Question for anti gay marriage people.

[73109]

Where are you coming from? Why exactly should it be illegal? I'm not ranting, raving, or insulting. I just want to know your point of view. Also, do you believe no one is actually homosexual and they can suppress their homosexual urges?

[Adami]

The best I get from a non religious view point is "Marriage is LEGALLY defined as between 1 man and 1 woman"

The religious answer that is somewhat tempered is "Marriage is a religious institute, thus should follow religious laws"

The answer you will get from everyone else is "The government should stay out of marriage"

[icysk8r]

Because people like to butt into other people's affairs and hate things.

In all seriousness (not that that point wasn't serious, because it is 100% serious.):
I believe most people would say because marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman, and because they interpret the bible to say gays are bad, there is no place for them in marriage.

[73109]

I understand that, I just want to see it typed and hear it from an actual anti gay marriage standpoint.

[icysk8r]

I understand that, I just want to see it typed and hear it from an actual anti gay marriage standpoint.

I highly doubt that anyone here, even if they are anti-gay marriage, will speak up.
Although I encourage they do.

[Jamesman42]

I don't hate homosexuals, just to preface my post. I believe the Bible is clear that homosexuals should never act on their desires, though, since it goes against God's intent for marriage and that type of love. It's ONLY the act of homosexuality that is the issue as far as my faith goes. I have several homosexual friends, and we get along like any other set of friends.

[William Wallace]

Because people like to butt into other people's affairs...

Yep.

[yorost]

The best I get from a non religious view point is "Marriage is LEGALLY defined as between 1 man and 1 woman"

The religious answer that is somewhat tempered is "Marriage is a religious institute, thus should follow religious laws"

The answer you will get from everyone else is "The government should stay out of marriage"

Oh come on, you can't think of any other reason a non-religious person would be against gay marriage?  You make it sound like you think anyone not religious and not a strict adherent to law thinks government should stay out of marriage rights.  I think you're giving too much credit to too many people for being open-minded.

There's a difference between being against something and having a sensible argument against something.  You've never heard the "it's not natural" argument?  I think especially in older generations there is plenty of perception that homosexuality is simply a disease, something to be fixed, not encouraged through sanctioned marriage.

[yeshaberto]

I don't hate homosexuals, just to preface my post. I believe the Bible is clear that homosexuals should never act on their desires, though, since it goes against God's intent for marriage and that type of love. It's ONLY the act of homosexuality that is the issue as far as my faith goes. I have several homosexual friends, and we get along like any other set of friends.

exactly this

[Adami]

The best I get from a non religious view point is "Marriage is LEGALLY defined as between 1 man and 1 woman"

The religious answer that is somewhat tempered is "Marriage is a religious institute, thus should follow religious laws"

The answer you will get from everyone else is "The government should stay out of marriage"

Oh come on, you can't think of any other reason a non-religious person would be against gay marriage?  You make it sound like you think anyone not religious and not a strict adherent to law thinks government should stay out of marriage rights.  I think you're giving too much credit to too many people for being open-minded.

There's a difference between being against something and having a sensible argument against something.  You've never heard the "it's not natural" argument?  I think especially in older generations there is plenty of perception that homosexuality is simply a disease, something to be fixed, not encouraged through sanctioned marriage.

Fine, just add "and some people are just biggots" to the end of my list.

[Dr. SeaWolf]

You can allow something without approving of it.  I don't understand how letting two guys or two gals get married has any effect on good, God-fearing Christian marriage.

[Adami]

You can allow something without approving of it.  I don't understand how letting two guys or two gals get married has any effect on good, God-fearing Christian marriage.

That is an interesting point actually. At what point are humans supposed to enforce gods laws on non believers? I thought believers were supposed to let god deal with everybody in the next life and not in this life.

Am I wrong?

[j]

I've often wondered that too.  Jesus didn't force anyone to follow his teachings or face government intervention.  Everybody has a choice, and if there are universal moral laws by which we will be judged, it makes no difference if something is illegal in the eyes of the state.

-J

[bosk1]

He also didn't live in a democratic society where each individual has somewhat of a say in the legislative process and in what they think the laws of the land "should" be, so he doesn't really speak to the issue of what the Christian role in government should be other than submitting to government authority.  Anything beyond that, he leaves to us to figure out.

[Jamesman42]

Does the government see marriage as an institute of man or an institute of God? (I honestly don't know). That may help answer the question I would think.

[Dr. SeaWolf]

I think some officials see it one way, and some see it another.

[Jamesman42]

Oh, lovely.

[73109]

Whatever happened to a seperation of church and state?

[Jamesman42]

Sounds like they share the house but sleep in separate rooms...sometimes.

[73109]

Sounds like if their bunk beds were closer they would be having sex...in this case atleat.

[Zook]

My favorite answer is '' god created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve''. So funny.

[William Wallace]

Whatever happened to a seperation of church and state?

has nothing to do with the subject.

[j]

But what would be the point of a P/R thread in which it wasn't wrongly invoked at least once?

