The reasons for opposing gay marriage
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Nav_Mallhi
It's not natural! Nature has designed a male and a female to be together, hence only a man and a woman can have children. Not men and men or women and women. Sorry gay people but I find this whole concept rather disgusting. However I know some really friendly gay men, they are really nice people, but I just can't seem to understand why they choose a man instead of a woman to be with *shivers*
People don't choose to be gay. You might not think it's natural but those who are attracted to people of the same sex believe it is just as natural as you being attracted to someone of the opposite sex.
You fail.
Original post by K.ChosenOne
I totally agree with this. I don't find the concept disgusting though as they don't really choose to be gay and it's like a norm that I see everyday. But yeah I do think its supposed to be men and women. Its just the tradition in me. If being gay was natural then they would be able to have children naturally.
What Marriage was traditionally intended for is pretty irrelevant these days since people get together and stay together and start a family together whether they are married or not these days. The truth is that gay marriage wouldn't corrupt or destroy the institution of marriage in fact I really don't think it would affect it much at all.
If it doesn't effect you personally in a negative way then it really shouldn't be any of your business telling two people you've never met that they can't marry because they are of the same sex despite the fact that they love each other and want to marry for exactly the same reason to people of the opposite sex might want to marry.
Really the amount of failed logic in those who oppose gay marriage is astounding sometimes.
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.
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.
Well you base that on your religious beliefs but not everyone is religious so I don't see why everyone should abide by rules and laws put down by people who follow the laws of religion that were written some 2000 years ago when donkeys were currency.
The same applies to abortion.
When some of the main religions drag their sorry asses into the 21st century then maybe some of their beliefs will be a little less ridiculous.
And btw I'm sure there are many families that do just fine without a male role model in life. Indeed there are many families who do have a male rolemodels that are really bad so I don't see how such a thing can be used as an argument.
Original post by funsongfactory
Fab. Except some things are obviously ridiculous and you're just clutching at straws.
You can't just pick and choose bits of your religion you do and don't want to follow - that suggests you're not a good Christian. I think if people want their argument against homosexuality on the grounds that they are a Christian to be taken seriously, they must also not mix fabrics and follow all the other rules of Christianity to the last detail, otherwise it suggests that it is actually personal bigotry that causes these views, and the people are using the mask of Christianity so that they aren't outed as intolerant bigots.
Original post by madders94
No, but it means that good same-sex parents are obviously better than flawed different-sex parents, making the point that children with same-sex parents will be disadvantaged compared to different-sex parents ridiculous.
So because some people are disadvantaged that means it's ok to make more people disadvantaged, because they won't be quite as disadvantaged as the really disadvantaged kids?
That's a ridiculous argument.
Original post by funsongfactory
So because some people are disadvantaged that means it's ok to make more people disadvantaged, because they won't be quite as disadvantaged as the really disadvantaged kids?
That's a ridiculous argument.
That's a ridiculous argument.
Where did I say that? You're suggesting that children of same-sex parents are all disadvantaged; I'd like to know your source for that information.
Original post by funsongfactory
For adoption maybe, but what about same sex couples who have children via sperm donation (for women) or surrogates (for men or women)? They don't undergo the same checks for role models etc.
One could also say this about mixed-sex couples. However, the expense and difficulty of using ART rather than adoption effectively excludes anyone who lacks dedication or is unable to provide for a child.
Original post by funsongfactory
I'm sorry but I completely disagree that a child does not have a right to a mother and a father.
Why does a child have a right to a mother and a father then?
Original post by thunder_chunky
Well you base that on your religious beliefs but not everyone is religious so I don't see why everyone should abide by rules and laws put down by people who follow the laws of religion that were written some 2000 years ago when donkeys were currency.
The same applies to abortion.
When some of the main religions drag their sorry asses into the 21st century then maybe some of their beliefs will be a little less ridiculous.
And btw I'm sure there are many families that do just fine without a male role model in life. Indeed there are many families who do have a male rolemodels that are really bad so I don't see how such a thing can be used as an argument.
Well you base that on your religious beliefs but not everyone is religious so I don't see why everyone should abide by rules and laws put down by people who follow the laws of religion that were written some 2000 years ago when donkeys were currency.
The same applies to abortion.
When some of the main religions drag their sorry asses into the 21st century then maybe some of their beliefs will be a little less ridiculous.
