My secular arguments against gay marriage.

[NarutoActor]

Again, that is an interpretation made by modern men.

You can not claim that meaning was lost in interpretation because through customs and tradition you have the intent of the past, which was against homosexuality. You can not say that the text was changed, because we have the dead sea scrolls for reference and quotes from the first century church farthers who quoted 98% of the bible.

you have no place in dictating how another person conducts their private life

The state does that all the time, taxes, gun control laws, you name it everything can be argued that what any group of private citizens do effects the whole community. Also when saying things like "no reason", try reading the opening post I tried posting a lot of reasons.

First of all, why are you, as a Christian, following any of the Leviticus laws, when they were not meant for Christians, but for those of the Jewish faith? Also, if you do adhere to Leviticus laws, why do you not adhere to all of them?

The video if anything gave more prof to my assertion. Stating that there were two different types of abominations, the ones used for shrimp however were overturned by Jesus, but the ones used for sexual immorality were not. The video also heavily relies on verse 21 and 22 being connected. Even if they were connected, that would give no reason to say homosexuality is okay. If it was wrong while praising a different god, why would it be wrong when not praising a different god

Second: However, unless you are without sin, you have no right to condemn. (ie if you're not Jesus, you can't punish others for sin, only to rebuke.)

We punish people for their sin all the time, the bible even outlines out to do it. The reason why Jesus said what he said, was because the whole situation was set up in order to but Jesus in a moral conundrum. What he said was not a new law which would implicate that no one can judge no one because no one is perfect.

Third: What is sin? Sin is human, nobody is perfect and will stumble. Sin is hereditary, so even a perfect person is sinful because of Adam and Eve. Only through Jesus are we saved, and we should not accomplish what we can't. (Basis of Christianity)

No, sin is "missing the mark" with the mark being what Gods sees as good.

Fourth-c-c: This is not the current runnings of the UN: They were decided on by the free world. If we, who live in the free world, don't live up to the expectations we put up, that is extremely hypocritical. Hypocrisy is a major sin in religion, and if we are to treat this as a religious thing (ie Christian debate), we must uphold our morals.

Hypocrisy is not a major sin in religion, it is something that is frowned a pond, but how can disagreeing from what a group of people decided at some time make someone else a hypocrite. That is un-logical

 

[Starsprite]

I'm sure none of what I'm about to say is anything new, but since I saw that this has gone from secular arguments to the not-so-secular argument of 'because my god said so' I feel I ought to interject. See, I'm not actually of the Christian faith, so it shouldn't particularly matter to me if the Bible says being gay is a big no-no. What does matter to me is how it got mixed into this conversation.

I'm pretty sure that the only place the Bible has in a discussion about secular arguments is a reason why the book itself isn't being used as an argument. If you start debating about whether or not a certain passage means one thing or another it would be irrelevant because it deals with religion. And religion isn't secular.

So, in this instance, remarks like this:

The video if anything gave more prof to my assertion. Stating that there were two different types of abominations, the ones used for shrimp however were overturned by Jesus, but the ones used for sexual immorality were not. The video also heavily relies on verse 21 and 22 being connected. Even if they were connected, that would give no reason to say homosexuality is okay. If it was wrong while praising a different god, why would it be wrong when not praising a different god

We punish people for their sin all the time, the bible even outlines out to do it. The reason why Jesus said what he said, was because the whole situation was set up in order to but Jesus in a moral conundrum. What he said was not a new law which would implicate that no one can judge no one because no one is perfect. No, sin is "missing the mark" with the mark being what Gods sees as good.

can be countered by something like:

By whose standard? And by what authority is given that all persons shall be governed under that assertion?

Of course, I may be misinterpreting what you said (especially the two of you that I quoted) or where the conversation is headed, so please tell me if I am.

 

[droomph]

Yes, why?

1. Why are you, a Christian, following the laws of the Jews to a tee but refuse to listen to the teachings of Christ?

2. The Bible tells us to rebuke, not condemn.

3. Let's take a look at the title of the thread, shall we?

Now, the fundamentals of the United States is that Religion is separated from State, so no amount of Bible verses can convince the court that it's wrong. Let's all think about this in a secular way.

 

[Khawill]

I would like to point out that the Muslim religion is pretty tolerant towards homosexuality and I believe they also have the old testament in their Koran. Now don't say anything about middle east countries being homophobic; because their hatred of gays doesn't stem from religion but from culture.

Edit* I would also like to say no matter what your religious view is, you have no right to tell someone what to do with their life; even if you think it benefits them. There is no reason why you should care, it isn't your responsibility to make sure they go to heaven or hell; furthermore is there some kind of overcrowding in hell? I'm sure with all of the "sinners" these days there might be lol; all the religious people trying to tell people what to do should realize- You are not God you are just a follower of God thus you can't judge, punish, or otherwise hate someone for sinning. Now there's a difference if something negatively affects someone in life, such as murder or rape or something, that is when we are allowed to take action; not something as petty as gay marriage (not to mention its WAY better than the people who have like 7 kids and then their kids have 4 each, gay people can't reproduce without a host)

 

[Nihilego]

Juuuuust dropping in here guys to say that, while I like the discussion and all going on, this thread's more about NarutoActor's arguments regarding gay marriage than the religious stance on gay marriage itself. By all means, use religion in your replies, but if this is going to turn into a whole thread about religion and gay marriage then it's better off someone start that discussion themselves in a separate thread.

