The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

The reasons for opposing gay marriage

Scroll to see replies

Original post by funsongfactory
I think you've got it completely right, this is probably the main reason for opposition to gay marriage.
I personally do not support gay marriage, for two reasons. I am a Christian and although I do not have any sort of problem with gay people (I have both friends and relatives who are gay and really couldn't care less), the Bible says that "marriage is the union of one man and one woman before God for the bringing forth of children". Now obviously those of you who aren't Christian (which I'm aware is many) won't agree with this, and yes I am aware that gay couples already can adopt. However My aunt and her parter (another woman) have 3 children together, conceived by sperm donation. Whilst I love my cousins dearly, and the girls are doing very well, I and several others in my family can't help but feel that he seriously lacks a male role model in life and in time this is going to be seriously detrimental to him.

Please actually read this post before replying, don't just see that I'm Christian and start mindlessly insulting me.


Raising children is largely believed to not be the original purpose for marriage - sharing property was.

I am aware of what the Bible says about marriage, and I respect your right to follow that. What I don't respect is religion (not specifically you, but the Church of England did it recently) trying to impact on civil marriage - which is nothing to do with religion. I would understand the concerns if the gay marriage legislation was going to force religious institutions to perform marriages they didn't agree with, but this isn't the case.

And studies show that same-sex parents are as capable as opposite-sex parents. If you think your cousins are going to lack a male role model then that is a problem - but this male role model doesn't have to be a father. If you're concerned only because they lack a father, then you need not be concerned as it isn't necessary.
Original post by pshewitt1
oh ok, now I'm with you :smile:
I have no idea about that bit, weren't some blacks forced into marriages?


My 'black' history (if you excuse the term, I don't know what else to say) isn't quite up to scratch, but I know that they weren't allowed to marry white people, and that is the comparison being made between the struggles that black people had with marriage and the struggles that gay people have with marriage.
Think carefully about the term ''gay marriage''. It's like saying ''kosher or halal pork''. The two words are complete opposites of one another.
Original post by funsongfactory
I think you've got it completely right, this is probably the main reason for opposition to gay marriage.
I personally do not support gay marriage, for two reasons. I am a Christian and although I do not have any sort of problem with gay people (I have both friends and relatives who are gay and really couldn't care less), the Bible says that "marriage is the union of one man and one woman before God for the bringing forth of children". Now obviously those of you who aren't Christian (which I'm aware is many) won't agree with this, and yes I am aware that gay couples already can adopt. However My aunt and her parter (another woman) have 3 children together, conceived by sperm donation. Whilst I love my cousins dearly, and the girls are doing very well, I and several others in my family can't help but feel that he seriously lacks a male role model in life and in time this is going to be seriously detrimental to him.

Please actually read this post before replying, don't just see that I'm Christian and start mindlessly insulting me.


If you're all that concerned, why doesn't a male member of the family spend more time with him and act as a male role model? And surely by your logic, people shouldn't be allowed to divorce because single-parent families leave children without male role models sometimes. Oh, and fathers should never be allowed to die, and children whose fathers have died should be given to a couple where both are still alive, because otherwise they won't have a male role model.

That's an incredibly weak argument.
My whole issue with the "marriage for the purpose of raising children" is that it just doesn't stand up. Should an infertile couple be prevented from marrying? Should a post-menopausal women be prevented from marrying?
Original post by minimarshmallow
My 'black' history (if you excuse the term, I don't know what else to say) isn't quite up to scratch, but I know that they weren't allowed to marry white people, and that is the comparison being made between the struggles that black people had with marriage and the struggles that gay people have with marriage.


people are over PC now a days, but surely that's the equivalent of gays marrying straights rather than gays and gays?
Original post by chefdave
By definition homosexuals are inferior to heterosexuals because they're unable to have kids, in the same way that a fertile person is superior to an infertile person. Does this make me a homophobe? I would say no, its just an honest appraisal of the facts. I'm a shade over 6ft but if I'm honest would prefer to be 6.3/6.4, in this respect I consider taller people to be superior to me. This doesn't mean I'm prejudiced against shorter people.


They are still able to have kids, just not within their gay couples. It isn't the same as a fertile person and an infertile person, because a homosexual is not infertile (unless of course they are, but I mean that homosexual =/= infertile).

And yes, I would say you were prejudiced against short people. I'm 5 foot 2 and I bet I'm better at getting through small gaps than you are. You have no reason to say short people are inferior to tall people, because there are things tall people can't do that short people can and vice versa.
Original post by pshewitt1
people are over PC now a days, but surely that's the equivalent of gays marrying straights rather than gays and gays?


