Does ANYONE have a legitimate argument against gay marriage that does NOT include the Bible?
955131
I have no arguments against the right of two consenting adults to live together, love & support each other and have a happy life.\n\nIsn't this what everyone wants?
891647
Faith in Jesus without bible is a good idea, but then what do you believe?\n\nBeing good, turn the other cheek, etc?\nWhat about gay people, athiests, single mothers, black people, etc, without the bible and the church how will you grow a healthy hate for these people?\n\nhttp://flushaholybook.com
1078447
I have no earthly idea why people keep insisting on defining marriage!  Why is this such a big deal?  There are so many things that are truly imporant that we can put our energy into solving rather than someones desire to marry someone of the same sex.  You certainly wont stop them from having a relationship.  What are you doing that the government will decide to ban next?  Frankly, whatever goes on in my underpants is none of the governments business.  All of those who are in support of BIG GOVERNMENT telling you how to conduct your private lives had better watch out, you may get more than what you bargained for.  Obviously, since this question keeps coming up over and over, there are more people out there that have little else to do but worry about this nonsense.  If this has to do with Christianity, divorce, partner swapping, adultery, sexual abuse, spousal abuse, etc. have already made a mockery of marriage so who cares if homosexuals want a part of it.  I think there is something in that big Bible that you all are thumping that says that we have all have free will....Please stop trying to legislate morality and personal decision that have absolutly nothing to do with you.  If you dont want to marry someone of the same sex, DONT.  And no, I am not gay, I am just not so hypocritical that I feel I need to impose my lifestyle on others.
70876
One of those above answers is simply rediculous.  Allowing same sex marriage is not an attempt to squelch the religious objections to it.  That post was simply a more tactful way of saying the same thing as those signs that Phelps and his lunatics wave around declaring that, if we're going to be tolerant of others, then we need to tolerate intolerance as well.  That is nonsense.  You have a right to believe what you will, you do NOT have a right to dictate how others live their lives.\n\nThere is a great difference between allowing same-sex marriage and attempting to squelch some church-goer's complaints about it.  Is it so hard for people to go about their own lives?  What could POSSIBLY be wrong with allowing same-sex marriage?
143265
10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong  \n\n\n01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.\n\n02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.\n\n03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.\n\n04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.\n\n05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.\n\n06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.\n\n07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.\n\n08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.\n\n09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.\n\n10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
715200
When your fellow christians are condemning you for being gay you should point out that none of them are living by the word of God either. I'm pretty sure God frowns on divorce, adultery, and a lot of other stuff that christians do all the time. According to God's word you're not even supposed to work on the sabbath, but they're not trying to ammend the constitution to enforce that rule, are they? They are using their religion as a moral cloak to hide their homophobia. Doesn't it seem strange that they crusade against homosexuality, but have nothing to say about any of the other sins people commit daily. Why do you want to be a part of all this nonsense anyway? Find your own path.
1082870
I'm kind of up in the air on it.... I'm not gay by the way. I also don't believe in God.\n\nOn one hand, gay couples would like to be recognized by the government as a couple so they can enjoy the same benefits of heterosexual couples (tax breaks, less car insurance, etc).\n\nThat's where the problem starts...\n\nThe government only recognizes MARRIED couples. If you want to get married, you probably believe in the Church (your marriage should mean nothing if you get married in the name of God but you don't actually believe in him). \n\nIf you believe in the church and its rules, then you know that God doesn't like it when two dudes want to get married. If gays know this, then why would they want to go against the will of God and marry another man? \n\nThe problem is the government forming laws based on religion. Most of the US has Christian beliefs, so they are against gay marraige. Yet most people in the US also agree that people are entitled to equal rights and benefits, regardless of sexual orientation. \n\nSo the government needs to open up and accept gay couples as they are. Forcing them to get married to be recognized as a couple is forcing gays to find loop holes in Church rules, so they can try and justify their right to be married in order to be recognized by the government... \n\nReligion says no to being gay, but the government/people say yes to giving gays equal rights. \n\nYou can't give everyone equal rights if they don't believe in the God that the US makes its laws by.
164641
Gay marriage ought to be legalised. Homosexuals should have the same rights that heterosexuals have. Many conseratives point to the bible in defence of illegalising same sex marriages. This country should not be ruled with the Bible in either case. The first amendment clearly states that Congress shall make no official religion. Other than the bible, these conseratives have no real defence. Many state that homosexuals will destroy the institution of marriage. Stats show that 50% of HETEROSEXUAL marriages end in divorce. For years, heterosexuals have married for less than pious or romantic reasons. Many have married because they were inpregnated as teens. Many Golddiggers have married simply for monetary gain. The institution of marriage has been destroyed, by heterosexuals. Perhaps homosexuals can bring back dignity and love into marriage.
