Proof Gay Marriage is Wrong

[quote]slimjim wrote:

Zeb, I’m not trying to single you out at all, but come on man! What is your evidence, other than a few lines out of the Bible, that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry.[/quote]

First, we are a Judeo/Christian society. I know the Godless wonders would have you believe that this is not the case, but they are quite wrong! About 90% of the population believes in God. You would think it’s about 50/50 if you read some of the threads on this forum, but that’s not the case. Hence, the Bible does matter!

In a previous post you stated: “Whatever happened to separation of church and state.” Do you know why there is a “separation of church and state?” The founding fathers wanted to make certain that the government did not establish one religion for all. It was to protect people from having the government establish one religion.

To hear the Atheists talk you would think that it was so that no religion should be respected in any part of our society. This is utter nonsense. People in this country want religion and to believe in God. Therefore, “a few lines in the Bible” and a 5000 year old tradition mean far more to most than they apparently do to some who enjoy bashing God and making fun of all who believe in such a higher power.

Furthermore, it is not incumbent upon me, or anyone else to show why gay marriage would be disastrous for this country. There is no “gay marriage” and there never has been in any civilized society!

It is up to those of you who think that pleasing probably far less than .05% of the population by changing perhaps the most important part of our societal fabric is a legitimate idea! So far your side has failed to do. Not just on this thread but across the country in 11 states which had a referendum on the matter.

Voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah all voted down gay marriage by very wide margins. In fact, the measure approved in Oklahoma went one step further by making it a misdemeanor crime to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple!

It’s not catching on, and the reason is that there is no compelling evidence why such a great change should take place! In short your side has failed miserably to give good solid reasons why a 5000 year old institution should be changed.

There is zero evidence to indicate that gay marriage would be beneficial to our society. And why would you change such a thing if it did not benefit society? There are obvious arguments for leaving marriage as it is, take your pick: You can base this on the Bible. You can base this on health statistics. You can base this on social values or tradition. You can base it on the fact that it effects a fraction of one percent of the population. It matters not what you base it on. However, not one good argument for compelling such a dramatic change has been put forth.

Arguments such as “they are born that way” are weak as this has not yet been proven. lothario’s emotional appeal that it (gay marriage) “would make all of his gay friends happy” carries no weight either. I’m sure that you could make a far larger percentage of the population (of males) happy if we declared that marriage did not have to be monogamous. Does anyone suggest we do this? (that’s a rhetorical question:)

And finally those who say that homosexuals cannot change still have to give a logical explanation for those who do in fact change! They marry have children and by their own accounts are quite happy. This needs to be explained by more than one liners such as “they must be closet homosexuals.”

Thus far not one good point has been made by anyone on this thread (or nationally) as to why we must rush out and sanction gay marriage. Perhaps you would like to make the first good point in favor of gay marriage.

I will await your response.

[quote]lucasa wrote:

IMO:
Benefit: A small group of individuals are allowed the ‘privilege’ of marriage, and get to feel better about themselves. I could be wrong about the specific number, but my understanding is that it’s less than an integer percentage of the U.S. population.
Cost: The instantly forseeable cost is that federal legislation in a democratic republic is once again trounced in favor of the minority over the majority. The unforseen costs invoke the need for Occam’s razor and we’ll save ourselves that trouble, No?[/quote]

The issue is not the gays vs. the rest of us. It’s how many people would support civil unions (or at least could care less) vs. how many people are against it. I don’t really know the answer. But my inclination is that this split is fairly even.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

They should be added to health insurance plans. And they should be allowed to visit their partners in the hospital. If it’s more expensive to provide health care to them (and for what reason are you suggesting?) than there premiums should be higher. Just like smokers. I don’t know why this would be unless you’re suggesting an AIDS-related explanation. That is possible. It doesn’t mean that they still shouldn’t get benefits.

[/quote]

I agree they should get some sort of health benefit and so should everyone else.

If the statistics bear out that gay people are more expensive in the health care area and health insurance companies try to raise rates for gay couples you can be sure that there will be cries of discrimination.

Of course they should be allowed to visit their partners in the hospital. I am stunned that many still have problems with this today.

What about adoption? Is a gay couple equal to a straight couple in this field?

When you take out the rhetoric from both sides there are still a bunch of serious unanswered questions.