And btw I'm sure there are many families that do just fine without a male role model in life. Indeed there are many families who do have a male rolemodels that are really bad so I don't see how such a thing can be used as an argument.
This is a Christian country. If you don't like it move somewhere secular.
Insulting religions just because you don't believe them is stupid, immature and downright hypocritical.
Having a bad male role model doesn't mean you don't need a good one! That is a completely ridiculous argument! Just because some people don't HAVE good role models of both sexes doesn't mean they don't need them!
Original post by mmmpie
Why does a child have a right to a mother and a father then?
1) Nature intended children to have a mother and a father.
2) Children need male and female role models that are ever-present in their lives (scientific fact).
Although both of the above are irrelevant because in arguing that your right to be a parent overrides the right of a child to have a mother and a father you are proving that you're too selfish to be a good parent anyway.
Original post by funsongfactory
Except for Joseph...
That would be fine if all children had that many role models in their life, but many don't. Many people don't live near relatives and their parents may not have a lot of friends that they introduce their children to. Teachers and friends at school change all the time, so they're hardly strong, supportive role models.
It's your opinion that that statement is not blasphemous. It's my opinion that it is.
I don't think gay people are inferior to straight people, but I do think that as parents a man and a woman will generally do a better job raising children than a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
And I'm sorry but children do care and judge. There is still a large amount of homophobia in schools; unacceptably, but it is undeniably there. Asides from all other reasons why a heterosexual marriage is (in my opinion) the best way in which to raise children, why should children be laid open to horrendous bullying just for their parents' rights? Shouldn't the children come first?
That would be fine if all children had that many role models in their life, but many don't. Many people don't live near relatives and their parents may not have a lot of friends that they introduce their children to. Teachers and friends at school change all the time, so they're hardly strong, supportive role models.
It's your opinion that that statement is not blasphemous. It's my opinion that it is.
I don't think gay people are inferior to straight people, but I do think that as parents a man and a woman will generally do a better job raising children than a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
And I'm sorry but children do care and judge. There is still a large amount of homophobia in schools; unacceptably, but it is undeniably there. Asides from all other reasons why a heterosexual marriage is (in my opinion) the best way in which to raise children, why should children be laid open to horrendous bullying just for their parents' rights? Shouldn't the children come first?
You defeat both your own religion and your own position in this argument if you claim Joseph was the father of Jesus.
In regards to it being "my opinion", of course it is - why would I say someone elses? Fatuous statements get nowhere I'm afraid.
You have no evidence for gay people being worse parents, so your opinions are based on your Bible's words; please, form an argument from evidence and reason please.
Children WON'T care and judge if gay parenting is seen to be relatively normal. Don't you understand that? It'd be like people laughing, now, at single-parent families. Nonsensical.
Of course the children should come first, don't suggest I believe the parents' wishes should risk the children; gay people are perfectly capable of bringing up a child. Love is the final word, and by denying a gay couple the opportunity to bring up a child, you suggest they are less capable of helping the child learn to love, also.
If other people have a problem with a child being brought up by two gay people, then shame on them. That's their own evil, not the fact that parents are gay. Lift up your eyes from gazing at the blindness of your religious teachers and join the enlightenment of tolerance.
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.
That's a silly comparison. Original post by madders94
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?
This.
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.
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.
Well I think that they want to be able to say they are married, in name and legally. To be honest it's not just for the legality, marriage is one of the big final steps of commitment in a relationship, I don't think such a thing should be confined to only two people of the opposite sex.
The fact that civil partnerships are almost the same as marriage shouldn't mean that they should settle for civil partnerships. If there is little to no difference between the two then it really shouldn't matter or make a difference to allow them the right to marry. It's really not a big deal to allow them.
So you could put forward the argument about legality but it's not just about legality.
Original post by M'Ling
You defeat both your own religion and your own position in this argument if you claim Joseph was the father of Jesus.
In regards to it being "my opinion", of course it is - why would I say someone elses? Fatuous statements get nowhere I'm afraid.
You have no evidence for gay people being worse parents, so your opinions are based on your Bible's words; please, form an argument from evidence and reason please.
Children WON'T care and judge if gay parenting is seen to be relatively normal. Don't you understand that? It'd be like people laughing, now, at single-parent families. Nonsensical.