1004727
Stop being a bigot. What if said "homos" don't believe in Christianity? Then your stupid, dogma "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" is irrelevant. Why should you care about what other people do in their personal lives? There is no way to argue against gay marriage without coming off sounding like an ignoramus or a bigot, which you surely do sound like here. \n\nYes, we need to be able to reproduce, but there is no way that a few gay people will help end the human race. The population is high enough as it is. So that argument is fallible.
696184
A fellow poster's assertion that gay marriage is not a slippery slope doesn't hold water. Anyone who thinks for a second that further redefinitions of marriage aren't being planned and may not happen are fooling themselves.\n\nLet's look at his "no slippery slope" argument. Basically, it would be "too hard" to redefine marriage to include more than one person or people of different ages. But he said himself that existing legislation has already been changed to change references of "husband and wife" to simply "spouses"! The term "spouses" says nothing about gender, age, or quantity. So... using the poster's own argument, a new law would have to do nothing more than change the legal definition of "spouse". It's EASIER than the changes made recently in Canada and some states to allow gay marriage. More lies.\n\nAlready, liberal professors and psychiatrists have published "research" in favour of "intergenerational relationships". That's one of the new sanitized phrases for child molestation. The Democrats in the US (and Liberals and NDP in Canada) have blocked any attempts to raise the age of consent to even 16 years old, instead favouring legislation to LOWER across the board to 14 (some even proposing 12).\n\nThe depraved sexualization of our children can be seen everywhere. Racy Hallowe'en costumes, slutty outfits aimed at young teens and even pre-teens, Bratz dolls, highly sexualized high school shows, etc.\n\nSuch politically-motivated junk scientific "research" has also come out in favour of polygamy. And once you're weakened the definition to allow two members of the same gender, what basis do you have REALLY to limit it to just two people? The anti-traditional marriage activists seek to destroy the institution of marriage just as they seek to destroy the other fundamental institutions (such as Christinaity) that were responsible for giving birth (how apropos) to the prosperous and free society.\n\nWith the rash of teacher-student sex scandals, liberal supporters of lower age of consent laws, the indoctrination of our society with biased junk science by depraved researchers (the king of which was Kinsey himself), don't think that Nambla is salivating at the mouth... more than usual that is.\n\nPerhaps the biggest lie we've bought is that tolerating behaviour which we've known for eons to be immoral, is somehow a loving thing to do. If you encounter someone with a mental illnes, the loving thing to do is try to HELP them, not say "how wonderful it is that you cut yourself... self-expression is so important."
1100940
I support governmental recognition of all marriages performed by recognized religious group, adn that is the secret about the gay marriage question.\n\nThe gay marriage fight is really a battle between two groups of religious denominations - Christian and other in both cases. That battle is being missed by the media, and I believe that the battle threatens democracy in America.\n\nOne of the reasons for the Revolution, in which ancestors of mine fought -- was to establish freedom of religion in the new nation. Now, we are throwing that away, because contrary to what those on the Right would like you to think, this is not a battle between "people of faith" and "atheists" or some such -- this is a battle between two groups of people of faith, using the government to establish one sides views -- the EXACT THING that the anti-establishmentarian clause of the Constitution is there to prevent.\n\nOf course no one should "make" those whose faiths oppose gay marriage perform such marriages, and no one ever would. So ministers from the Southern Baptists and Assemblies of God and Ultra-Orthodox Jews and Fundamentalist Muslims should never be asked to perform gay marriages, and certainly not forced to.\n\nOn the other hand, why should faith groups that support gay marriage -- such as the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian/Universalist Society, the North American Spiritualist Church, Reform Judaism, and the Correllian Tradition of Wicca -- all recognized Churches and 501c3s be barred from practicing their religious faiths, which say it is ok to marry same sex couples?\n\nThe first group of faith groups is realistically using the government to prevent the second group of faith groups from practicing what they believe. The founders tried to prevent this, for the stability of the country. It doesn't matter that everyone "thinks" they are right and others are wrong -- it matters that we are plural as a society and the government should recognize everyone's ceremonies the same -- which means that gay marriages committed by churches and faith groups that believe in gay marriages, should be honored by the government regardless of what groups that don't like it say.\n\nEveryone's beliefs can be honored, thus preserving the values that my 12 times removed Great Grandfather died for -- but not if we allow one side to legislate away the rights of the other side.\n\nSince I do not believe the government should be used to control religious belief -- I think that the government should recognize gay marriage, when performed by members of clergy -- and should create a civil union equivalent for those interested only in secular marriage.\n\nOtherwise we should stop saying we don't have an establishment of religion.\n\nRegards,\n\nReynolds Jones\nhttp://www.rebuff.org\nbelieveinyou24@yahoo.com
387925
Haha, I think that's an awesome idea. If it doesn't work now, then at least the gay people of the future will have a sacred source to rely on. \n\nActually, I think that every kind of minority can benefit from having such a holy text. I think I might start writing a "Fat People Bible" so that I can point to it when I reach for that extra deep-fried eggroll.
