• 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

pearl

Well-Known Member
-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:

The main problem I see is that you are comfortable in 'speaking for God'.

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.

People have been dividing the church since the 16th century,

-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.

Has nothing to do with ones choice to worship. We are a democracy not a theocracy.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
There are only problems if you believe there are. Other than that there are no problems. What "god" thinks or not is entirely up to the individual with that belief and it's highly problematic to assume and assert that others who believe differently should be held to the same standards. And because marriage does inherently involve legal contracts the state has an interest in it. Not all marriages involve the church, however, so the church can bugger off when they want to claim a monopoly and exclusive rights to marriage.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
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.
The debate that's going on within the church right now isn't really about gay marriage. That issue is just the spark of the moment. The real debate is about whether or not the church is going to dictate to the individuals within it what is right before God, or whether the individuals within the church are going to determine for themselves what is right before God. It's not a struggle about gay rights, it's a struggle about individual autonomy vs. church authority. And there is no 'right' or 'wrong' side of this particular debate. There are just people who come to different conclusions about church authority, vs. individual autonomy. And that's why the schism is occurring. And it's why the schism was inevitable, and why it probably should occur. It's a fundamental difference of opinion regarding one's relationship to their church, of such significance that it calls for two very different expressions of church organization.
 
Last edited:

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So what exactly is the problem?

Irrational, hateful religious doctrines that bring nothing positive to the world, but demonize and marginalize an entire class of basically law-abiding, hard-working people trying to support their families and make their communities better places.

Christianity scapegoats both gays and atheists this way, attempting to diminish their social stature and moral acceptability, and in so doing, degrade their lives. That's the problem - bad religion, not loving, unmarried adults marrying..

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

There is no evidence of any god being involved in any of this. Religious homophobia and atheophobia are purely human constructs hatefully voiced through the literary device of a god.

the actual meaning of marriage (which is not for couples but for families

That's not what family means to me. We didn't want children. Our household has been two adults and two or three dogs for almost 30 years now.

Your values aren't mine, but you proclaim them as if they were universal, or should be.

Two consenting adults should be able to love each other. Why do you need a marriage contract for that?

They may want the legal protections afforded by marriage, as well as being treated equally in the eyes of the law.

Why do you want to forbid them that? In the service of religious beliefs that many others don't share, values they don't hold? Your religious beliefs are unwelcome in their lives. Does that matter to you, or are you happy to impose them on such people anyway?

If the latter, then perhaps you can understand why so many of us consider religion a net negative presence in the world. Like kudzu creeping into government wherever it can, religion as experienced in the West is experienced by many as an ever-present problem fueled by a desire to compel unbelievers to obey religious dicta.

Why do you need to tear apart churches for that?

We don't. They do that to themselves.

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.

Your church may want to impose its values on you, values that you don't share. It may call you a sinner and an abomination in the eyes of a good god, and publicly shame and demean you in the eyes other believers.

I really don't understand why people like you are less empathetic to these issues than someone like me, who is a 65-year old straight white male. My position is grounded in empathy for people - the Golden Rule - and my disapproval of ideologies that make the lives of others harder and more difficult for irrational reasons.

Have you never been physically or emotionally abused by bigots intolerant of who you are and how you choose to live? Even if not, why would you advocate taking same-sex marriage away from people that choose to live that way? Is empathy for them so difficult?

What if the choices that you've made that were legal when you made them were suddenly made illegal to satisfy some religion that managed to get laws written against your interests? Would that be OK? If not, why are you willing to do something similar to others?
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
gay or not. It's an obsession that seems very présent in abrahamic faiths, but that's it.
If it were only this obsession they had in Abrahamic faiths ... they have a trecillion obsessions about what others should (not) do I noticed.

Note: I really exaggerated here. I just love that word, and could not resist using it
 
Last edited:

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
It seems that religious belief is often the main reason for such thinking. Hence one reason why we would have been so much better without them.
It is just because they do not follow Jesus simple 3 word teaching "do not judge"
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium 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.

God isn't around to tell us his opinion, so I'll obviously ignore that as I ignore people when they tell me what they think the opinions of aliens are.

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.

Christians have been splitting into competing sects for all kinds of reasons for 2,000 years. What denomination are you part of? Just do what every other sect has done after a split for the last 2,000 years and declare yours the true sect.

-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.

1) Gay marriage in the States started in 2003, 6 years before Obama became President.

2) Marriage is a civil, not merely religious, institution here, sorry. We've had a thing called separation of church and state here for about 250 years now, we like it.

3) The majority of Americans have supported same-sex marriage for like 10 years now. 5 facts about same-sex marriage

4) You live in the US, right? Nothing is stopping you from going to a church and worshipping.

-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.

Turns out, people haven't started demanding to marry their microwaves en masse since gay marriage became legal. How long do we have to wait for this "gateway" effect?

Secondly, "the actual meaning of marriage" changes with time and culture. Humans define, and have always defined, what marriage means, and we have the prerogative to change our minds and change the laws of our predecessors.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
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.
The problem is the intersection of traditional mores with emerging science and social advancement. There is no intrinsic problem with gay marriage. It is not expressly prohibited either by biblical tenet or legal precedent. Gay marriage is legal, and it is sanctioned by at least some quarters of the Church.

