The reasons for opposing gay marriage

I struggle to see the importance of Marriage though? it brings nothing apart from stately benefits which should have been removed anyway? on top of this marriage is mainly a religious bonding, should the person performing the marriage have a choice rather than the government which is independent of these institutions? the people comparing this to racial abuse really need to get a grip though, you cannot compare what gays are going through now to what the blacks went through before...

I understand that some people think that marriage isn't important, but also some people do think it's important, and why should they be denied the opportunity to get married?

Marriage is not mainly a religious bonding. You can have a religious marriage or a non-religious marriage. This argument would apply that atheists and say they can't get married. Nobody is trying to force churches to marry gay couples if they don't want to - but why shouldn't they be able to get a civil marriage.
Also, marriage pre-dates religion.

And why is it not comparable? They're being denied rights because of something that they have no control over for no justifiable reason.

by all means if it's a state marriage (was unaware that this even existed, link me something?) then go ahead, but when it comes to slating religions because of out of date rules, even if they are out of date would be sinful to that religion. It's like forcing communists into capitalism. I'm all for gays to be married if it's that important to them, but either way it could not be religious because nearly all the major one's somewhere state anti homosexuality do they not? I'm definitely not religious but i am a theist, if a state marriage does exist by all means.

What proof do you have of marriage pre- dating religion? or at least some kind of religion? even the cave men had their religions? so somehow I doubt it...

yea, but nowhere near to the extent that the blacks were enslaved, tortured, lynched this list is endless. It's like comparing genocide to a mild beating....

Well, the Chruch of England is part of the state so it ought not to discriminate on any grounds. However, once you allow religion to discriminate it can do so on other grounds. I see no reason why a religion cannot discriminate on grounds of race, while others can do so on sexuality. Marriage, even if performed by a church, is not completely religious because they do not sanction divorce as this is done through the family courts rather than a religious institution. I don't think I've ever heard of Christians moaning about the state interfering with divorce for decades.

Personally, I believe that marriage is a religious institution, and if religion doesn't accept it, why should they be married in front of the belief system (in front of the cross in christianity, or around the fire in hinduism)? Saying that, I completely support civil partnership (simply signing a piece of paper to make a formal government declaration and has nothing to do with religion) and equal legal status of homosexual couples and heterosexual couples.

The point is that the church thinks it can have a say on civil marriage. It was in the news recently that the church thought that gay people shouldn't be allowed marriage and this would cause a rift between the state and religion because religion didn't approve - when civil marriage is nothing to do with religion.



Marriage pre-dates modern religion.



What does that have to do with marriage?

yea, but nowhere near to the extent that the blacks were enslaved, tortured, lynched this list is endless. It's like comparing genocide to a mild beating....

ok on that point fair enough, they should be made to shut up.

you can't just state things like that with no backing? religion has been around for as long as people (smart people looking to control others mind you)

nothing I was answering your last phrase...about comparing the struggle black people went through to that of homosexuals...

Homosexuality was more often than not a death sentence (metaphorically, although sometimes literally) throughout history.

Even in recent history homosexuals suffered systematic persecution during WW2 and up until the 1950's the "crime" of homosexuality brought an immense amount of social and legal pressure down on individuals, causing some to commit suicide, rather than face the indignation of chemical castration or prison. Does the name Alan Turing mean anything to you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing

Thus how is chemical castration any different to torture?

Anyway, we are talking about the injustice being metted out to homosexuals today.

but surely under their own holy book they would be violating 1000 year old out of date laws? I just don't think it's right to force institutions to marry people. religion doesn't discriminate coloured people because nowhere does it state they would ' go to hell' so to speak... hence why. That sentence didn't make much sense, no the marriage itself is completely religious the divorce isn't, that isn't then the churches business, but because of divorce marriage has become inundated and worthless to many, hence the increase in divorce rates, No not recently but I'm sure in king Henry' time there were many arguments, like I said Marriage is becoming more worthless, if two gay people stuck together forever as stated in the vows then they should have more right than two people who would divorce in 5 years. I just still struggle to see the importance of the marriage aspect apart from the perks it brings because of the state?

A quick google reveals that marriage pre-dates recorded history. Cavemen may have had religions, but unless you have evidence that their religions - like modern religions - are against homosexuality, I don't know what your point is.



So because they had it worse they're now more entitled to rights?
Also, it's still illegal to be gay in some countries. Gay teens are committing suicide because of homophobic bullying. As Carter78 said, Alan Turing was chemically castrated for being gay. Not that it makes a difference, they're still as entitled to rights regardless of their 'struggle' but it's not as mild as some people make it out to be.

but what proof of any of that do we actually have, it's just guesswork? I'd like to find out more before discussing the matter further

No I did not know much of what Carter showed me, but their is still the whole enslavement things, like I said to him, maybe I feel that way due to over exposure to the indecency to coloured people.

Even if you ignore the history point, civil marriage and religious marriage are separate, so why does it matter what the religions think?



Why are they more deserving of rights because they suffered more?

I wonder if it's less to do with seeing homosexuals as inferior, rather the opposition concerns the raising of children.

Marriage, traditionally, was for the bringing up of children, and people worry about giving homosexuals the right to marriage because of their reserves about allowing gay people to adopt.

I'm not saying they are, I think you forget what this was about, I'm saying the two struggles aren't really comparable, the situations are very different. Even if there was killings, enslavements is a whole other tier

The struggles for equal marriage rights are the same. Sure, black people had to go through an earlier struggle to be released from slavery etc. but when talking about marriage rights they are exactly the same.

Haha, that was posted on my wall by a bigoted idiot.
I pointed out to him that homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals, in terms of their relationships being healthy expressions of human sexuality, and he's an idiot for saying they're not. And also that there is a simple distinction - people who are homosexuals say 'I am homosexual' and people who are heterosexual say 'I am heterosexual'. He didn't respond after that.