waitasec
Veteran Member
yes you do...
it's this mentality that perpetuates injustice.
ideas change when there are exchanges of ideas
-
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!
Defend Marriage Between a Man and a Woman!
- Thread starter HeatherAnn
- Start date
yes you do...
it's this mentality that perpetuates injustice.
ideas change when there are exchanges of ideas
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Why do gay opponents have such an issue with how others conduct their lives?
Serious question, it bothers me that people get up in arms over homosexual marriage as the next Hitler when it has absolutely nothing to do with them and certainly wouldn't interupt their everyday lives.
Serious question, it bothers me that people get up in arms over homosexual marriage as the next Hitler when it has absolutely nothing to do with them and certainly wouldn't interupt their everyday lives.
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
When did Adam and Eve actually get married in Genesis? I must have missed that part. When was the ceremony held?
blackout
Violet.
There was no 'pastor' to 'marry' them, and
There certainly were no govt. documents.
Marriage is and isn't so many things to so many people.
There is no such thing as traditional marriage.
(only traditional marriage as people - choose to - imagine, or envision it)
blackout
Violet.
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
And no tax break! Heehee!There was no 'pastor' to 'marry' them, and
There certainly were no govt. documents.
Marriage is and isn't so many things to so many people.
There is no such thing as traditional marriage.
(only traditional marriage as people - choose to - imagine, or envision it)
If I may (not an opponent, but just throwing in what I see)...
I think homosexual relationships are seen like a poisoning of the social foundations of a few things. The first I can think of is the "assault" on the nuclear family unit as a picture, that culturally and politico-religiously (I think I made that term up), we idealize the mom, dad, 2.3 kids, white picket fence scenario as not a norm but THE family arrangement all should strive for. There is a small but notable portion of shaming to people who wish to remain single or divorced, couples who wish to remain childless, and families that choose to live in an RV and refuse to establish "roots" somewhere. I've even found a portion of shaming on families that choose willingly to have multiple generations in the same house, that aging parents who want to live with the grandkids are seen as "too attached" and not giving the parents their own space.
Grandparents are at times speaking up about their rights to protecting and raising the children and usually are met with a lot of backlash.
The second thing I see in the opponents pov is that homosexual relationships also are squarely opposed to patriarchal designs for male power and control. In a heterosexual relationship, it's easy for society to assume who is leading the pair and asserts it's relationship with "head of household". But with homosexual relationships, it comes off as mass confusion as it tries to answer the question, "Who's in charge?" It literally forces us all to see egalitarianism as the baseline for finance, family, and specifically love.
Finally, most of us are quite used to the war of the sexes. "She screwed me over." "Well, he screwed me worse." We're a culture that is filled with people who saturate themselves in the victim role, and love to rant about how we can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em. We love to complain about being stuck in our relationships but cite the "nature" argument that trying to live without the other is supposed to be worse than trying to live with them. Homosexual relationships puts a mirror to our faces and effectively tells us to shut the **** up and stop blaming the other...he/she is just as human as you.
I may be wrong, but it's worth a shot to try on their shoes and walk a mile.
It's human nature to mind other people's bizness. I'll wager that most gay proponents
would also like to regulate how others conduct their lives in some way, eg....
- prostitution
- minimum wage
- human organ sale
- abortion
- assisted suicide
- working hours
waitasec
Veteran Member
If I may (not an opponent, but just throwing in what I see)...
I think homosexual relationships are seen like a poisoning of the social foundations of a few things. The first I can think of is the "assault" on the nuclear family unit as a picture, that culturally and politico-religiously (I think I made that term up), we idealize the mom, dad, 2.3 kids, white picket fence scenario as not a norm but THE family arrangement all should strive for. There is a small but notable portion of shaming to people who wish to remain single or divorced, couples who wish to remain childless, and families that choose to live in an RV and refuse to establish "roots" somewhere. I've even found a portion of shaming on families that choose willingly to have multiple generations in the same house, that aging parents who want to live with the grandkids are seen as "too attached" and not giving the parents their own space.
Grandparents are at times speaking up about their rights to protecting and raising the children and usually are met with a lot of backlash.
