By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - If you are against gay marriage, explain why without mentioning religion

 

Are you for or against gay marriage?

For 290 49.49%
 
Against 171 29.18%
 
don't know 16 2.73%
 
whatever who cares? 108 18.43%
 
Total:585
sperrico87 on 09 January 2013
fordy said:
sperrico87 said:
fordy said:
sperrico87 said:

You should be asking: "In what way are you for or against gay marriage?", as you can have both a personal opinion and an opinion with regard to politics or to the public.  For instance, I answered the poll question as "against" due to me personally being against it, but legally it is an entirely different matter.

My personal feelings are that, within my family, and with regards to raising my children, I will not tolerate homosexual marriage, and it will not be discussed or given any credibility in my home. Homosexual behavior ceases procreation, and therefore it serves no meaningful purpose, and is merely a social act with no significance.

Since government is involved, and that won't be changing anytime soon, my political opinion is that homosexuals cannot be prohibited from a legal marriage, as a government/ paper marriage is meaningless in the eyes of everything except the law, so therefore what does it matter to heterosexuals like myself if homosexuals commit to a legal marriage or not? I don't like it, I never will, but there isn't any reasonable legal basis for prohibiting it.

I should add, though, as I have in other threads about "gay marriage", that it is quite a double-standard for the people who advocate for these so-called "gay rights" when most of them would be horrified at the thought of legalizing plural marriage. I don't see any difference between the two. If marriage is something that is perfectly suitable to non-heterosexual people, why is it so bad for non-monogamous people to be legally wed? You support homosexual rights but not non-monogamous rights?

 

And what would you do if your child told you that they were gay?


He would know that I love him/her and will treat him/her the same as my heterosexual children, but I didn't support his/her lifestyle. 

So tell me more about "meaningless social acts" on this discussion forum involving video games. A little hypocritical, isn't it?

You realise that not everything in life has to have a productive purpose, right? If that were the case, we'd be nothing but robots.

I was referring to the marriage as being a meaningless social act, as the whole purpose of marriage up until the year 2000 was procreation.  A marriage between two people with the same sexual orientation is unnecessary.  The reason a man and woman get married to settle down with one another and start a family.  It's the whole purpose of the human race.  We need to have babies, otherwise we all die out in less than a hundred years.



 

Around the Network
Max King of the Wild on 09 January 2013
Roma said:
warlord74 said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOUR5HPg1Mc

Hard to poke holes in his argument.

that's actually very interesting! I never thought of if you use sperm to get pregnant by an unknown father could lead to you actually having your egg fertilized by your brother!

I thought they registered every person that donated sperm but according to him they don't! that's just disgusting!

you obviously didnt watch the video



fordy on 09 January 2013
Player1x3 said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
Player1x3 said:
Andrespetmonkey said:

Do you know how many ancient societies allowed pedophilia by modern standards? A lot more than those that didn't, not that that's to say it makes it morally right, but to say they weren't exactly low on the morality spectrum. Anyway, this is irrelevant to my point, which is that the acceptence and documentation of homosexuality is not an exclusively modern phenomenon in the western world. My point has nothing to do with rights and wrongs.


Well then, we should be glad Christianity ended stuff like that in the Western World :)

I'm not one for oppression and persecution of innocent people, but you can be glad at whatever you want mate.

Im glad it brought end to slavery, pedophilia, animal/human sacriface, homosexuality among leaders and generals, paganism and idoltary.  Altho, I admit it brough quite the few problems as well, mostly coming from the corrupted leaders

I'll just leave this here:

http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

There are plenty of verses in the bible promoting slavery. If anything, it promoted slavery for longer than it should have lasted...



Kantor on 09 January 2013
gergroy said:
Kantor said:
I support it myself, but the only sensible idea I have heard is that marriage is a religious institution, so it should follow religious laws.

In which case, it should have no government recognition, and a government-recognised life partnership should be open to any two (or, hell, more than two) consenting adults.


Exactly, but i would argue even the government recognized life partnership is unecessary.  The only reason government has anything to do with marriage right now is they added tax breaks into the tax code so that they could regulate marriage.  Just eliminate marriage completely from the tax code and get government completely out of marriage.  

People shouldnt have to pay a fee and get a license from the government in order to commit to each other!

Oh, I agree with you completely, but it's such a tiny minority viewpoint that I've given up all hope of it ever happening.

The best I can hope for is for the institution we have to be as inclusive as possible so the government says "tell us you're getting married" rather than "we're telling you if you're getting married".



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

fordy on 09 January 2013
sperrico87 said:
fordy said:
sperrico87 said:
fordy said:
sperrico87 said:

You should be asking: "In what way are you for or against gay marriage?", as you can have both a personal opinion and an opinion with regard to politics or to the public.  For instance, I answered the poll question as "against" due to me personally being against it, but legally it is an entirely different matter.

My personal feelings are that, within my family, and with regards to raising my children, I will not tolerate homosexual marriage, and it will not be discussed or given any credibility in my home. Homosexual behavior ceases procreation, and therefore it serves no meaningful purpose, and is merely a social act with no significance.

Since government is involved, and that won't be changing anytime soon, my political opinion is that homosexuals cannot be prohibited from a legal marriage, as a government/ paper marriage is meaningless in the eyes of everything except the law, so therefore what does it matter to heterosexuals like myself if homosexuals commit to a legal marriage or not? I don't like it, I never will, but there isn't any reasonable legal basis for prohibiting it.