Of course the children should come first, don't suggest I believe the parents' wishes should risk the children; gay people are perfectly capable of bringing up a child. Love is the final word, and by denying a gay couple the opportunity to bring up a child, you suggest they are less capable of helping the child learn to love, also.
If other people have a problem with a child being brought up by two gay people, then shame on them. That's their own evil, not the fact that parents are gay. Lift up your eyes from gazing at the blindness of your religious teachers and join the enlightenment of tolerance.
In regards to it being "my opinion", of course it is - why would I say someone elses? Fatuous statements get nowhere I'm afraid.
You have no evidence for gay people being worse parents, so your opinions are based on your Bible's words; please, form an argument from evidence and reason please.
Children WON'T care and judge if gay parenting is seen to be relatively normal. Don't you understand that? It'd be like people laughing, now, at single-parent families. Nonsensical.
Of course the children should come first, don't suggest I believe the parents' wishes should risk the children; gay people are perfectly capable of bringing up a child. Love is the final word, and by denying a gay couple the opportunity to bring up a child, you suggest they are less capable of helping the child learn to love, also.
If other people have a problem with a child being brought up by two gay people, then shame on them. That's their own evil, not the fact that parents are gay. Lift up your eyes from gazing at the blindness of your religious teachers and join the enlightenment of tolerance.
Wow how stupid are you? JOSEPH WAS A MALE ROLE MODEL TO JESUS YOU RETARD.
Actually there's a lot of scientific research that children do better with a parent of each sex as opposed to two of the same sex.
It's not nonsensical at all. I don't know who these perfect children you know are, but I know plenty of gay people who were bullied at school for it. That's just what kids are like.
But love isn't the only thing that matters in life, and thinking that it is isn't going to get you very far I'm afraid.
No, it isn't evil, blindness or a lack or tolerance that makes me believe that a heterosexual couple will GENERALLY SPEAKING do a better job of raising a child than a homosexual couple, it's scientific fact.
Original post by funsongfactory
1) Nature intended children to have a mother and a father.
2) Children need male and female role models that are ever-present in their lives (scientific fact).
Although both of the above are irrelevant because in arguing that your right to be a parent overrides the right of a child to have a mother and a father you are proving that you're too selfish to be a good parent anyway.
2) Children need male and female role models that are ever-present in their lives (scientific fact).
Although both of the above are irrelevant because in arguing that your right to be a parent overrides the right of a child to have a mother and a father you are proving that you're too selfish to be a good parent anyway.
Intent implies consciousness. Either you're asserting that nature is conscious and has intentions, in which case I advise you to seek therapy, or you're invoking a supernatural creator. 'nuff said really.
I agree that children do need male and female role models, or at the very least they benefit greatly from them. Those role models do not have to be the parents.
Please show me where I argued that. What I'm arguing, fundamentally, is that your right to make things up does not detract from my right to be considered as a potential parent based on facts and evidence.
Original post by funsongfactory
This is a Christian country. If you don't like it move somewhere secular.
Insulting religions just because you don't believe them is stupid, immature and downright hypocritical.
Having a bad male role model doesn't mean you don't need a good one! That is a completely ridiculous argument! Just because some people don't HAVE good role models of both sexes doesn't mean they don't need them!
Insulting religions just because you don't believe them is stupid, immature and downright hypocritical.
Having a bad male role model doesn't mean you don't need a good one! That is a completely ridiculous argument! Just because some people don't HAVE good role models of both sexes doesn't mean they don't need them!
It's a Christian country in name only really. There are rather a lot of atheists in this country should they all leave too? Are you going to make them leave?
Honestly I tolerate religion but when they start infringing on things that ought to be common sense because of their laws that are two millenium old I tend to take them less seriously. As should anyone with half a brain and an ounce of common sense.
I'm not insulting religions beacuse I don't believe in them and even if I did I'm not sure it would be hypocritical. Care to explain that one?
I know but honestly I don't think having a male role model is the be all and end all so I think that using that to say two lesbians raising a child or children is more hazardous is pretty thin. It's a pretty weak argument.
Original post by funsongfactory
No, it isn't evil, blindness or a lack or tolerance that makes me believe that a heterosexual couple will GENERALLY SPEAKING do a better job of raising a child than a homosexual couple, it's scientific fact.