The second thing I see in the opponents pov is that homosexual relationships also are squarely opposed to patriarchal designs for male power and control. In a heterosexual relationship, it's easy for society to assume who is leading the pair and asserts it's relationship with "head of household". But with homosexual relationships, it comes off as mass confusion as it tries to answer the question, "Who's in charge?" It literally forces us all to see egalitarianism as the baseline for finance, family, and specifically love.
Finally, most of us are quite used to the war of the sexes. "She screwed me over." "Well, he screwed me worse." We're a culture that is filled with people who saturate themselves in the victim role, and love to rant about how we can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em. We love to complain about being stuck in our relationships but cite the "nature" argument that trying to live without the other is supposed to be worse than trying to live with them. Homosexual relationships puts a mirror to our faces and effectively tells us to shut the **** up and stop blaming the other...he/she is just as human as you.
I may be wrong, but it's worth a shot to try on their shoes and walk a mile.
i agree with this.
i would also like to add that that a significant amount of the culturally and politico-religious would view on "giving in" by accepting the homosexuals into society...their god will send a meteorite to punish all who live in that part of the world.
why else was there a haitian earthquake
or the tsunami in japan
and even hurricane katrina?
these were all were godless people
Last edited:
Road Warrior
Seeking the middle path..
Yeah, that currently is being tried in New Jersey and Illinois.
In Illinois, where civil unions are technically the equivalent of marriage, people in civil unions have reported that they have had problems dropping off prescriptions at the pharmacy for their spouse and have reported being denied services by individuals and institutions that claim civil unions are not equivalent to marriage. In New Jersey, a government mandated study of their civil union law indicated that it was entirely inadequate and NOT the equivalent of marriage as was required by both the courts and legislative action.
So, tell me, which water fountain should I drink out of?
Yep. I live in Illinois. Still seeking marriage equality.
What I find ignorant is feeling entitled over ownership of a word. The government grants marriage licenses to atheists, so it can't be considered "sacred" territory. Nope...I only see a deeply rooted homophobia coming from the crowd against same sex marriage.
waitasec
Veteran Member
that statement is just ooozing with truth, as ugly as it may be...
when a girl moves in, there is no reason to commit to marriage, there's no incentive. according to man.
Women can get married whenver she feels that she is ready for a life long commitment, and yes there are Lot of sacrifices which come along with this commitment, but well its part and parcel of a womens' life.
Women can get married whenver she feels that she is ready for a life long commitment, and yes there are Lot of sacrifices which come along with this commitment, but well its part and parcel of a womens' life.
waitasec
Veteran Member
And yet, the same attitude towards marriage does not always hold true among women in the world's very few matriarchal societies.
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
From what I can see,the word was created to define the relationship of a man and woman who make a lifelong commitment to each other. This is a case of homosexuals envying something that married couples have and wanting it for themselves.
Me Myself
Back to my username
I wonder if it is the other way around with you and this discussion...
I wonder if people that argue only heterosexual couples should marriage just envy people in general that marry for deeper and more intimate reasons than just because they want to have sex (only can in marriage
) or just because they want kids or some other silly thing like that.The very OP makes me think of this.
Why do you feel so treathened by homosexuals marrying? because my hypothesis would answer that. I donpt find other posible answer and I´ve seen a lot of posts in this thread not one reallly answering such.
Marriage has meant many things in many different cultures, from same-sex, to polygyny, to arranged marriages, to group marriages....and for intents and purposes ranging from sexual monogamy, assurance of paternal lineage, to property ownership and inheritances.
For centuries and across many cultures, dowries existed right alongside bride price practices, where this was "seed money" either given to or paid by the groom in order to value his investment in lineage and/or property. In other words, traditionally across cultures for centures, women were property. It used to be argued 100 some odd years ago at the dawn of women's suffrage that a woman who voted was only envious of what is "naturally" a man's entitlement and right.
Personally, I'm happy to see that women overwhelmingly now are considered to have voting rights, property ownership, the right to file for divorce without severe social stigmas against her, and have the opportunity to work outside the home and run for political office. The idea of women being property is gone for the most part, but we still have a ways to go with the backlash of current stigmas (e.g. ****-shaming).
Same sex marriage has been instituted many times before in various cultures without their society ripping apart at the seams. It's been defined and redefined many many times in the past, and it can survive another evolution from heterosexual monopoly of the word to include homosexual unions.