I should add, though, as I have in other threads about "gay marriage", that it is quite a double-standard for the people who advocate for these so-called "gay rights" when most of them would be horrified at the thought of legalizing plural marriage. I don't see any difference between the two. If marriage is something that is perfectly suitable to non-heterosexual people, why is it so bad for non-monogamous people to be legally wed? You support homosexual rights but not non-monogamous rights?

 

And what would you do if your child told you that they were gay?


He would know that I love him/her and will treat him/her the same as my heterosexual children, but I didn't support his/her lifestyle. 

So tell me more about "meaningless social acts" on this discussion forum involving video games. A little hypocritical, isn't it?

You realise that not everything in life has to have a productive purpose, right? If that were the case, we'd be nothing but robots.

I was referring to the marriage as being a meaningless social act, as the whole purpose of marriage up until the year 2000 was procreation.  A marriage between two people with the same sexual orientation is unnecessary.  The reason a man and woman get married to settle down with one another and start a family.  It's the whole purpose of the human race.  We need to have babies, otherwise we all die out in less than a hundred years.

So where is gay marriage disallowing heterosexual marriages? You're talking like it's a contageous disease or something, where if it's allowed, everyone will want it.

Look around you. Society is FULL of unnecessary things. I mean for gods sake, we have one of the greatest libraries of information ever known at our fingertips, yet plenty still use it to look up pictures of cats!

Besides, would you advocate forced heterosexual marriages if it meant the children were coming into a loveless household?



Around the Network
Kantor on 09 January 2013
warlord74 said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOUR5HPg1Mc

Hard to poke holes in his argument.

It is an assertion that:

a) The founding principle of marriage was to have children, and more importantly

b) That we should care about why the institution of marriage was founded rather than what it means today.

His "in principle" line is complete rubbish. In principle, a couple beyond childbearing age cannot bear children. In principle, a couple in which one partner is infertile cannot bear children. To follow his principle, you would need to prohibit people like that from getting married. If you don't, you are saying that marriage can be restricted based on gender and nothing else, and there is no justification for that.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

TruckOSaurus on 09 January 2013
Kantor said:
warlord74 said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOUR5HPg1Mc

Hard to poke holes in his argument.

It is an assertion that:

a) The founding principle of marriage was to have children, and more importantly

b) That we should care about why the institution of marriage was founded rather than what it means today.

His "in principle" line is complete rubbish. In principle, a couple beyond childbearing age cannot bear children. In principle, a couple in which one partner is infertile cannot bear children. To follow his principle, you would need to prohibit people like that from getting married. If you don't, you are saying that marriage can be restricted based on gender and nothing else, and there is no justification for that.

I knew there was a reason I liked you. Good post. Sadly, I've already given you full points in the user tournament so there's nothing else I can do for you.



Signature goes here!

warlord74 on 09 January 2013

Then provide your argument.  Oh wait you dont have one because you cant do it.



SxyxS on 09 January 2013

I was and am against gay marriage.
I'm not religious therefore it has nothing to do with religion,but marriage is and was always a thing between man and woman.
if gay people want to live together they could and should.they can invent a new word and ceremony for living together in a official way,but not a marriage.
just as a gay male couple shouldn't be allowed to adopt children,as they can't produce some.

This gay marriage blabla is just a fashion thing and it is only pushed in the western world as part of the agenda 21(and the agenda 21 is pushed by some psychpathic occult idiots who are meeting every year at a very homosexual ceremony where almost only males are allowed-the bohemian grove)
and sadly most western people are following this fashion,ignoring that they are not the center of the world and that the rest of the world gives a shit about gay marriage.
How stupid these white moaning pseudo"good doers" are?extremly.
Those white asskissers(and they are.i'm part of a minority and they've been trying to kiss my as for years)
are the worst kind of racist on planet earth.
They are racist to themselves.
They oppose you when you are white and against homosexuals or other religions,but they will acceppt and tolerate this stupid behaviour when you are eg a muslim-than they call it culture.
The same with this stupid thread.This guy wouldn't even dare to make such a thread about allowing gay marriage in muslim countries.
People in the usa can ignore that workers in china must work for next to nothing as slaves to make rich monopolists with no scruples even richer (foxconn,apple,ms)but they care whether gay people in the western world can marry or not.that's pathetic .
You can treat people like shit(even in our so called democracys),let them have 3 jobs and still not enough money to survive,but hey-when you are gay you can marry.(this gay marriage is just a trick to take your attention away from real important issues.the trick is simple.the minority trick.Take a white liar and massmurder like gw bush=killer,people are protesting.
replace him with a black liar and massmurder=it's ok.no more white asskissing protesters.
Ask yourself;how is it possible that the same government that is pushing this gay agenda in the west is helping extremly religious racist,anti women, anti gay-dictatorships like saudi arabia(slavery until 1967)to stay in power ?
If you wanna help gay people or other minorities than try to help them where they need real help and not where they can live pretty good just like in the western world.

User was banned for this post - Kantor



warlord74 on 09 January 2013

Actually it the opposite of what you are saying.  In priciple they still can get pregnant happened to my aunt who got pregnant at 49.  And my brother who just got his wife pregnant last year.  Doctors said his wife was sterile.  how many times does it happen to adam and steve 0 because in principle it is impossible.