Would that be the fact that outcomes are the same for children raised by same-sex couples as for those raised by mixed-sex couples, or some other fact that only you are privy to?
Original post by funsongfactory
Wow how stupid are you? JOSEPH WAS A MALE ROLE MODEL TO JESUS YOU RETARD.
Now that's not very Christian of you..
Actually there's a lot of scientific research that children do better with a parent of each sex as opposed to two of the same sex.
I believe that this is one of those cases where experience matters more than research and every case has to be taken as individual - just like heterosexual couples, there will be good and bad sets of homosexual parents and we can't base every case on a few. There are so many kids in homes and orphanages needing adoption and if gay couples are willing to take them in, I think it's very un-Christian to deny children the right to a family and a home just because you don't agree with it.
It's not nonsensical at all. I don't know who these perfect children you know are, but I know plenty of gay people who were bullied at school for it. That's just what kids are like.
That's people being bullied at school for being gay, not for having gay parents. People are bullied at school for having fat parents, for having black parents, for having parents who wear glasses - does that mean all of these groups should also be banned from having children? And the onus isn't on the children or their parents to change, the onus is on the teachers to stop the bullying, the parents to teach their little brat some manners and someone to punch the bully in the face and teach them a lesson.
But love isn't the only thing that matters in life, and thinking that it is isn't going to get you very far I'm afraid.
And there was me, thinking that love was one of the most important teachings in the Bible. Sorry, but I think that love is a lot more important to a child who's never experienced family love before than having parents who are the same as everyone else.
No, it isn't evil, blindness or a lack or tolerance that makes me believe that a heterosexual couple will GENERALLY SPEAKING do a better job of raising a child than a homosexual couple, it's scientific fact.
Where's your proof for this "scientific fact"? There are a lot more heterosexual couples in the world, which could bias results. There could have been bias from the researchers, which could also affect results. There are so many factors which could invalidate your "scientific facts"; nothing compares to the cold, hard evidence that there are kids in the world who, without the help of same-sex couples, would be living a miserable life, but thanks to their parents - be they mother and mother or father and father - have a warm home and plenty of love, and that matters a hell of a lot more than a group of bigots spouting "scientific facts".
Original post by mmmpie
Intent implies consciousness. Either you're asserting that nature is conscious and has intentions, in which case I advise you to seek therapy, or you're invoking a supernatural creator. 'nuff said really.
I agree that children do need male and female role models, or at the very least they benefit greatly from them. Those role models do not have to be the parents.
Please show me where I argued that. What I'm arguing, fundamentally, is that your right to make things up does not detract from my right to be considered as a potential parent based on facts and evidence.
I agree that children do need male and female role models, or at the very least they benefit greatly from them. Those role models do not have to be the parents.
Please show me where I argued that. What I'm arguing, fundamentally, is that your right to make things up does not detract from my right to be considered as a potential parent based on facts and evidence.
To create a child biologically you need a mother and a father. That is what a child needs naturally. Simple.
"My right to make things up." Not gonna bother talking to someone who's just going to belittle me because you don't have an argument with any weight to it.
Original post by mmmpie
Would that be the fact that outcomes are the same for children raised by same-sex couples as for those raised by mixed-sex couples, or some other fact that only you are privy to?
Scientific research has repeatedly shown that children raised by different-sex parents do better than children raised by same-sex parents.
Original post by funsongfactory
To create a child biologically you need a mother and a father. That is what a child needs naturally. Simple.
"My right to make things up." Not gonna bother talking to someone who's just going to belittle me because you don't have an argument with any weight to it.
"My right to make things up." Not gonna bother talking to someone who's just going to belittle me because you don't have an argument with any weight to it.
So you think the ability to conceive is linked with the ability to raise a child? You presumably oppose all forms of adoption and ART then.
Well, you've presented no evidence or reasoning, so 'making stuff up' seems a reasonable description.
Original post by funsongfactory
Scientific research has repeatedly shown that children raised by different-sex parents do better than children raised by same-sex parents.
Cite some. I did.
Original post by funsongfactory
Fab. Except some things are obviously ridiculous and you're just clutching at straws.
Not really clutching at anything, just proving a point
. You don't follow everything you only choose what you want. So now the real question is why are you choosing the scripture on homosexuality? How is that any more ridiculous than the passage on mixing fabrics?Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