[quote]orion wrote:
WMD wrote:
And just for the record, I never once said I don’t believe in God.

I don’t believe in oppression based on perverted interpretations of the biblical texts. To all Christians who actually try to live a Christ-like life and who practice non-judgement and live and let live, I apologize for lumping you in with people like ZEB. You certainly don’t deserve THAT.

and you are absolutely sure that you don?t try to make the bible fit your beliefs?

I find it hard to believe that you really have convinced yourself that the bible is not against homosexualtity. [/quote]

Actually, I can’t make the Bible do anything. I’ve tried, but it just lays there inert. I don’t think I’ve even mentioned what my beliefs are, so I’m not sure where you are getting this question. I do know the Bible does not mention consensual, monogamous homosexual relationships. It barely mentions consensual hetero relationships, what with all the rapes and arranged marriages and such. The passages quoted by most anti-gay types are usually against prostitution, rape or exploitation, but are taken to condemn any and all types of homosexual relationships.

Just because I believe there is a higher power does not mean that I adhere to any particular dogma or doctrine prescribed by any religion on the planet. I favor Buddhism as a philosophy, but that is about it.

Ultimately as to the question of what the Bible says or doesn’t say about homosexuality, my response is who gives a shit? I live in a secular democracy so it shouldn’t be an issue, even though soem folks are going to great lengths to make it so.

If you are rsponding to my passion about this, I really and truly believe gay people should have every right straight people have, including marriage. It offends me to the core when others would use their religion for the sake of grave injustice. What about you?

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Furthermore, it is not incumbent upon me, or anyone else to show why gay marriage would be disastrous for this country. There is no “gay marriage” and there never has been in any civilized society!

[/quote]

Wikipedia says you’re wrong.

Ancient Asia and Africa, Classical Europe, Christian Europe, and North America (i.e. Native Americans) all held and recognized homosexual marriages.

In addition, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, and Canada all have legal homosexual marriage today.

Why do some religious people spend their lives judging others? If only they would invest their energy in becoming more positive themselves.

That being said, there is always more important work to be done closer to home. Maybe after you focus on improving yourself for a while you will see what a fool you have been, trying to fix everyone else.

[quote]WMD wrote:

I do know the Bible does not mention consensual, monogamous homosexual relationships.[/quote]

Oh my…If the “act” of homosexuality is sin according to the Bible, and it is. Then what would ever make you or anyone else think that “monogamous” homosexual sex is acceptable within the Bible? That is one very poor piece of logic on your part!

I think it’s pretty clear repeatedly that “one man is not to lie with another man.” And the same goes for women. I have listed the many passages. Most have nothing to do with prostitution.

Nice of you to disrespect 2 billion Christians. And (most of) the 90% of Americans who believe in God.

The secular democracy that you live in just voted down homosexual marriage in 11 states! I’m sure they did this for a myriad of reasons, one of course being the Bible.

Could be in your world there are no absolutes. However, there are absolutes with the majority of Americans. Whether you base them on Biblical teachings, personal core values, tradition or whatever. Most Americans by a wide margiin are against gay marriage. About 70% of the populations would feel a “grave injustice” if gay marriage were legalized.

By the way, this is one more thread by the pro gay marriage folks and still no solid reasons why gay marriage should be legalized. Simply more emotional tripe. I would think at this point there would be a long solid and reasonable list as to the merits of gay marriage. And to the many benefits it would provide the institution of marriage and our society.

The debate should never be “why not allow it?” It should always be “why allow it?”

[quote]Boscobarbell wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Furthermore, it is not incumbent upon me, or anyone else to show why gay marriage would be disastrous for this country. There is no “gay marriage” and there never has been in any civilized society!

Wikipedia says you’re wrong.

Ancient Asia and Africa, Classical Europe, Christian Europe, and North America (i.e. Native Americans) all held and recognized homosexual marriages.

