likely contributor to the collapse of the western roman empire.

    The relevance in regards to allowing gay marriage in this time and age seems non-existant.

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    Godfather. wrote:

    good grief.......re-read my post, :roll:

    Godfather.

    I did... it clearly implies that you think gay marriage was the fall of the Roman Empire. This is a thread about gay marriage... the context of the discussion was gay marriage... then you say "you might want to look at what events and social flaws led up to the fall of the roman empire, from what little I know those guys went off the charts with thing's that led them to a path of distruction" which is incredibly ambiguous, but in this context it means that acts of homosexuality caused the fall of the Roman Empire. If that isn't what you meant, you should use the english language to clear things up rather than smugly saying that isn't what you meant.

    dam...your right, some people believe that the roman empire became so powerful and complacent they became ..well a little to fat and happy and yes homosexuality and sex with young boys,partying till they puked kinda lowered their defences.

    Godfather.
  • OutOfBreathOutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    Godfather. wrote:
    dam...your right, some people believe that the roman empire became so powerful and complacent they became ..well a little to fat and happy and yes homosexuality and sex with young boys,partying till they puked kinda lowered their defences.

    Godfather.

    To which the counter argument is that the boy/homosexuality was not an invention of the late roman empire, but rather something that they inherited from the greeks before them.

    As for what caused the western part of the empire to fall, it had likely a lot more to do with the huns sending entire peoples on the move as they rampaged into Europe from the east in the late 300s. At this time the capital of the empire had moved to Constantinople as well, and as I said, this part of the empire lasted a further 1000 years as the Byzantine empire.

    Moral decline played a very minor role in this, and what is mentioned here was part of the culture throughout, not an addition at the end. Homosexuality didn't get such a bad rap until Christianity rose to prominence denouncing it. Before, it was a practice that although not flaunted much publicly, was quietly accepted.

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • he still standshe still stands Posts: 2,835
    Godfather. wrote:

    dam...your right, some people believe that the roman empire became so powerful and complacent they became ..well a little to fat and happy and yes homosexuality and sex with young boys,partying till they puked kinda lowered their defences.

    Godfather.

    so, you admit that IS what you were saying? That homosexual acts caused the decline of the Roman Empire?

    What really confuses me is this; what in the hell does gay marriage have to do with the rape of children and "partying till (you) puke"???

    Are you inferring that all gay people have sex with children? That all gay people party too much and their capability to marry will cause the collapse of Western Civilization?

    If so, methinks that is quite a bit of hate and ignorance piled into one post.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    Godfather. wrote:
    dam...your right, some people believe that the roman empire became so powerful and complacent they became ..well a little to fat and happy and yes homosexuality and sex with young boys,partying till they puked kinda lowered their defences.

    Godfather.

    To which the counter argument is that the boy/homosexuality was not an invention of the late roman empire, but rather something that they inherited from the greeks before them.

    As for what caused the western part of the empire to fall, it had likely a lot more to do with the huns sending entire peoples on the move as they rampaged into Europe from the east in the late 300s. At this time the capital of the empire had moved to Constantinople as well, and as I said, this part of the empire lasted a further 1000 years as the Byzantine empire.


    Moral decline played a very minor role in this, and what is mentioned here was part of the culture throughout, not an addition at the end. Homosexuality didn't get such a bad rap until Christianity rose to prominence denouncing it. Before, it was a practice that although not flaunted much publicly, was quietly accepted.

    Peace
    Dan

    WOW !!thanks Dan,very cool.

    Godfather.
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    Godfather. wrote:

    dam...your right, some people believe that the roman empire became so powerful and complacent they became ..well a little to fat and happy and yes homosexuality and sex with young boys,partying till they puked kinda lowered their defenses.

    Godfather.

    so, you admit that IS what you were saying? That homosexual acts caused the decline of the Roman Empire?

    What really confuses me is this; what in the hell does gay marriage have to do with the rape of children and "partying till (you) puke"???

    Are you inferring that all gay people have sex with children? That all gay people party too much and their capability to marry will cause the collapse of Western Civilization?

    If so, methinks that is quite a bit of hate and ignorance piled into one post.

    don't over think it, nope ! just saying that homosexual acts where or might have been part of the daily sin that was going on leading up to the fall of the roman empire.

    Godfather.
Sign In or Register to comment.