Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Arguments against Gay marriage?

Announcements Posted on
We're up for a Webby! Vote TSR to help us win. 10-04-2014
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gltw)
    All forms of lust are sinful, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Yet what is not deemed as sinful is an individual who has homosexual desires. The identity of the person with homosexual desires is not in homosexuality.
    Also this is just your view, yet you state it as fact. Isn't that also not that tolerant?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wirral)
    You can bet your bottom dollar that if homosexual marriage is legalised, it will be forced onto the churches. The people who are pushing this agenda are primarily militant atheists and secularists rather than homosexuals. That is why Christians are concerned.
    wish i hadnt met my neg limit for the day after reading this
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gltw)
    There is no such thing as a homosexual marriage. Marriage is between one man and one woman. That is simple, changing that undermines the value of marriage, the union of one man and one woman before God. If homosexual marriage is legalised no evangelical church will carry out these marriages which may result in court-cases because of their position. This is therefore a very serious issue and simply saying the church should ignore it is not an option because it will have serious repercussions on us.

    It strikes me that many homosexuals complain of intolerance by the church yet they are intolerant with people who believe something different from them.
    Religious marriage may be 'the union of one man and one woman before God', but that is not the definition of civil marriage. And religion should not be trying to interfere with civil marriage, since it's nothing to do with them.
    Nobody is trying to force churches to marry, and if you think they will be then you really need to educate yourself on the issue.

    Also, I don't know what kind of Christian you are, but marriage in the Church of England already went through a redefinition. And as marriage pre-dates Christianity, Christians will have redefined whatever came before them.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wirral)
    You can bet your bottom dollar that if homosexual marriage is legalised, it will be forced onto the churches. The people who are pushing this agenda are primarily militant atheists and secularists rather than homosexuals. That is why Christians are concerned.
    You are either a brilliant troll or a phenomenally stupid person.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)
    One of my pet topics, and possibly the subject of my dissertation.

    I'm not against gay marriage as a concept - but I personally don't see what's wrong with civil partnership.

    My concern would be that gay marriage would open up a legal can of worms that would have knock-on effects for a lot of other things.

    First off - it's clear that the law believes that sex (and not necessarily procreation) is an important part of marriage. A marriage is voidable if there has been no consumation. Now currently, there is no consumation requirement for a CP - this may be because of the technical difficulties in defining a perfect and complete sex act for lesbians, or because of a reluctance to consider anal sex as a consumation. In any case - there is no requirement.

    Let's accept then, that gay marriage would have no consumation requirement. Half the arguments against CP are that equal status is insufficient -and that gay people should have exactly the same ceremony and legal status. In this case, the natural result is to remove the consumation requirement from heterosexual marriages.

    Sounds ok - but I see this as a potential timebomb for further down the line. If there is no consumation requirement - this is effectively saying that sex - or rather proof of sex is no longer a requirement of marriage. A sexual relationship is legally viewed as that which separates a platonic friendship from a marriage-type partnership. Without the sex requirement - the door is now open to some unforeseen consequences:

    1. Prohibition on grounds of consanguinity. Prohibitions on incest are what makes this part of the law tick. The prohibition against marrying ex in-laws were removed for this very reason. If it's not illegal to have sex, then it's not a void marriage. Following exactly the same rationale, the incest prohibition would go out the window, and presumably some closer relatives would be free to marry.

    2. In the same vein - marriage may be defined as a non-sexual union. There would be no bar to platonic marriages - which people might freely enter for financial advantage. Brothers and sisters could marry for significant tax advantages. People who are simply friends may marry with no intention of sexual relationship.

    3. What effect would this have on adultery and divorce? Surely this advances the idea of no-fault divorce? If sex is not a requirement of marriage, then why would adultery then be an issue? If adultery is no issue - then similarly what defines behaviour? We may end up with no-fault divorce on demand.