-J

[Sigz]

You can allow something without approving of it.  I don't understand how letting two guys or two gals get married has any effect on good, God-fearing Christian marriage.

[icysk8r]

Whatever happened to a seperation of church and state?

It doesn't matter.  Laws do not matter because the spoken majority will get what they want.  I believe that most people have no problem with gays, but they aren't the ones who speak loud.  The ones who do speak up are antis and there are far more than spoken supporters, therefor it doesn't matter about old laws because this is (believe it or not) still the People's government.
At least that's my understanding

[kirbywelch92]

I say that there's a difference between what's Un-Christian and what's Un-American.

As a CHRISTIAN, I believe homosexuality is a sin.

As an AMERICAN, I believe any freedoms that don't interfere with the freedoms of others might as well be acceptable.

[William Wallace]

But what would be the point of a P/R thread in which it wasn't wrongly invoked at least once?

-J

I don't know. That was downright philosophical on your part.

[In The Name Of Rudess]

Since the great majority of people who are against gay marriage are Christians (at least, in western society), I will be focusing on them.

I think it's okay for Christians to say they don't want gay marriage to be legalised. It's just part of their religion, most would agree. But I think enforcing their laws upon people who don't want to have anything to do with Christianity is not okay. This is happening on a large scale in America, where the church and the state aren't seperated. They're supposed to be seperated but they aren't. This is the reason America is the only country in western society where gay marriage is for the most part not allowed. Except for Italy, which is also extremely Christian.

It seems whenever religion has a substantial influence on politics, humans rights go out the window because the religion tells people how to think. This was demonstrated in the middle ages when the pope had absolute control over Europe (crusades, missionaries in Africa, conquest of the Americas, Pope Innocence 3 etc.). Whenever a religious leader is in control, they tend to force people to abide by the laws of their religion. You could say the phrase "Power corrupts" certainly applies to religious leaders.

However, I'm not saying Christianity is the only religion guilty of this, certainly not. The Islam is much worse. That's an interesting fact, because in the Middle-East religion and politics are one, completely unseperated. Leaders of the Islam even think that seperation of church and state is "a rebellion against God's law".

Another interesting point is that Hinduism and Buddhism have never forced their laws upon people, even though they have been in complete control over their countries for over 3000 years. So you could also say that there's something in Christianity and the Islam that causes their leaders to force their laws upon the population. But this is an entirely different debate.

In short, I think the only way to get gay marriage legalised is to seperate the church and the state more. I say more, because they can never be completely seperate. Doing this will be very hard if not impossible though, because religious followers and leaders will be reluctant to give up their power.

[Dr. SeaWolf]

I don't know about Buddhism, but don't the moral tenets of Hinduism have a pretty large hand in Indian politics?

[sneakyblueberry]

Another interesting point is that Hinduism and Buddhism have never forced their laws upon people, even though they have been in complete control over their countries for over 3000 years.  

Not entirely true... But;

...this is an entirely different debate.

[sneakyblueberry]

I don't know about Buddhism, but don't the moral tenets of Hinduism have a pretty large hand in Indian politics?

I'm not sure there is such a thing as buddhist law.  At least not anything in the vein of 'christian law', if you can call it that.

[j]

[separation of church and state]

has nothing to do with the subject.

Seriously, is this phrase being thrown around in the wrong context a lot in our public schools or something?  I cannot believe how widespread the ignorance is regarding it, or how often it is misused.

-J

[Nigerius Rex]

Its not too annoying when I hear it misused given how simple it sounds.

[In The Name Of Rudess]

Maybe it wasn't such a good idea of me to put those thoughts about hinduism and buddhism in my post, since it's kind of derailing the thread, but oh well.

I don't know about Buddhism, but don't the moral tenets of Hinduism have a pretty large hand in Indian politics?

They used to, but there was a long period of British colonial influence in which the Indian law system changed to closely resemble the English common law. However, there is also a so-called "family-law" system which is very complex. Basically it means that each religion in the country has its own set of laws they adhere to. So the moral tenets of Hinduism only influence the Hindu-part of the law.

I don't know about Buddhism, but don't the moral tenets of Hinduism have a pretty large hand in Indian politics?

I'm not sure there is such a thing as buddhist law.  At least not anything in the vein of 'christian law', if you can call it that.

Buddhists live by the "Noble Eightfold Path". You could call it the Buddhist "law". The path is divided into wisdom, ethical conduct and mental development. It's briefly explained here: https://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/eightfoldpath.html

[separation of church and state]

has nothing to do with the subject.

Seriously, is this phrase being thrown around in the wrong context a lot in our public schools or something?  I cannot believe how widespread the ignorance is regarding it, or how often it is misused.

-J

From what I understand, separation of church and state refers to the limits a country's constitution places on the power of the government (both federal and state) to legislate about religion. At least, this is the defintion used in the US constitution and in secularist countries' constitutions. I do not see how I misused it.

[73109]

Maybe I am mistaken, but to me, seperation of church and state is the Legislature deciding what is best without using religious ideals. Maybe I'm wrong. Sorry if I was mistaken.