BF2S Forums Why shouldn't gay marriage be allowed?

I literally rofl'd when i saw the ads that were being thrown up by the thread:





Someone please take the test and post your results.  Cookies will be distributed as a reward.

Last edited by adam1503 (2008-01-16 14:06:55)

konfusion wrote:

adam1503 wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

I love how the strongest argument against gay marriage is that the dictionary says otherwise and that it makes people feel that their marriage is somehow less special. Did marriage not exist before dictionaries?

Nobody mentioned the dictionary meaning of the word 'marriage'.  I argue that a marriage is LEGALLY defined as a union between a MAN and a WOMAN.  Therefore, a union between people of the same sex cannot be called a marriage, and theres no reason it should be.  Give it a different name please, but dont call it a marriage, because a marriage it ain't.

Precisely - call it "union" (I think they tried that)

-konfusion

Marriage wasn't legally defined that way until people cared so much for their own that they needed to stipulate that fact (man and a woman).  Before it was ambiguous; People with your train of thought changed it to mean what they wanted it to.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-01-16 14:29:13)

adam1503 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Marriage wasn't legally defined that way until people cared so much for their own that they needed to stipulate that fact (man and a woman).  Before it was ambiguous; People with your train of thought changed it to mean what they wanted it to.

Maybe not, but Im sure it says somewhere in the Bible that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

The bible shouldn't be the guiding force behind our country and/or morals.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

adam1503 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Marriage wasn't legally defined that way until people cared so much for their own that they needed to stipulate that fact (man and a woman).  Before it was ambiguous; People with your train of thought changed it to mean what they wanted it to.

Maybe not, but Im sure it says somewhere in the Bible that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

The bible shouldn't be the guiding force behind our country and/or morals.

Someone might go around obeying the 10 commandments and society would fall apart.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

The bible shouldn't be the guiding force behind our country and/or morals.

I agree only partly with that, because i do think there is still a lot of relevance in the lessons of the bible.  And Im an Atheist.

But dont forget that the whole idea of marriage is a concept born out of religious beliefs.  Theres no escaping the huge influence the Bible has had on the development of western morals.

Last edited by adam1503 (2008-01-16 15:25:51)

Stingray24 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

adam1503 wrote:

Maybe not, but Im sure it says somewhere in the Bible that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

The bible shouldn't be the guiding force behind our country and/or morals.

Someone might go around obeying the 10 commandments and society would fall apart.

Yeah, a law making it illegal to covet your neighbors wife or use god's name in vain is totally practical.

adam1503 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

The bible shouldn't be the guiding force behind our country and/or morals.

I agree only partly with that, because i do think there is still a lot of relevance in the lessons of the bible.  And Im an Atheist.

But dont forget that the whole idea of marriage is a concept born out of religious beliefs.  Theres no escaping the huge influence the Bible has had on the development of western morals.

Regardless of what shaped our morals up to now, it is obvious certain aspects of religious thought popular 2000, 1500, 1000, 500 years ago have changed - it is not bible-induced morals changing people over time, it is people changing previous morals and the religious thought adapting to the changes.

There may be relevance to lessons in the bible, but it is not an exclusive source of thought - nothing you could not find anywhere else.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-01-16 15:36:04)

Let's marry people to their horses now.

I have no problem with it.  Not sure why so many people do.  Marriage is all fucked up these days between men and women anyway.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Regardless of what shaped our morals up to now, it is obvious certain aspects of religious thought popular 2000, 1500, 1000, 500 years ago have changed - it is not bible-induced morals changing people over time, it is people changing previous morals and the religious thought adapting to the changes.

There may be relevance to lessons in the bible, but it is not an exclusive source of thought - nothing you could not find anywhere else.

I agree with you in that we have to update our morals to reflect the diversity of modern-day life, but I dont think that means we shouldnt take any influence from the Bible: after all, it appeals to our moral core.  The concept of marriage is at the heart of our society, and to change its meaning is to change what our society is based on.

Im not saying that updating and altering our morals is bad, but I am saying that extending the meaning of 'marriage' to include a partnership between same-sex couples betrays what our society is based on.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Let's marry people to their horses now.

Well in this case its more like letting people marry their ass.

Your initial argument was -

adam1503 wrote:

I argue that a marriage is LEGALLY defined as a union between a MAN and a WOMAN.  Therefore, a union between people of the same sex cannot be called a marriage, and theres no reason it should be.  Give it a different name please, but dont call it a marriage, because a marriage it ain't.

When I pointed out that the law was previously ambiguous and is being changed now to the definition you use, you switched to

adam1503 wrote:

Im not saying that updating and altering our morals is bad, but I am saying that extending the meaning of 'marriage' to include a partnership between same-sex couples betrays what our society is based on.

The point is that the definition of marriage was recently extended to be less ambiguous as to what it (marriage) exactly defined.

What is our society based on?

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-01-16 16:07:37)

CameronPoe wrote:

The reason gay marriage shouldn't be allowed is because under the law married couples get tax breaks aimed at those who will procreate and generate the tax paying and pension supporting citizens of tomorrow. Last I heard gay men don't have wombs and gay women don't have testes. So why on earth should taxpayers money give a couple breaks to ease the burden of supporting a family when the couple can't have kids?

QFT *faints*

My thoughts from another thread patched together ...
The gay movement, not any religious person or church, brought this issue to the forefront.  The gay couples I know don't have any desire to get married and they're embarrassed by the fuss the radical gay movement is making.  The majority of churches and religions do not recognize or morally approve of gay marriages, so gay activists sought government approval under a clever smokescreen.  This made the defense of marriage acts that have been voted on so necessary.  Gay activists claim marriage is the only way they can gain the right to make medical and financial decisions for their partners.  This is completely false.  Even married couples need to set up medical and durable power of attorney in order to have legal power to make medical or financial decisions for their spouse.  Any family member could contest their decisions without such legal standing. 

The fact is gay activists seek moral approval of their lifestyle and since they will never receive it from the church, they seek an equivalent from the government to gain societal approval.  The question of gay marriage is not about rights, it is about a concerted effort to demand everyone approve of their lifestyle choice and to level criticism at anyone who dares oppose them.  Marriage is a moral approval of a relationship by a church or religion, hence no gay marriage as homosexuality is considered immoral by most religions.