    These things may suit the people marrying for "new" reasons, but would cause serious problems for couples (gay or straight) marrying for the "traditional" reasons.
    you could just redfine sex to include oral sex or anything else that involves genital play and use that as a consumation of the marriage.

    i'm pretty sure for hetero marriages the adultery issue can arise from one spouse from doing sexual things other than penetrative vaginal or anal sex with another person without it being all that controversial (i.e. it is sufficient to count as adultery).
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dinnes)
    Also this is just your view, yet you state it as fact. Isn't that also not that tolerant?
    Well I can't go against what God clearly defines. I tolerate homosexuals, I have two gay brothers who i get on with great.

    (Original post by Dinnes)
    Just because the church hijacked marriage it doesn't mean that it has the rights to define it. Also, since when has the church been tolerant of homosexuals?
    The church has always condemned homosexuality, that is the act of homosexual intercourse and all forms of sexual desire.

    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    Religious marriage may be 'the union of one man and one woman before God', but that is not the definition of civil marriage. And religion should not be trying to interfere with civil marriage, since it's nothing to do with them.
    Nobody is trying to force churches to marry, and if you think they will be then you really need to educate yourself on the issue.

    Also, I don't know what kind of Christian you are, but marriage in the Church of England already went through a redefinition. And as marriage pre-dates Christianity, Christians will have redefined whatever came before them.
    Civil marriage isnt marriage. It just a legalistic title, nothing more. Well Judaism kind of has always existed in some shape or form. So no marriage does not pre-date Christianity.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I've noticed that many arguments against full marriage equality actually count against marriage in its current form.

    1) Protecting the sanctity of marriage- roughly 50% of marriages (a lifelong commitment) end in divorce. Sanctity of marriage is dead.

    2) Marriage requires children- then I'm assuming all modern couples were tested to see if they were compatible before getting married? There exist many couples who can't have kids and have to adopt. They must not have a real marriage. Also we should all test to see if we are sterile before even dating, you know just so that we know we can't get married.

    3) It will change the definition of marriage massively- absolutely right, in fact why don't we go back to the original definition of marriage? An agreement between the fathers of the bride and groom, no choice involved for the wedded pair. The definition has to evolve to keep up with the times.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dem503)
    You are either a brilliant troll or a phenomenally stupid person.
    Latter;

    most people on this thread arguing a similar case are always the latter.
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gltw)
    Civil marriage isnt marriage. It just a legalistic title, nothing more. Well Judaism kind of has always existed in some shape or form. So no marriage does not pre-date Christianity.
    The religious bit includes the non-religious bit... You sign the legal marriage contract. It's a marriage contract. Civil marriage just doesn't include the religious bit. From a legal standpoint they're exactly the same.

    The institution of marriage pre-dates recorded history. And, as I mentioned, it was redefined by the Church of England. There have also been several other redefinitions in history - wives are no longer property of their husbands, the purpose isn't for shared property any more, marital rape is no longer legal etc.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Id and Ego seek)
    Latter;

    most people on this thread arguing a similar case are always the latter.
    I dunno, its very easy to troll these discussions. Ever go on http://www.reddit.com? Far fewer idiots, mostly because (in USA anyway) it is synonymous with atheism and the idiots steer clear.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    The religious bit includes the non-religious bit... You sign the legal marriage contract. It's a marriage contract. Civil marriage just doesn't include the religious bit. From a legal standpoint they're exactly the same.

    The institution of marriage pre-dates recorded history. And, as I mentioned, it was redefined by the Church of England. There have also been several other redefinitions in history - wives are no longer property of their husbands, the purpose isn't for shared property any more, marital rape is no longer legal etc.
    The church of england is not a real church. It does not have Jesus Christ as its head therefore cannot possibly represent him.