Well gay people can marry straight people. But then black people could marry other black people so it's not exactly the same, but it is comparable.
Reply 68
Avatar for M'Ling
M'Ling
9
Original post by funsongfactory
I think you've got it completely right, this is probably the main reason for opposition to gay marriage.
I personally do not support gay marriage, for two reasons. I am a Christian and although I do not have any sort of problem with gay people (I have both friends and relatives who are gay and really couldn't care less), the Bible says that "marriage is the union of one man and one woman before God for the bringing forth of children". Now obviously those of you who aren't Christian (which I'm aware is many) won't agree with this, and yes I am aware that gay couples already can adopt. However My aunt and her parter (another woman) have 3 children together, conceived by sperm donation. Whilst I love my cousins dearly, and the girls are doing very well, I and several others in my family can't help but feel that he seriously lacks a male role model in life and in time this is going to be seriously detrimental to him.


There are plenty of single parents, though, who manage to give a role model for the sex of the missing parent. If your cousins don't receive a male influence due to having no father, then that's their mothers' faults; not everybody gets male influence, thank goodness, from their fathers.

In terms of what the Bible says, I would suggest that it was written without the knowledge we now have regarding homosexuality. We have to move on from 1st-Century Palestine (or even earlier) and come to the conclusion that everybody can love, everybody should have equal rights, and that it is an insult to the homosexual community to alienate them based on a corrupt and biased text.
Original post by Scarface-Don
Think carefully about the term ''gay marriage''. It's like saying ''kosher or halal pork''. The two words are complete opposites of one another.


How are they exactly?
I'm assuming you mean because of the religious meaning of the word marriage and the fact that a lot of religions are against homosexuality.
Well marriage isn't exclusively religious, and not all religions are against homosexuality.
Original post by funsongfactory
I think you've got it completely right, this is probably the main reason for opposition to gay marriage.
I personally do not support gay marriage, for two reasons. I am a Christian and although I do not have any sort of problem with gay people (I have both friends and relatives who are gay and really couldn't care less), the Bible says that "marriage is the union of one man and one woman before God for the bringing forth of children". Now obviously those of you who aren't Christian (which I'm aware is many) won't agree with this, and yes I am aware that gay couples already can adopt. However My aunt and her parter (another woman) have 3 children together, conceived by sperm donation. Whilst I love my cousins dearly, and the girls are doing very well, I and several others in my family can't help but feel that he seriously lacks a male role model in life and in time this is going to be seriously detrimental to him.

Please actually read this post before replying, don't just see that I'm Christian and start mindlessly insulting me.


The bible says a lot of things. For instance you aren't supposed to wear two different types of cloth, but I presume you have worn denim jeans and a t-shirt, at least when double denim wasn't a trend :tongue:

Why is is you get to pick and choose? Does the bible not condon rape, slavery and lots of other things?

What about single parent families, or those that lose a mother or father? Do you condem those families too?
"it's not natural" What a ridiculous argument, canned food isn't natural, Xbox 360's aren't natural, clothes aren't natural should all these be banned and deemed wrong because it doesn't happen in nature ( PS homosexuality does exist in nature in quite a few species)

At the end of the day we all have the freedom to love who ever we want, if both parties accept, love and care for each other, who the hell cares,

Studies have shown that those who are the most homophobic have the higher likelihood to be aroused during gay porn..... Just saying…..
Reply 72
Avatar for chefdave
chefdave
Original post by minimarshmallow
They are still able to have kids, just not within their gay couples. It isn't the same as a fertile person and an infertile person, because a homosexual is not infertile (unless of course they are, but I mean that homosexual =/= infertile).

And yes, I would say you were prejudiced against short people. I'm 5 foot 2 and I bet I'm better at getting through small gaps than you are. You have no reason to say short people are inferior to tall people, because there are things tall people can't do that short people can and vice versa.


How can I be prejudiced against myself? :confused:

Think about it in terms of costs, it costs on average £5000 for cycle of IVF treatment for example and surragacy can also cost £000's. This is an additional price you may have to pay if you're gay and want kids, healthy heterosuxal couples can achieve the same result for free. How is this not a drawback?! Do you think homosexuals like racking up bills for thousands of pounds while their heterosexual counterparts use the conventional cost-free route? In this respect homosexuality is definitely a drawback, unless you look forward to massive bills landing on the doormat that is.
(edited 11 years ago)
I really don't see why everyone's makes such a fuss about this gay marriage issue.