Traditionalists will try to invent reasons why homosexuals shouldn’t marry, but none of them, when investigated reasonably, are valid. The most prevalent is that “the Bible speaks against it.” Actually, the Bible doesn’t speak against it. Nowhere in the Bible does it expressly say, “Homosexuals may not marry.” Period. Traditionalists will cite Levitican law that says (paraphrasing) “Men should not lie with men as with women; it is an abomination.” This is a stance whose foundation is a simple, cursory reading of the text. But it’s not that simple. The Law was written in a different culture, by a different people, for a different religion. Their cultural mores were far different from ours. The text condemns an act, but not an orientation. There are anthropological reasons for that, which need to be taken under consideration. What the use of this passage amounts to is proof-texting, and it’s an irresponsible way to treat these ancient texts. Same goes for the passages in Corinthians that’s often cited.

The problem arises when these traditionalists attempt to foist their particular view of religion and spirituality upon the rest of society. The problem arises when some who hold a particular view of morality feel entitled in foisting that view upon everyone.

The law of the land is quite clear on the subject: marriage between two consenting adults is legal, no matter the gender of the participants. There really is no such thing as “gay marriage.” Marriage is marriage, whether the partners are gay or straight. The problem arises when some who have a moral issue with homosexuals marrying each other try to foist that morality upon all. To that, I say, “If you don’t think homosexuals should marry each other, then no one’s forcing you to become married if you’re gay. But allow others to act within the bounds of the law and in accordance with their moral values.”

I don’t like to see churches splitting either. Unfortunately, I don’t think the traditionalists have a leg to stand on. There’s no biblical reason why homosexuals can’t marry each other. And if there’s a policy, change the policy. But no one — religious, traditionalist, moralist — no one — has the right to sit in judgment of the sexual nature of others. No one has the right to determine what’s sexually “right” for someone else. That’s where the evil lies, is in that entitlement. It’s morally and ethically wrong. Personally — and as a member of the clergy — I think it’s far more morally reprehensible to allow one’s “sensibilities” where human sexuality is concerned to split a church. These people ought to just suck it up and realize that not everyone’s on the same page. We can’t wish homosexuals out of existence, and the fact is that they are full human beings, just like everyone else, who are just as entitled to God’s grace as anyone else.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Should have added:

-There's absolutely no problem. Two consenting adults should be allowed to love.

-It's icchy and my sensitive eyes can't handle it!

-I can't look beyond a literal interpretation of an ancient religious text in order to keep up with the times.
I am from an older generation. When I see a gay couple kiss on TV part of my brain goes "Uggh" and then the rational part of my brain goes "So what?" If seeing that bothers a person so much it might time to question their own sexuality.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
But no one — religious, traditionalist, moralist — no one — has the right to sit in judgment of the sexual nature of others. No one has the right to determine what’s sexually “right” for someone else. That’s where the evil lies, is in that entitlement. It’s morally and ethically wrong.
I agree with your post, and I'll take it a bit further.

Suppose God decides that there is plenty of humanity. So much that population growth is a far bigger problem than lack of procreation. So, He starts making more gay people. People who can have good lives, without adding to the population problem.

Who is more Christian? The people who hear God, and recognize the worth of His children overall? Or the ones who stick to the ancient human authorities who say things that they prefer to hear?
Tom
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Should have added:

-There's absolutely no problem. Two consenting adults should be allowed to love.

-It's icchy and my sensitive eyes can't handle it!

-I can't look beyond a literal interpretation of an ancient religious text in order to keep up with the times.
And ... it's bad, it's really really bad. Did I tell you it's bad?
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I agree with your post, and I'll take it a bit further.

Suppose God decides that there is plenty of humanity. So much that population growth is a far bigger problem than lack of procreation. So, He starts making more gay people. People who can have good lives, without adding to the population problem.

Who is more Christian? The people who hear God, and recognize the worth of His children overall? Or the ones who stick to the ancient human authorities who say things that they prefer to hear?
Tom
I think the real issue is that God makes us as we are, with regard to our innate sexuality, and that some people refuse to recognize that.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I think the real issue is that God makes us as we are, with regard to our innate sexuality, and that some people refuse to recognize that.
They refuse to listen to God or rational arguments because it interferes with the self righteous egotism that religious teachings commonly instill in adherents.
That's the real issue.
Religion teaches people to be self righteous and prideful, by telling them how smart and good they are by identifying the true interpretation of whatever Scripture they've been taught is From God.
Tom
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
They refuse to listen to God or rational arguments because it interferes with the self righteous egotism that religious teachings commonly instill in adherents.
That's the real issue.
Religion teaches people to be self righteous and prideful, by telling them how smart and good they are by identifying the true interpretation of whatever Scripture they've been taught is From God.
Tom
Yup.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium 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.
What you are saying isn't that there is a problem with two people in love with each other wanting to formalize that bond and declare it to the World through marriage even if they happen to share gender, but that you have a problem with it.

Here is probably the best and most practical advice for you then. Don't marry another woman.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Or another rather clear Message, "Love God, Love you neighbor, the rest is details."
Tom
The rest is very important "as thyself".

So, if they hurt others they just exhibit that they "don't love themselves". And all know that if you don't love yourself, you can't love others AND can't love God.
 
Top