Thank you! :]

 

[NarutoActor]

Yes agreed, that was my original intent to keep it secular in nature, but then people started saying that you can't make a religious argument, and that the bible sais nothing against it. I couldn't let something so blatantly wrong pass me, maybe that conversation shifted that way because they needed a new avenue to debate, because they couldn't counter the opening post. -_-

Also something else I wanted to address, if you say "moral views should not be pushed on other people" could you please state why not. People throw that around a lot without saying why.

1. Why are you, a Christian, following the laws of the Jews to a tee but refuse to listen to the teachings of Christ?
Which teachings?

2. The Bible tells us to rebuke, not condemn.
Where, evidence? Please don't quote the "throw the first rock" passage because I already refuted that.

3. Let's take a look at the title of the thread, shall we?
If you look back I wasn't the one who stated talking about religion, others did that.

 

[Oryx]

Because when you start legislating morals to people, you create an environment where people are not free to choose to do whatever they want as long as they're not infringing on the rights of other people. Remember the "liberty" part of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?

The morals of the majority should not govern the actions of the minority. If that was how the world was run, then interracial marriage would be put up to a majority vote and fail. The government is not a straight democracy, otherwise we wouldn't have moved forward as tyranny of the majority would have taken hold.

 

[droomph]

I talked to my teacher about this today, and I have one thing to say...

Marriage is an important part of our lives, because many direct benefits come from it.

Here are a few examples.

Whether or not you favor marriage as a social institution, there's no denying that it confers many rights, protections, and benefits -- both legal and practical. Some of these vary from state to state, but the list typically includes:

Tax Benefits
Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits
Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

Government Benefits
Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits
Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.
Medical Benefits
Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits
Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.
Family Benefits
Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits
Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits
Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections
Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

If we don't allow gay people to have these rights on the basis that they're different, and not because they've done anything wrong, we're not really a free country, are we now?

2. The Bible tells us to rebuke, not condemn.
Where, evidence? Please don't quote the "throw the first rock" passage because I already refuted that.

Read it, and don't respond until you have.

https://www.luke173ministries.org/466812

Fools will never listen, even under punishment, and these fools being the gay people, so if they don't want to listen, they won't listen.

Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt.

"Brother"=everyone in the world. Why?

For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only son, for whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

Fools will never listen, even under punishment. And with these fools being the ones who are proud, if they don't want to listen, they won't listen.

That being said, I won't bother to argue with you anymore; me and the PokéCommunity have provided you with sufficient reasons refuting you. If you don't want to listen, you'll twist and bend our facts until you can "refute" us. For those fools whose hearts are hard will not listen, they will mock and abuse. A wise one with an open heart will listen and accept the feedback, and not try to prove themselves right, but rather improve themselves.

 

[Khawill]

Also something else I wanted to address, if you say "moral views should not be pushed on other people" could you please state why not. People throw that around a lot without saying why.

Moral views are pure opinion, and you can't force opinions on others correct? Like I can't tell you to hate hamburgers because I don't, nor should I tell you that you can't marry some guy because he has earrings (assuming I was one of your parents). Though "can" and "should" are completely different words they are often mixed. People have the right to do anything they can do; people must have the responsibility to do what they "should" do.

Also on a mental note, if you force anything on anyone their natural reaction is to reject it or fight it. People don't usually like to be told what they "can" do. (Laws are merely something that says what we "should" do and that if we do it we will be punished, doesn't mean we can't do it.)

 

[NarutoActor]

I'm not saying we should legislate the majorities morality, but rather rationally look at all points of morality, and legislate the correct ones. Which of course is not as hard as it sounds. Many people pose the question "but how do we know the correct morality" Well for one through logic and reason, and the second through the fact that all humans are born with an inanimate moral compass. They no what is wrong, but they can physiologically convince themselves other wise, which is what makes the confused.

Morals are not just opinions they are natural and universal in all human beings, read C.S Lewis' work on natural and universal morals.

@droomph
Thanks for giving more reasons while homosexuals seeking marriage put a burden on the system without contributing to it.

Also the writer of that link got some points correct, their mistake was when the righter said unless it directly concerns you, you should forget about it. Should we forget about the genocides in Africa because it does not effect us? No we should go out and correct those who are morally wrong.

 

[Oryx]

I think you misunderstand the difference between murder and gay marriage.

Murder is not wrong because of an arbitrary moral compass. Murder is wrong because it is physically removing a person's right to live. It is impeding on the rights of other people. Your rights end where another person's begin. Your right to freedom of action does not supersede the rights of another person to live.

Gay marriage, on the other hand, does not infringe on anyone's rights. There is no right that you have as a human being that is infringed upon by gay marriage. You are not being forced into a gay marriage, that would be infringing on your right to freedom. You are not being forced to associate with gay people, you are not being forced to believe being gay is right.