Gay people want equal rights, including the right to get married. Well what does "getting married" actually involve? Being in a relationship together? Gay people can already do that. Walking down an aisle to music and declaring your love for one another in front of a crowd? Gay people can already do that. Living together? Gay people can already do that. Sharing property? Gay people can already do that. Certain tax reliefs from the government? Gay people can already get that. Changing your surname to that of your partner? Gay people can already do that. Putting all of this into a written contract? Gay people can already do that.

So what rights, under the umbrella of "marriage" is it that gay people are actually looking for? Because as far as I can see, they've already got all of them. I don't see anything that straight people are permitted to do which gay people are actually prohibited from doing. It doesn't seem like much more than an argument over semantics really.
Original post by chefdave
How can I be prejudiced against myself? :confused:


You said you were 6ft. You're not short.

Think about it in terms of costs, it costs on average £5000 for cycle of IVF treatment for example and surragacy can also cost £000's. This is an additional price you may have to pay if you're gay and want kids, healthy heterosuxal couples can achieve the same result for free. How is this not drawback?! Do you think homosexuals like racking up bills for thousands of pounds while their heterosexual counterparts use the conventional cost-free route? In this respect homosexuality is definitely a drawback, unless you look forward to massive bills landing on the doormat that is.


So it may be costly to have kids, if indeed they decide to have kids and then if they have them by IVF or with a surrogate.
I don't see how that makes homosexuality 'inferior'.
Original post by tazarooni89
I really don't see why everyone's makes such a fuss about this gay marriage issue.

Gay people want equal rights, including the right to get married. Well what does "getting married" actually involve? Being in a relationship together? Gay people can already do that. Walking down an aisle to music and declaring your love for one another in front of a crowd? Gay people can already do that. Living together? Gay people can already do that. Sharing property? Gay people can already do that. Certain tax reliefs from the government? Gay people can already get that. Changing your surname to that of your partner? Gay people can already do that. Putting all of this into a written contract? Gay people can already do that.

So what rights, under the umbrella of "marriage" is it that gay people are actually looking for? Because as far as I can see, they've already got all of them. I don't see anything that straight people are permitted to do which gay people are actually prohibited from doing. It doesn't seem like much more than an argument over semantics really.


Firstly, there are some things that civil partnerships do not offer that marriages do - inheriting titles for example.
Secondly, if they're the same, why call them different things?
Original post by minimarshmallow
How are they exactly?
I'm assuming you mean because of the religious meaning of the word marriage and the fact that a lot of religions are against homosexuality.
Well marriage isn't exclusively religious, and not all religions are against homosexuality.


Yes I agree that marriage is not exclusively religious since two individuals, regardless of sexuality, can live together, adopt children and be recognised as partners by organisations and government bodies. However when two homosexual individuals get married in the UK they nearly always follow the procedure that is complementary to the Christian faith, i.e. going to church and saying the vows. This is where the religious element comes in. I'm pretty sure most religious people have nothing personal against homosexuality because most religions teach that after death we're going to be judged based on our own deeds and not someone else's. However when homosexuals try to incorporate religion into their lives, a religion such as Christianity that is completely opposed to their ideology, then we have Christians standing up since they see it as a direct attack on their religion and idealogy.
Reply 77
Avatar for Carter78
Carter78
Original post by pshewitt1
it still is, although it is the government and not the peoples in middle eastern countries who want it done, but where is the enslavement?

I had not heard of Alan Turing, the article is disturbing to say the least :/
but I still cannot justify in my mind that you can compare what the blacks go through even now compared to homosexuals. maybe it's because of more exposure to it all...

I didn't say that the issue of gay marriage is the same as enslavement. I said the campaign for equal rights for blacks in America is broadly the same as the campaign for equal marriage rights for homosexuals.

Just because blacks were enslaved up until the 1860's doesn't negate the fact that the campaign to end racial segregation in the 1960's bears overwhelming similarities to the campaign to end marriage discrimination against homosexuals today.

Note: I highlighted "1860's" & "1960's" to demonstrate that the enslavement of black people and the campaign to overturn the Jim Crow laws occurred in two very different time frames and should thus not be confused with each other or lumped together as one event.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by derangedyoshi
I agree.

interracial1.jpg


The average age of the people in the above picture don't look like they'll be on the planet for another 10 years, let alone 40.
Reply 79
Avatar for Carter78
Carter78
Original post by Scarface-Don
However when two homosexual individuals get married in the UK they nearly always follow the procedure that is complementary to the Christian faith, i.e. going to church and saying the vows.


Not true. That's the point, homosexuals cannot go to church and get married so how would they have been able to up until now as you claim?

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you