    All you are doing is calling civil partnership marriage. It does not matter if you call it marriage or not. All you are doing is undermining its value. Before God it is not marriage. That's the position of the church. I'm not forcing you to believe that too. You can go call civil partnership whatever you want but the church will have no part in it. But if it is legalised a minister will have a legal obligation not to discriminate if he does then there will be a court case. For example the Christian B&B owners who had a double bed policy of not admitting gay couples. Denying that these kinds of events will occur more frequently is just ignorance.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dem503)
    I dunno, its very easy to troll these discussions. Ever go on http://www.reddit.com? Far fewer idiots, mostly because (in USA anyway) it is synonymous with atheism and the idiots steer clear.
    Morons masquerade as trolls to preserve their ego on Reddit; I'm sure the same is of TSR. Sure there is a possibility he was a troll, but I won't underestimate the breadth of human stupidity, demonstrated by the opposition of gay marriage, gay equality and secularism frequently :teehee:
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gltw)
    Well I can't go against what God clearly defines. I tolerate homosexuals, I have two gay brothers who i get on with great.

    The church has always condemned homosexuality, that is the act of homosexual intercourse and all forms of sexual desire.
    Well not if you believe in it, but you haven't answered my point - just because you believe in God and so forth and follow His word it doesn't mean it's a universal fact.

    Also, you are correct, it has always condemned it. And that is wholly intolerant, and I therefore think it is rather ironic, what you said earlier.

    And you didn't answer my point about the church hijacking marriage.
    • 58 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The children.
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gltw)
    The church of england is not a real church. It does not have Jesus Christ as its head therefore cannot possibly represent him.

    All you are doing is calling civil partnership marriage. It does not matter if you call it marriage or not. All you are doing is undermining its value. Before God it is not marriage. That's the position of the church. I'm not forcing you to believe that too. You can go call civil partnership whatever you want but the church will have no part in it. But if it is legalised a minister will have a legal obligation not to discriminate if he does then there will be a court case. For example the Christian B&B owners who had a double bed policy of not admitting gay couples. Denying that these kinds of events will occur more frequently is just ignorance.
    I said I didn't know what kind of Christian you were, but that is an example of when marriage was re-defined. And yet the Church of England seem to detest this re-definition as well because they don't think marriage should be re-defined. If that doesn't apply to you and your faith then fair enough, but it may apply to someone else reading this.

    I'm not calling a civil partnership a marriage. I do think that it should be, but that's not what I'm arguing with you. I'm calling a civil marriage a marriage - i.e. the legal bit of a straight marriage. You don't have to have a religious ceremony to be married as a straight couple. But you do need the legal bit, the civil bit, as a part of a religious marriage.
    This change would be in the legal bit, the civil bit, not the bit that has anything to do with the church. And the proposed legislation specifically states that churches won't be forced to marry gay couples. I don't even think they'll be allowed.

    If you're going to argue about something, do everyone a favour and know what you're arguing about.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gltw)
    The church of england is not a real church. It does not have Jesus Christ as its head therefore cannot possibly represent him.

    All you are doing is calling civil partnership marriage. It does not matter if you call it marriage or not.
    Well that's your own personal view and not conducive to a universal argument.

    But it does, that's the point - in reality it makes no major logistical difference, but the whole idea is that of principle: like I said marriage in some form or another existed before Christianity did, even before parts of the book of Genesis were written. It's presumptuous to say that the Church 'owns' marriage.
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)
    The children.
    Children that have been shown in multiple studies to not be worse off?
    Doesn't seem like much of an argument to me.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Well, if you're a cultural conservative I guess it's kinda like not letting break dancing into a may pole festival or not allowing the building of a gleaning, shiny sky scraper in between two tudor buildings.

    Personally I'm against it because I don't think marriage should be a legal entity. In that sense, I'm not really against 'gay marriage' as I am making it an official, recognised thing by the state, and I'd like to see heterosexual marriage follow the same path.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Was having a think about this very topic earlier.

    Has gay marriage ever been accepted at any point in time?

    If no, then I guess it never should.

    Just to preserve history.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ufo2012)
    Was having a think about this very topic earlier.

    Has gay marriage ever been accepted at any point in time?

    If no, then I guess it never should.

    Just to preserve history.
    Are you being serious?

    And the answer is yes, the Romans being just one example.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By completing the slider below you agree to The Student Room's terms & conditions and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

    You don't slide that way? No problem.

Updated: October 9, 2012
Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.