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

Why gay marriage is wrong

Scroll to see replies

Marriage is a contract between a couple and the State/government, legal marriage has nothing to do with religion.

If you anted to say, abolish the legal basis for marriage. Religious institutions could keep their 'traditional' marriage, but everyone else could marry / not marry whomever or whatever they damn well pleased without facing discrimination from government.
Reply 21
Avatar for lovali
lovali
7
Original post by Anonymous
I'm not saying that they should not be able to ne together, I am just saying that it should not be called a marriage. Lets be honest, why does it really matter that we give them the same name, they are different, and we should treat them so.


Exactly how are we different? How should we be treated?

I am a MARRIED gay woman. Just like straights I work, pay my taxes, participate in my community. I also happen to be Catholic. While I do not expect my religion, or any other, to condone my relationship, I do expect to have the right to call the woman I have chosen to spend my life with my wife. Not my civil partner. There is a significant difference in the wording. Why should we have our relationship descriptions cheapened & undermined?

I want to be clear in that I think it would be wrong to force a religion to marry people who don't fit with their ideology. Having said that I also do not think it is wrong to question that ideology. Many religions teach about a God of love, kindness & tolerance, yet in their damnation of homosexuality breed hate. Should this not be something that is questioned rather than blindly following some scripture selected many years ago by men looking to gain power in their selections? The bible which is often misquoted & used as a basis for the rejection of homosexuality was written by the hands of men & the church makes other leaps in forward thinking to boost congregation numbers & keep the money rolling in. We just aren't there yet on this issue.

I have yet to see you give one good reason why calling it a marriage is wrong. Perhaps you need to look deeper within yourself as to why this offends you so. Is two people sharing a life of love & giving it it's worthy title personally harming you? Or are you just trying to be offensive because you're bored and/or narrow minded?


Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Anonymous
Marriage is a religious ceremony/idea.


It's not though. To the extent of the church's involvement, I agree with you. Churches shouldn't have to be involved in things that go against their beliefs. But secular marriage, i.e. marriage in the eyes of the state, is nothing to do with religion.
Why no one gives a toss:

already legalised, already happening, too many are happy about it for your miserable approach to the issue to carry any weight whatsoever - bye.
Omg just let gay, transexuals, lesbians , straights get married ffs..... It doesn't affect you. Arghhhhhhh
We are now entering the end times.
Original post by Anonymous
x


Marriage - noun:

The legally or formally recognised union of a man and a woman, or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex, as partners in a relationship: a happy marriage

1. We are one of those jurisdictions
2. Literally, why do you care, if we are going to hell then we are going to hell, get over it, we already have
3. Talk about something else, this topic is discussed more by anti-gay heterosexuals, and is of more interest to them, than it is to the LGBT community themselves for Christ's sake.
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 27
Avatar for 517340
517340
16
Original post by Anonymous
x


Question.. where in the bible does it say that marriage is between a man and a woman?

PS: The Old Testament rules are no longer in operation due to Jesus's death in the New Testament, so you can't use any lines from there.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Anonymous
We are now entering the end times.

How awfully exciting :mwuaha::jebus:
Reply 29
Avatar for Talus
Talus
7
Original post by Anonymous
Marriage is a religious ceremony/idea. Therefore, if it is up to that religion to decide whether or not to allow gay marriage. An alternative, such as a civil partnerships, whereby they have exactly the same rights, should be available, but the government should not be allowed to force a religion to accept something it does not feel is right.
If a government were to do this to any other ideas that a religion had, then people would be up in arms about that government being like a dictatorship, so they should not be able to do this.
Rant over...


If you don't like gay marriage, then don't marry a gay person. Simple
Original post by ivybridge
Marriage - noun:

The legally or formally recognised union of a man and a woman, or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex, as partners in a relationship: a happy marriage

1. We are one of those jurisdictions
2. Literally, why do you care, if we are going to hell then we are going to hell, get over it, we already have
3. Talk about something else, this topic is discussed more by anti-gay heterosexuals, and is of more interest to them, than it is to the LGBT community themselves for Christ's sake.


A definition has been changed to match the politically correct pile of garbage of a world we live in these days. I bet that 20 years ago, the definition would not have contained that little proviso.Also, the reason why I am discussing it is to show people that not everyone thinks that this gay marriage idea is such a great one, and if you have such a problem with that, why don'y you stop wasting your own time by responding to this thread.
Original post by Ruthless Dutchman
Question.. where in the bible does it say that marriage is between a man and a woman?

PS: The Old Testament rules are no longer in operation due to Jesus's death in the New Testament, so you can't use any lines from there.


Yeah, Jesus died in the new testament, not particularly relevant to the old testament is it?
Original post by Anonymous
A definition has been changed to match the politically correct pile of garbage of a world we live in these days. I bet that 20 years ago, the definition would not have contained that little proviso. Also, the reason why I am discussing it is to show people that not everyone thinks that this gay marriage idea is such a great one, and if you have such a problem with that, why don'y you stop wasting your own time by responding to this thread.


Let me tell you why that is unnecessary: plenty of people have an issue with it. TSR alone has multiple threads a DAY, in relation to homosexuality or gay marriage, where either topic is completely obliterated beyond belief with nothing but bigotry and closed-minded judgment.

