If you allow homosexuals marriage then...

[jewscout]

maybe it will, maybe it won't...won't know 'til we try

 

[HopefulNikki]

if it was religiously wrong 'god' wouldn't allow it to happen but 'god' does as it's not wrong!

God is also allowing polygamy, incest, rape, murder, etc to happen...the question is not whether these things are taking place or not, but rather whether or not they are moral or acceptable.

 

[HopefulNikki]

Well by that logic, then murder, rape, war, slaughtering innocent people, selling drugs that you know will kill people because they're from a tainted chemical supply, theft, etc.

All of those things are okay because God allows it to happen.

Hey, I was just gonna say that! lol

 

[darkpenguin]

God is also allowing polygamy, incest, rape, murder, etc to happen...the question is not whether these things are taking place or not, but rather whether or not they are moral or acceptable.

then where is 'god' when all the bad stuffs happening? it makes no odds to me as i'm an athiest and in my eyes there is no god as he really doesn't do an awfull lot if one did happen to exist like sheep (ahem) sorry people say he does!

 

[HopefulNikki]

then where is 'god' when all the bad stuffs happening? it makes no odds to me as i'm an athiest and in my eyes there is no god as he really doesn't do an awfull lot if one did happen to exist like sheep (ahem) sorry people say he does!

What difference does it make where God is? Why is it God's job to clean up our messes? Besides, this is again getting off topic

 

[darkpenguin]

great answer clap clap, and yes your right it is getting off subject again!

 

[robtex]

For the posters who feel that man is breaking God's law by allowing homosexual marriage advocating it or partipating it, as you post would you mind listing the punishment you feel the infidels deserve? Just kinda tag it to the normal post you are making next go around so we can kinda get a perspective on how "evil" this idea of same-sex marriage is according to you.

 

[Mike182]

at the end of the day polygamy is wrong(marriage is meant to be a union of 2 people not more)

says who?

says anyone that hasnt got a screw loose in their head!

that is not a reasonable justification for saying marriage is a union of two people

and why should it be recognised by the government? you see terrorists bombing people in the name of religion i know lets ask the governments to accept that to heh?

you compare consenting sexual relations that harm no one to merciless killing? i think that speaks for itself :sarcastic

 

[darkpenguin]

For the posters who feel that man is breaking God's law by allowing homosexual marriage advocating it or partipating it, as you post would you mind listing the punishment you feel the infidels deserve? Just kinda tag it to the normal post you are making next go around so we can kinda get a perspective on how "evil" this idea of same-sex marriage is according to you.

i'm actually intrigued about peoples views on that myself!

 

[Green Gaia]

....then obviously the question of whether homosexuality should be condoned should be quesitoned.

I thought we were talking about marriage. Are you suggesting that homosexuality be made illegal too.

By what standard?

I already told you by what standard. When a secular government started giving rights and protections to couples who marry. That's why same gender couples want to be able to marry, to protect our families. Why shouldn't we be allowed to do that just the same as straight people?

 

[HopefulNikki]

that is not a reasonable justification for saying marriage is a union of two people

What is "marriage," according to your definition? Apparently the gender of people who are married to each other is irrelevant, the number of people who are married to each other is irrelevant...is marriage to you basically, "anyone, anywhere, anyhow"?

 

[exgirlfriend]

Where is polygamy so wrong? If it's practiced in the right circumstances, and the children and wives are not abused, I don't see a single problem with it.

I agree. I feel it's the same way with homosexual marriage. If no one is getting hurt, then whats the big problem with it? I don't see any problem with gays getting married. Love is love, even if you're in love with someone of the same sex as you. :hearts::rainbow1:

 

[HopefulNikki]

I thought we were talking about marriage. Are you suggesting that homosexuality be made illegal too.

I used the word "condoned," obviously in the context of a discussion about homosexual marraige. Let's not confuse issues, please.

I already told you by what standard. When a secular government started giving rights and protections to couples who marry. That's why same gender couples want to be able to marry, to protect our families. Why shouldn't we be allowed to do that just the same as straight people?

And why shouldn't polygamist families be able to protect themselves just the same as monogamous homosexuals? And why shouldn't people who marry their mothers be allowed to protect their families just the same as homosexuals and polygamists? You're making the point far too easy to make, in drawing the connection between homosexuals and other sexual minorities.

