Gay Marriage: Yes or No | Page 4 | INFJ Forum

Gay Marriage: Yes or No

Yes or No to Gay Marriage

  • Yes

    Votes: 38 73.1%

  • No

    Votes: 10 19.2%

  • I'm not sure

    Votes: 4 7.7%
  • Total voters
    52
Nicola Jane said:
It might be a bit controversial to disagree with it in this day and age. Civil partnership is one thing, that's in the eyes of the government. The Bible kind of says that marriage is between a man and a woman with the purpose of procreation. But it's not like I have a massive problem with it or anything, each to their own.

I'm not a great fan of gay couples bringing up children. I'll agree with the general concensus that a happy same-sex-parent family is better than an abusive "normal" family. But at the same time i do think that it introduces an issue into a child's life that most kids will not have to deal with, and the potential for bullying.
Click to expand...

So do black and Asian children in some areas. Should we take away their rights to marry and have children? The solution to bullying is education, not removing the bullied children from the equation.
 
prankster said:
Then your argument is invalid, since I wouldn't think it determined by God.

And all you people making assumptions that I have a fear of commitment:
Do all of you maybe lack trust? That your partner will leave you if you don't marry, just because he/she can do it easier then if you were married?
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, I have been talking in general, not about anyone in particular. For me, I would not be able to marry someone if I feared they would leave me, therefore the trust comes before the act of marriage not after.

slant said:
...No, marriage is religious, I gurantee you.
Click to expand...

How so?
 
Marriage is a tradition, it's a religious practice, and that's why this 'anti-gay marriage' stuff even has leverage. I've pretty much been posting the same point throughout this thread. The idea of marriage is backed by religion....that's how it was 'invented'. So even though it doesn't seem religious now it still belongs to the same line of religion that invented it and traditionalized it.
 
Pristinegirl said:
Marriage happens out of love, not for the sake of god!

Therefore it is NOT a religious institution for everyone, perhaps for the religious but not in general.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I am resigining from this argument until people shut out about it.
 
slant said:
Marriage is a tradition, it's a religious practice, and that's why this 'anti-gay marriage' stuff even has leverage. I've pretty much been posting the same point throughout this thread. The idea of marriage is backed by religion....that's how it was 'invented'. So even though it doesn't seem religious now it still belongs to the same line of religion that invented it and traditionalized it.
Click to expand...

But marriage predates recorded history, therefore we can assume that something along the lines of marriage is normal in human populations.

I suppose ultimately there are many different definitions of marriage and a variety of reasons why it was "invented". I don't see why we should accept one definition over any other just because it seems to fit with recent tradition in the west.
 
Well yeah, but since it is religious at the moment something needs to seperate it from the law or from religion itself, at least in the US, because our constituion promotes their right to their religious beliefs-- even if it's that marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman.
 
Apparently I'm not making my point clear.

It doesn't matter what marriage is for, it matters who has the control over marriage. For right now it is the government, but obviously religion has a play in it since they are able to claim that marriage its between a man and a woman 'because god said so'. Due to religious clutches on marriage, religions have the right to say gay people can't get married because it is their religious beliefs and marriage is in possesion of religion.

There is a such thing as non-religious marriage, it's called civil union. It just doesn't have as much rights as marriage for some dumb reason, which is also proof that religion even has an influence on the completely government supported version of marriage because they dictated which rights civil union gets and which ones are left out and reserved for sacred and holy marriage.

Marriage's purpose is not for love, religion, anything. That's all opinion.

The purpose of marriage is to give two parties a set of rights.

The problem is that marriage is being puppeted by religion, and that's why religion is being brought up here.
 
Haha, this is getting very incensed! It was always going to be a touchy topic. Well I guess its just me and slant against everyone else then? It's merely stating fact that it is religious in origin. Humans are social beings, most of us are drawn towards others, and up until very recently women were dependent on men to bring money in and to breed. So i am unsurprised that a version of marriage took place before the actual term marriage in the religious sense was invented. But that is out of context as well. Marriage is religious, partnership is not. Religion is traditionally homophobic, therefore gay marriage is not an option. Gay partnership is an entirely different concept and most people have no issues with this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: slant
HaHa said:
So do black and Asian children in some areas. Should we take away their rights to marry and have children? The solution to bullying is education, not removing the bullied children from the equation.
Click to expand...

I think this is a fair point which I'm open to as well but. But people will always pick on differences, this is how it is, and especially how kids are. I'm not sure how much education will stop something that is human nature.
 
Nicola Jane said:
Haha, this is getting very incensed! It was always going to be a touchy topic. Well I guess its just me and slant against everyone else then? It's merely stating fact that it is religious in origin. Humans are social beings, most of us are drawn towards others, and up until very recently women were dependent on men to bring money in and to breed. So i am unsurprised that a version of marriage took place before the actual term marriage in the religious sense was invented. But that is out of context as well. Marriage is religious, partnership is not. Religion is traditionally homophobic, therefore gay marriage is not an option. Gay partnership is an entirely different concept and most people have no issues with this.
Click to expand...
But you said that humans are able to change the institutions and traditions, therefore gay marriage is an option.
 
slant said:
Marriage's purpose is not for love, religion, anything. That's all opinion.

The purpose of marriage is to give two parties a set of rights.
Click to expand...


W h a t a l o a d o f B S! ! ! ! ! !

two parties a set of rights? HAHAHAHH

I have no idea what your sick perception of married is but lets just hope you never get married...
 
I'm saying that they can change them but that doesn't change the origin of marriage in the first place, and that it is religious, and that therefore yes, as slant says, the church makes the rules! Or God makes the rules really, and regardless of whether you or anyone else believe in him, the people who run the chruch do, so they do things the way they believe he wants them to. I am coming across as a bit of a bible basher here, which believe it or not I am not at all in real life! i just see this as a very black and white issue. It's not gay people that are the problem, and it's not religion, its just that from the bible, they do not mix, therefore keep it separate, and have a civil partnership. I think what has happened is that people have mixed the two different unions. So atheist and agnostic people are getting married as well, and not in a church. Maybe the whole thing would be less confused if all non-church weddings were called civil partnerships and everyone was given the same rights regardless of which they chose.
 
Pristinegirl said:
W h a t a l o a d o f B S! ! ! ! ! !

two parties a set of rights? HAHAHAHH

I have no idea what your sick perception of married is but lets just hope you never get married...
Click to expand...

are you asserting that my opinion is inferior to yours?
 
Nicola Jane said:
I'm saying that they can change them but that doesn't change the origin of marriage in the first place, and that it is religious, and that therefore yes, as slant says, the church makes the rules! Or God makes the rules really, and regardless of whether you or anyone else believe in him, the people who run the chruch do, so they do things the way they believe he wants them to. I am coming across as a bit of a bible basher here, which believe it or not I am not at all in real life! i just see this as a very black and white issue. It's not gay people that are the problem, and it's not religion, its just that from the bible, they do not mix, therefore keep it separate, and have a civil partnership. I think what has happened is that people have mixed the two different unions. So atheist and agnostic people are getting married as well, and not in a church. Maybe the whole thing would be less confused if all non-church weddings were called civil partnerships and everyone was given the same rights regardless of which they chose.
Click to expand...

But you were implying that it doesn't matter if I believe in God or not, because humans can change the institutions and therefore I can marry.
Now you're saying that gays can't marry because the church doesn't allow them?
According to me, the church is an institution and therefore can undergo changes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back