In addition, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, and Canada all have legal homosexual marriage today. [/quote]

I am aware of the liberalized countries who have recently passed gay marriage laws. I was referring to the 5000 years of antiquity. I would want further evidence that this was an accepted practice in the ancient cultures that you note. How long was it accepted if indeed it was. And at what time periods.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
There is zero evidence to indicate that gay marriage would be beneficial to our society. And why would you change such a thing if it did not benefit society? There are obvious arguments for leaving marriage as it is, take your pick: You can base this on the Bible. You can base this on health statistics. You can base this on social values or tradition. You can base it on the fact that it effects a fraction of one percent of the population. It matters not what you base it on. However, not one good argument for compelling such a dramatic change has been put forth.
[/quote]

Do yourself a favor (okay, I know that sound condescending, but it’s not intended as such.) and do a Google search for Loving v. Virginia. Read the decision…I mean really, really take the time to read through what the Justices parsed in order to reach their decision.

At the time, 16 states had laws outlawing interracial marriage. And they did so based upon Biblical beliefs, a deference toward the historical definition of marriage, a support of the vast majority of their populaces, etc. etc. etc. (sound familiar??)

And in the end it came down to a simple matter of equity…what you offer one citizen you must offer another. If YOU get to marry who you want, then I get to marry who I want. And such basic rights aren’t a matter of majority opinion (As you know, the crafters of our Constitution were careful to avoid any “tyranny of the majority.”).

[quote]JoeTime wrote:
Why do some religious people spend their lives judging others? If only they would invest their energy in becoming more positive themselves.

That being said, there is always more important work to be done closer to home. Maybe after you focus on improving yourself for a while you will see what a fool you have been, trying to fix everyone else.

[/quote]

In my case Im not “judging” anyone. The Bible speaks about loving the sinner, not judging them. However, we are to hate the “sin.”

You also left out the part where it says that “we are our brothers keeper.” We are to take part in the process and try to do what’s best.

With your logic then it is perfectly alright for everything and anything to be legalized. Why not legalize NAMBLA’s agenda? Legalize heroin use, etc. The attitude of “it does not effect me directly” is one that will only harm our society. Get involved! Even if it only means voting and debating the issues. Otherwise you will wake up one day to a country that you might not like!

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
The issue is not the gays vs. the rest of us. It’s how many people would support civil unions (or at least could care less) vs. how many people are against it. I don’t really know the answer. But my inclination is that this split is fairly even.[/quote]

Based on the law, 42 of the 50 states have, for whatever “underlying” reason, a constitutional or legislative ban on homosexual marriage. Of the remaining ten, one (NM) is without laws, two have domestic partnership (HI and NJ), three are “considering” civil unions (NY, CT, and RI), and only one state supports/allows same sex marriage (MA).

I’m not sure what your idea of fairly even is, but I don’t think it stretches this much. Though, to be fair, these don’t necessarily represent popular opinion, rather the obstacles you would need to overcome to sanction homosexual marriage across the board.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/righttomarry.htm

BTW- People may argue with me, but this is at least a very large reason why Bush won this election. Not to say that everyone should agree on the subject and fall in behind those who voted for Bush, but without significant benefit I have a hard time envisioning force-feeding these ideals to the majority. Hell, smoking is bad for pretty much everyone on the consumer end of things, and barring any public building, 18 yr. olds can smoke freely.

[quote]Boscobarbell wrote:

Wikipedia says you’re wrong.
[/quote]

I love Wikipedia, I ammended some of the entries on DNA myself just yesterday. Do you even know what the term “Wiki” means? Do yourself a favor and look it up (in a non-condescendin sort of way :p).

[quote]

Ahhh conservatives, those semi-human robot zombies who try and turn every thread into a political debate because their robot zombie minds aren’t capable of grasping the human concept of humour.[/quote]

Ahhh, just farted, and it smells like a liberal…

[quote]Boscobarbell wrote:
ZEB wrote:
There is zero evidence to indicate that gay marriage would be beneficial to our society. And why would you change such a thing if it did not benefit society? There are obvious arguments for leaving marriage as it is, take your pick: You can base this on the Bible. You can base this on health statistics. You can base this on social values or tradition. You can base it on the fact that it effects a fraction of one percent of the population. It matters not what you base it on. However, not one good argument for compelling such a dramatic change has been put forth.

What sounds familiar is an old argument which holds no water. That is, comparing the struggle of Black Americans with that of gays. There is no comparison as one is absolutely born a certain race and the other is an obvious choice! Even if it is nature, as opposed to nuture (and there is no solid evidence either way). It is still a choice an “action” which must be taken.