 

[darkpenguin]

that is not a reasonable justification for saying marriage is a union of two people

you compare consenting sexual relations that harm no one to merciless killing? i think that speaks for itself :sarcastic

i am as they are both connected to religion, it shouldn't be upto governments to have decisions as far as religions and marriages etc go, it should be upto individuals and what they see as right, the governments shouldnt have a say or have to be asked to allow people to be unified!i just dont agree with palygamy, its wrong!

 

[darkpenguin]

I agree. I feel it's the same way with homosexual marriage. If no one is getting hurt, then whats the big problem with it? I don't see any problem with gays getting married. Love is love, even if you're in love with someone of the same sex as you. :hearts::rainbow1:

and your saying being gay is the same as palygamy? i think not, palygamy is as bad as promiscuity, both are irrisponsable and not a good example to set for children!

 

[Tigress]

If you allow homosexuals marriage then...do you have to allow any form of marriage between consenting adults (i.e. polygamy, incestuous relationships, etc.)?

So, I'm just asking for clarification. What do you believe and why? Set me straight or help me understand.

No, you don't have to, but I think it's only natural that one [minority] movement might inspire another.--The only thing I can see against polygamy/polyandry is a) working it out legally in terms of benefits, etc., and b) how many wives/husbands should an individual be permitted?

 

[Green Gaia]

I used the word "condoned," obviously in the context of a discussion about homosexual marraige. Let's not confuse issues, please.

I was trying to understand what you meant, you didn't say marriage.

And why shouldn't polygamist families be able to protect themselves just the same as monogamous homosexuals? And why shouldn't people who marry their mothers be allowed to protect their families just the same as homosexuals and polygamists? You're making the point far too easy to make, in drawing the connection between homosexuals and other sexual minorities.

I didn't say they shouldn't be able to protect themselves. I am giving you my reasons and same gender couples reasons for wanting equal legal rights.

Why is giving equal legal rights to minorities such a problem for you?

 

[Tigress]

Don't worry, you're not alone. The fact that there's now people, even here on RF in a recent thread, defending polygamy, seems like pretty clear evidence that once you start conding the actions of one minority, such as homosexuals, all will try to be validated in the public circle. ABC aired a recent show called "The Outsiders," chronicling the daily plights of polygamists, strippers, people who have married their cousins, even people who call themselves "asexual." The fact that we're even considering for a second that these people's experiences and/or choices could be moral or normative is beyond me.

If you expect people to express consideration toward your 'experiences and/or choices,' then you should afford them the same. Btw, what on earth is wrong with asexuality, of all things?

 

[HopefulNikki]

I was trying to understand what you meant, you didn't say marriage.

Sorry, I thought it was clear from the context of the thread. Oh well, I'll try to be more clear next time.

I didn't say they shouldn't be able to protect themselves. I am giving you my reasons and same gender couples reasons for wanting equal legal rights.

And I'm simply saying that those reasons quite easily extend to arguments in support of other sexual minority groups, thus proving nutshell's point that one leads to another.

Why is giving equal legal rights to minorities such a problem for you?/QUOTE]

I don't have a problem giving legal equal rights to minorities. I do have a problem with legally condoning relationships that lead to other sexual deviances which to me (and I think the vast majority of humankind) are immoral.

 

[Inky]

What is "marriage," according to your definition? Apparently the gender of people who are married to each other is irrelevant, the number of people who are married to each other is irrelevant...is marriage to you basically, "anyone, anywhere, anyhow"?

If we lived a mere hundred years ago, a blink in history, the question would be "What is marriage, if the races of the people involved are irrelevant, the wishes of the parents, the leadership of the husband over his wife, whether or not they have children?" Modern marriage, which is assumed to be built on mutual affection (as opposed to genuinely "traditional" marriage which is essentially a negotiation for business and social status purposes), can survive quite well with fewer limits, as history has proven, and really it doesn't make sense to keep restrictions for the sake of being able to say you have restictions. My personal definition of an ideal marriage for modern society is something like "the public declaration of a bond of love between individuals who plan to support and care for each other in their daily lives".

Considering there's nothing really remarkable about the idea of gay marriage compared to other changes to the insitution over the past century or two, why would gay marriage be more likely to cause a "slippery slope" than interracial marriage, or gender-equal marriage, or marriage without children or without the consent of parents? Those encountered the exact same protests in their day, including the "slippery slope" argument, that gay marriage recieves today.