• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Actual Problem With Gay Marriages?

It it...?


  • Total voters
    29

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
So what exactly is the problem?

Well, there's theories:

-On is to ignore that there is a problem and to be pro-gay marriages. But even if you are for gay marriages, this is still ignoring that something about this God doesn't like. Which means I'll skip to the meat of it:
- Awhile back, the Episcopal church voted to split over gay marriage. They became Anglican and Episcopalian. Then Methodists voted against, but wound up being forced to split anyway. Let's read Genesis, with of course those offensive words like 'man' and 'woman' changed to person.
"For this reason a person shall leave their father and mother and be united to their wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one. Therefore, what God has joined together let not man separate. " It's not relevant who is the husband and who is the wife (but from previous threads, you'll note that I do not believe in two parties working or two parties raising children, one cannot work in terms of the child, the other fails economically). What is relevant is the attempt to divide the church. God has married the church, united it, and people should not be voting to split.
-There's also the fact that this whole thing smacks of government intervention, specifically a secular system trying to impose Obama era rules on a public who would rather go to church to worship.
-Oh yeah and there's also the classic arguments that it's calling something sinful morally good, or a gateway drug to other odd behavior, or that it ignores the actual meaning of marriage (which is not for couples but for families, though I could contend this last one would be fine if gays could adopt more easily). But Ibthink these are secondary to the two real issues.
 

Nyingjé Tso

Tänpa Yungdrung zhab pä tän gyur jig
Vanakkam

There is absolutely no problem with gay marriage. And stating this have nothing to do with denial.
Your poll is not much fair and very misleading by offering the option "no problem" but belitteling it as "denial".

I don't know about your god, but mine don't care at all if people are gay or not. It's an obsession that seems very présent in abrahamic faiths, but that's it.
 

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
Two consenting adults should be able to love each other.

Why do you need a marriage contract for that? Why do you need to tear apart churches for that? Just do it!

I'm a transfeminine genderfluid person who was born male. If I want to date women, men, transgender women, preop trans women, the idea of making a church take responsibility for my decision is stupid. It's not like most of these would involve wedlock, so yes, you are in denial.

"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves." I know for a fact that the person I'm interested in is bisexual, has left the church, and my being legally female would probably disqualify me under the gay marriage restrictions . I also know that true to my belief as to the reason for marriage being family, she doesn't want kids, and I'm not sure I do either. So rather than tell myself the church is wrong for not letting me get married, maybe I'm wrong and I shouldn't in the first place. Especially since she has a bf, and I'm just extra.

The person who thinks any of that above mess is something marriage can resolve is kidding themselves. In denial.

The poll options being highly rigged remain. But you can multiple choice to make all the results messed up if you want.
 
Last edited:

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
Two consenting adults should be able to love each other.

Why do you need a marriage contract for that? Why do you need to tear apart churches for that? Just do it!

Because marriage as a legal contract need not involve churches if they decide not to allow it. But, the benefits of a legal marriage should not be denied to consenting adults.

If churches tear themselves apart over this, that's their choice.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
- Awhile back, the Episcopal church voted to split over gay marriage. They became Anglican and Episcopalian. Then Methodists voted against, but wound up being forced to split anyway.
-There's also the fact that this whole thing smacks of government intervention, specifically a secular system trying to impose Obama era rules on a public who would rather go to church to worship.

You would blame Obama era rules for what is happening to some sects of Protestantism. Do you likewise blame Martin Luther for breaking apart the original church of God? Why are you a follower of one of the sub-sects of the breakaway Protestant faction? There are over twenty sub-sects of Methodists. Was Obama responsible for those breakups and divisions also? There are hundreds of sects of Protestantism. All these came about during the past 500 years since Martin Luther established Protestantism. Was Obama also responsible for these?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
So what exactly is the problem?

Well, there's theories:

-On is to ignore that there is a problem and to be pro-gay marriages. But even if you are for gay marriages, this is still ignoring that something about this God doesn't like. Which means I'll skip to the meat of it:
- Awhile back, the Episcopal church voted to split over gay marriage. They became Anglican and Episcopalian. Then Methodists voted against, but wound up being forced to split anyway. Let's read Genesis, with of course those offensive words like 'man' and 'woman' changed to person.
"For this reason a person shall leave their father and mother and be united to their wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one. Therefore, what God has joined together let not man separate. " It's not relevant who is the husband and who is the wife (but from previous threads, you'll note that I do not believe in two parties working or two parties raising children, one cannot work in terms of the child, the other fails economically). What is relevant is the attempt to divide the church. God has married the church, united it, and people should not be voting to split.
-There's also the fact that this whole thing smacks of government intervention, specifically a secular system trying to impose Obama era rules on a public who would rather go to church to worship.
-Oh yeah and there's also the classic arguments that it's calling something sinful morally good, or a gateway drug to other odd behavior, or that it ignores the actual meaning of marriage (which is not for couples but for families, though I could contend this last one would be fine if gays could adopt more easily). But Ibthink these are secondary to the two real issues.
Your main reason for being against homosexuality is a few words written by a bunch of misogynistic old men pushing their agenda. These are the same type of misogynistic old men who abused thousands of boys, girls, and women in the history of the Christian Church. Why are you a fan?
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
You would blame Obama era rules for what is happening to some sects of Protestantism. Do you likewise blame Martin Luther for breaking apart the original church of God? Why are you a follower of one of the sub-sects of the breakaway Protestant faction? There are over twenty sub-sects of Methodists. Was Obama responsible for those breakups and divisions also? There are hundreds of sects of Protestantism. All these came about during the past 500 years since Martin Luther established Protestantism. Was Obama also responsible for these?
You're expecting consistency?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Some people and some cultures do not see marriage as a function of "love", but a function of child-rearing. So for these people, and these cultures, claiming that everyone has the right to marry whomever they love is of no logical consequence because marriage is not about love. At least not initially.

And they have a point if the purpose of marriage is going to be joint child-rearing and the only way to have children is through parental conception. But in our modern age there are other ways of acquiring children even if child-rearing is the sole purpose of marriage. And of course it's not. Not anymore. Now days pair-bonding is the purpose of marriage, and child-rearing is secondary. So there really is no logical reason to maintain the old-world definition and criteria for marriage, anymore.
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
So what exactly is the problem?

Well, there's theories:

-On is to ignore that there is a problem and to be pro-gay marriages.

I have yet to see / hear anyone make a half decent argument to demonstrate that there is a problem.

I don't see a problem and those who claim there is a problem, fail to show there is a problem.
So my conclusion is that there doesn't seem to be a problem.


But even if you are for gay marriages, this is still ignoring that something about this God doesn't like.

Which God and why would I have to care?


- Awhile back, the Episcopal church voted to split over gay marriage. They became Anglican and Episcopalian. Then Methodists voted against, but wound up being forced to split anyway. Let's read Genesis, with of course those offensive words like 'man' and 'woman' changed to person.
"For this reason a person shall leave their father and mother and be united to their wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one. Therefore, what God has joined together let not man separate. " It's not relevant who is the husband and who is the wife (but from previous threads, you'll note that I do not believe in two parties working or two parties raising children, one cannot work in terms of the child, the other fails economically). What is relevant is the attempt to divide the church. God has married the church, united it, and people should not be voting to split.

I'm sorry, but what do the internal quibles of religious groups have to do with gay marriage? Are you getting to pointing out the problem with gay marriage, that you claim exists, any time soon?

-There's also the fact that this whole thing smacks of government intervention, specifically a secular system trying to impose Obama era rules on a public who would rather go to church to worship.

Still not seeing any attempt at pointing out what this supposed problem with gay marriage is...

-Oh yeah and there's also the classic arguments that it's calling something sinful morally good

You can't demonstrate a claim with more claims.
So now, you're claiming that the problem with gay marriage is that homosexuality is immoral.

You're just moving the question. Now, you'll need to point out how it is immoral.
Your argument is not accepted because your premise (gay = immoral) is not demonstrated / justified.

, or a gateway drug to other odd behavior

Another bear claim in need of justification.

, or that it ignores the actual meaning of marriage (which is not for couples but for families, though I could contend this last one would be fine if gays could adopt more easily). But Ibthink these are secondary to the two real issues.

You have yet to demonstrate a single one of these supposed "real issues".
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Two consenting adults should be able to love each other.

Why do you need a marriage contract for that?
Yes - do that. Make a life with each other.

If the person who you want to make a life with is a national of some other country and you want to live together, when you're filling out the forms to sponsor them for immigration, the form will ask the relationship between the sponsor and the immigrant. Skip past the box that says "spouse," draw your own box at the bottom that says "we love each other and that's enough," and check that. I'm sure it will be accepted.

Why do you need to tear apart churches for that? Just do it!
Are you talking about governments or about internal disputes like the one behind the Methodist split?

United Methodist Church Announces Proposal to Split Over Gay Marriage
 

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
Some people and some cultures do not see marriage as a function of "love", but a function of child-rearing. So for these people, and these cultures, claiming that everyone has the right to marry whomever they love is of no logical consequence because marriage is not about love. At least not initially.

And they have a point if the purpose of marriage is going to be joint child-rearing and the only way to have children is through parental conception. But in our modern age there are other ways of acquiring children even if child-rearing is the sole purpose of marriage. And of course it's not. Not anymore. Now days pair-bonding is the purpose of marriage, and child-rearing is secondary. So there really is no logical reason to maintain the old-world definition and criteria for marriage, anymore.

Gosh, I hope not. Hubby and I had to adopt.
 
Top