That truly is an old tired comparison pushed by the left.

[quote]And in the end it came down to a simple matter of equity…what you offer one citizen you must offer another. If YOU get to marry who you want, then I get to marry who I want. And such basic rights aren’t a matter of majority opinion (As you know, the crafters of our Constitution were careful to avoid any “tyranny of the majority.”).

[/quote]

Not to appear trite, but a male homosexual has the right to marry any woman who will say yes. No different than everyone else. What you are talking about is an overhaul of a 5000 year old institution for a sliver of the population. When in fact it has not been proven why such a dramatic change should take place.

If you are so very concerned about the rights of such a small section of our country then where is your cry for those who want to marry more than one woman (or man)? I assure you that there is at least as many individuals who want to participate in this activity. In fact, I would wager that this is a much larger segment of the population.

Should we continue on down the list of those who represent a statistically tiny part of our population who would want things changed to suit their needs? We can change each and every social structure to fit every one of them. We don’t have to stop with the institution of marriage. And might I add most of these “minority groups” represent a much larger percentage of people than homosexuals.

Is that what you want to do? If not then please tell me where the line should be drawn? I’m actually very curious regarding your thoughts on this.

There’s hope for you yet, Zeb.

http://www.hetracil.com/index.html

[quote]Boscobarbell wrote:
Do yourself a favor (okay, I know that sound condescending, but it’s not intended as such.) and do a Google search for Loving v. Virginia. Read the decision…I mean really, really take the time to read through what the Justices parsed in order to reach their decision.[/quote]

In order for this to be relevant, you would have to equate race with sexual orientation. For many many reasons, this can’t be done. Most of your further arguments precipitate from this so I’ll skip on down.

First, the average person doesn’t necessarily get to marry who they want (polygamy, intrafamilial marriage, minors, forced marriage, etc.). Second, equality doesn’t guarantee correctness and vice versa. A married man who refuses to support his and his wife’s unborn child can be subject to legal action, a woman who aborts the same child is untouchable regardless of the husbands wishes. Equitable? No. So, the question in this regard is not “Are they equal?”, but “Are they right and/or do the benefits outweigh the costs?”

The basic right to marriage? Depending on your locale and other conditions, heterosexuals don’t have the ‘right to marry’. Majorical tyranny because you don’t get to marry anyone you please anywhere you please? Hardly a tyranny by even moderate standards. To apply the appropriate contrast to the situation, ask Eastern Block Jews (or Jews in general) about majorical tyranny, ask African Americans about majorical tyranny, ask women about majorical tyranny. Get a rough sketch of majorical tyranny, then apply it to homosexual marriage. It’s laughable.

[quote]doogie wrote:
There’s hope for you yet, Zeb.

http://www.hetracil.com/index.html [/quote]

Is that a joke? I can’t tell. If it is, it’s by far the funniest, most dead-pan thing I’ve seen in a while.

If not…

[quote]doogie wrote:
There’s hope for you yet, Zeb.

http://www.hetracil.com/index.html [/quote]

LOL!

[quote]EMT-FF Jordan wrote:
maybe if you read the Bible a little more…remember a story called Soddom and Gomorrah…He sent those fuckers in a flaming specatilve of fire and brim stone. pretty sweet if you ask me. [/quote]

Ezekiel 16:48-50
48 As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done.

49 " 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

The whole chapter is an allegory of an unfaithful Jerusalem. For me, it looks the main reason he destroyed Sodom was because the people did not help the poor and needy. Yes, the citizens obviously did other unsavory things, but God seemed to put the smack down on them for not taking care of their own.

I’m not against gay marriage, nor am I really for it. But I am against any constitutional amendments that try to legislate morality. Next week Texas goes to the polls to vote on such a measure. I’m voting against writing bigotry and hate into the Texas constitution.

[quote]HoosierFan wrote:
But I am against any constitutional amendments that try to legislate morality. Next week Texas goes to the polls to vote on such a measure. I’m voting against writing bigotry and hate into the Texas constitution.[/quote]

You don’t like laws that legislate morality?

How do you feel about all of the other “moral laws” that are on the books? Things like prostitution, child porn, etc. In fact, at their heart are not all laws moral laws?

Isn’t it immoral to kill, steal, rape, lie etc.?