I have a problem with it, but I will comment and speak my mind as you have decided you are able to do. I could quite easily say, well if you have a problem with gay marriage, don't talk about it - period. Pretty much what you said but reversed to you - doesn't look like you've followed that though so don't advise me to do the same. Whilst I respect your view, I only respect them enough to not completely rip into you. You do, after all, have a grand total of ZERO, decent arguments to put forward as to why you disagree with 'gay' marriage.

Furthermore, the world changes. People change. Times progress. There will come a time when no one is anti-gay marriage just like there has come a time where more are open to the idea from a time where everyone would have saw the proposal as absurd. If you can't deal with that, why are you even here? Seriously? It's because you can deal with it and you are just choosing to throw your toys out of the pram about this particular issue and use that as a vehicle to drive your argument forward. Well it doesn't hold pal, and guess what? For every one hater theres at least a 100 people backing the other side. But you keep on, as if you haven't made me laugh enough this morning.
Original post by Anonymous
You are wrong about me not having any decent arguments, for example the first one. And you're point about times changing is of course correct, so here's to hoping that since we live in such a dynamic world, homophobia will come back into fashion, and then all us "haters" can be "right" again. :smile:



The first argument isn't even an argument, it falls apart before it begins. Furthermore, that highlighted part - never going to happen. You are deluded as sin if you think that will ever happen. The LGBT community have a growing increase in support. For example, todays Pride Parade in London, which I attended, had verging on 100,000 if not more, attendants whilst in the 80's, only the paraders were the supporters, really. Furthermore, the LGBT community are very well protected and if our government were to even propose going that far backwards, it would be thrown out of the Lords and Commons quicker than you can clap your hands. Our system means that things like that won't happen. Progress is progress, homophobia "coming back" is not an example of progress, it is an example of going backwards, buddy.
Original post by ivybridge
The first argument isn't even an argument, it falls apart before it begins. Furthermore, that highlighted part - never going to happen. You are deluded as sin if you think that will ever happen. The LGBT community have a growing increase in support. For example, todays Pride Parade in London, which I attended, had verging on 100,000 if not more, attendants whilst in the 80's, only the paraders were the supporters, really. Furthermore, the LGBT community are very well protected and if our government were to even propose going that far backwards, it would be thrown out of the Lords and Commons quicker than you can clap your hands. Our system means that things like that won't happen. Progress is progress, homophobia "coming back" is not an example of progress, it is an example of going backwards, buddy.


Wowzarooney, 100,000 people, that's nearly 2% of London's total population. You must be right to say that for every one hater, there's 100 people who support it.
Original post by Anonymous
Wowzarooney, 100,000 people, that's nearly 2% of London's total population. You must be right to say that for every one hater, there's 100 people who support it.


Pride events occur on a large scale across the month. The Pride Parade was only from 13:00-16:30 and had thousands watching it across a 3.2 mile stretch. That one event had that reception. That's pretty substantial. And you know what? It was amazing. The happiness and love and positivity that spread in the atmosphere made it one of the best experiences of mine. I'm going to bed now because you're kind of just a hopeless troll and I've torn your entire drive to bits enough now that I don't really care what you comeback with.

Ciao.
Original post by Anonymous
First of all, you are different because you're partner is the same sex as you. This is abnormal, which is the definition of normal. It should not be called a marriage because a marriage is between a man and a woman, and is a religious ceremony, for which the parameters, i.e. a man AND a woman, should be set out by the religion.


Instantly invalidates your entire argument.
Marriage is not a religious ceremony, and has legal benefits like reduced taxes in places etc.

Now abnormal part...
I am Welsh, only
0.04183057907% of the world population, I'm so abnormal!! :cry2:


(Well I think I got my rough calculation right.

7,324,785,045 http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
/ 3,064,000
x 100%

= 0.04183057907%)

Original post by Anonymous
You are wrong about me not having any decent arguments, for example the first one. And you're point about times changing is of course correct, so her's hoping that since we live in such a dynamic world, homophobia will come back into fashion, and then all us "haters" can be "right" again. :smile:


That's disgusting, and actually a scary thought. That's a really creepy thing to say.

It would be like me saying "extreme racism will come back into fashion, and then all us "KKK members" can be "right" again. :smile:"

I'm deadly serious; that's an absolutely horrendous, callous, insensitive, sociopathic, psychopathic thing to say. I fear for those around you, and for myself if I ever met you.

(Well, I fear for everyone.)
So Chinese marriages never existed before christianity took over very recently? Oh wait, it still hasn't. So China still doesn't have marriage? It was never religious.
Original post by Little Toy Gun
So Chinese marriages never existed before christianity took over very recently? Oh wait, it still hasn't. So China still doesn't have marriage? It was never religious.


Are you suffering the delusion that Christianity is the only religion is the entire world. Believe it or not, the Chinese did in fact have Buddhism before it had Christianity. Either you are a complete idiot or you did not read my OP properly, either way, your comment is entirely obsolete.
Original post by Anonymous
Are you suffering the delusion that Christianity is the only religion is the entire world. Believe it or not, the Chinese did in fact have Buddhism before it had Christianity. Either you are a complete idiot or you did not read my OP properly, either way, your comment is entirely obsolete.


Either you're a complete idiot or you're ignorant of the fact that Chinese marriages had nothing to do with buddhism. :u:

Chinese marriages were/are not religious. End of.

Either you're suggesting that China never and still doesn't have any marriage at all, or you just have to admit that marriages are not always religious ceremonies.

The only thing that's 'obsolete' is you, your views, and your non-existent 'arguments'.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you