903786
I am against gay marriage.  Committment ceremonies are fine. But marriage- no.
543088
I particularly like "Same Sex Unions in Pre Modern Europe" by John Boswell and it would be neat to see his evidence online, perhaps in timeline form.  Gay marriage is a hot topic, and those of us who do history know that this whole "marriage has always been between a man and a woman" thing is total crap.  Plenty of societies have had, allowed, and encouraged same sex marriage, like Native American societies.  I would like to see more about that online.
833313
The Christian point of view varies, though fundamentalists won't tell you that.  My Church supports gay marriage, so do many others. \n\nThe gay marriage fight is really a battle between two groups of religious denominations - Christian and other in both cases. That battle is being missed by the media, and I believe that the battle threatens democracy in America.\n\nOne of the reasons for the Revolution, in which ancestors of mine fought -- was to establish freedom of religion in the new nation. Now, we are throwing that away, because contrary to what those on the Right would like you to think, this is not a battle between "people of faith" and "atheists" or some such -- this is a battle between two groups of people of faith, using the government to establish one sides views -- the EXACT THING that the anti-establishmentarian clause of the Constitution is there to prevent.\n\nOf course no one should "make" those whose faiths oppose gay marriage perform such marriages, and no one ever would. So ministers from the Southern Baptists and Assemblies of God and Ultra-Orthodox Jews and Fundamentalist Muslims should never be asked to perform gay marriages, and certainly not forced to.\n\nOn the other hand, why should faith groups that support gay marriage -- such as the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian/Universalist Society, the North American Spiritualist Church, Reform Judaism, and the Correllian Tradition of Wicca -- all recognized Churches and 501c3s be barred from practicing their religious faith, which says it is ok to marry same sex couples?\n\nThe first group of faith groups is realistically using the government to prevent the second group of faith groups from practicing what they believe. The founders tried to prevent this, for the stability of the country. It doesn't matter that everyone "thinks" they are right and others are wrong -- it matters that we are plural as a society and the government should recognize everyone's ceremonies the same -- which means that gay marriages committed by churches and faith groups that believe in gay marriages, should be honored by the government regardless of what groups that don't like it say.\n\nEveryone's beliefs can be honored, thus preserving the values that my 12 times removed Great Grandfather died for -- but not if we allow one side to legislate away the rights of the other side.\n\nRegards,\n\nReynolds Jones\nhttp://www.rebuff.org\nbelieveinyou24@yahoo.com\n\nPS In response to the person who answered directly above my answer.  Your answer is meaningless of course, if the Bible is not really divine and not the central foundation of Christianity.\n\nThe canon of the Bible was not formalized until the Council of Carthage -- when it affirmed a resolution of the synod of Hippo recognizing a group of books drawn together and claimed as divine by Bishop Anathasius.  Anathasius did not even coin the word canon until 327  and the Council of Carthage did not formalize the list approved by Hippo until the 390s, and then sent it on to "the Church across the sea" (Rome) for the Pope's approval.\n\nThere are no full copies of what is now considered scripture until the 4th century.  There are two copies from the 4th century (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) together with hundreds of manuscript fragments of various forms (Papyrus and Vellum Manuscripts and Vellum Palimpsests).  Overall there are over 5000 copies of at least part of the present canonical Bible that are from the sixth century or earlier.  These range from a few verses to whole books, to Bibles that were read in churches.  According to Dr. Bart Ehrman, one of the foremost experts in the world on Textual criticism and Textual reconstruction, those manuscripts have between them at least 200,000 differences.  Some of those differences are minor, or meaningless -- but some are very important and would change core Christian doctrines like the Virgin birth
773878
Wrote a few points in this group post I have.  I essentially argue for both sides on theological, philisophical, and practical point of view.  I don't think scientific point of view helps much.  Scientists are still looking for the 'gay' gene, and there are still no definite proof of homosexuality, in humans, that is.\n\n\nXR
199651
Sorry this is a long one, but ignorant people make me so I think that most people are accepting of homosexuals today, but they aren't gung ho about accepting it.  I accept homosexuals for who they are and think they should have the right to marry.  I have gay friends and see no problem with their lifestyle.  However I'm not about to go protest in favor of it.  Not because I'd be embarrassed, but because I'm way too lazy to protest for anything.  Whereas we've all seen the bible thumping lunatics in the streets screaming to keep certain rights away from people they don't agree with.  They're too stupid to realize gay people are born that way, because if they admitted it they'd have to admit the bible is wrong, and at that point their whole foundation of life would crumble.  They're idiots who base their lives off of a fictional book(the bible).  If there was ever a proposition or something that I a voter could vote on directly, you'd have my vote.  People in love should be able to marry regardless of who they're in love with.  This is one straight man who is giving you his vote.