@the highly offensive and insensitive "gay people are a burden on the system": How are they a burden? All these benefits are here for married couples because it's advantageous to a country to have people married, whether or not they're having children. Sterile married couples receive the same advantages. It's socially advantageous to have people legally and socially bound to remain where they are, to create a life as a couple instead of alone. In addition, even if you did believe the tripe you're trying to pass off as a real argument right now, do you believe that a sterile couple should not be allowed to get married? What about a couple that never wants to have children? Should you be required to have children to get the benefits of marriage?

Edit: You're also making a very fundamental mistake when you assume that for something to be accepted in the United States, it must be something that is economically a net positive, socially makes conservatives squee instead of cry, etc.. The mistake you're making is that for something to be accepted here as legal, all it has to do is not infringe on someone else's rights. That's the test for legality. Someone making a bonfire in their backyard and burning a million dollars in cash isn't doing anyone a net positive, but that doesn't mean that it's illegal because of that. If you start lurching over into the territory you're getting into, you get into a space where the government creates laws that tell you what you can do and if it's not listed it's forbidden. You can't drive an SUV because it's bad for the environment and "you don't need it". You can't take a 30 minute shower because that wastes water and anyway you only really need a 10 minute shower so let's make anything longer illegal. If you're searching for "what good will this do me" in something and using that to argue legality, then you're fundamentally misunderstanding your own country.

 

[Shining Raichu]

Also going along the 'gay people burden the system without contributing to it' line of thought, perhaps as long as gay people are seen as less than equal under the law, they should be paying less than equal taxes as they are getting less than equal benefit out of the countries in which they live.

 

[NarutoActor]

Actually burning money is a crime, there are lots of things which are crimes that have nothing to do with humans rights, or the violation of such rights. Also when gay marrige is allowed that is saying the country supports gay marriage, if I am apart of that country I would be apart to blame for it. As such since I do not want to be associated or live in a society that supports gay marriage I try to argue against it.

Also taxes and benefits are not directly connected. Someone can pay high taxes(the rich) but receive less benefits from the state.

 

[Sydian]

Actually burning money is a crime, there are lots of things which are crimes that have nothing to do with humans rights, or the violation of such rights. Also when gay marrige is allowed that is saying the country supports gay marriage, if I am apart of that country I would be apart to blame for it. As such since I do not want to be associated or live in a society that supports gay marriage I try to argue against it.

You could always just move to Uganda if that's ever the case. It makes me a bit sick to my stomach that people would feel this way if gay marriage was legal in this country. tbh, if it bothers you that much, then like I said, go somewhere else. Seriously. But it's not like people are gonna look at America and think "oh everyone there agrees with gay marriage" because there are still people that don't agree with women voting or even African Americans voting or even being free in the most extreme cases. So anyone that makes that generalization is a bit silly, but still. Just leave if it will bother you that much.

 

[Oryx]

Change money to any kind of property and you've got the same thing. No benefit for the person, no benefit for society, probably a loss in air pollution and the loss of the actual item which has no economic value now.

Now you're getting back into tyranny of the majority territory. Because you believe gay people are sinners, you misguidedly try to stop gay marriage, even knowing that the ideals of your country are founded on keeping religion out of the government. Because people like you are in the majority, you are now denying rights to the minority because you have enough people that you have no reason to care for anyone other than yourself.

And as much as you think you're "caring for other people" with your argument, you are in reality caring for no one except for your own misguided self-righteousness in attempting to legislate your morality on other people. You'll feel better about yourself, while oppressing a minority just because you can. Question: are you also arguing to make sex before marriage illegal?

 

[Zet]

Actually burning money is a crime, there are lots of things which are crimes that have nothing to do with humans rights, or the violation of such rights. Also when gay marrige is allowed that is saying the country supports gay marriage, if I am apart of that country I would be apart to blame for it. As such since I do not want to be associated or live in a society that supports gay marriage I try to argue against it.

Also taxes and benefits are not directly connected. Someone can pay high taxes(the rich) but receive less benefits from the state.

When has the rich ever paid more taxes and received less benefits? They always pay less tax and get more benefits, and Republicans like Mitt want to make life even better for them by making sure they pay even less tax.

 

[NarutoActor]

You could always just move to Uganda if that's ever the case. It makes me a bit sick to my stomach that people would feel this way if gay marriage was legal in this country. tbh, if it bothers you that much, then like I said, go somewhere else. Seriously. But it's not like people are gonna look at America and think "oh everyone there agrees with gay marriage" because there are still people that don't agree with women voting or even African Americans voting or even being free in the most extreme cases. So anyone that makes that generalization is a bit silly, but still. Just leave if it will bother you that much.

I don't see how "like it or get out" is a valid argument, I can make the same one. If gay people do not like it here, then move to a country were it is legal.

 

[Oryx]

The difference is that they are arguing towards the ideals of this country, while you are arguing against them. Sydian's point is to go to a country where the ideals of the country match your own. If you are not a fan of liberty you really don't have much of a place in the US.

 

[-ty-]

When dealing with issues that affect a nation, you have to be pragmatic about how we should act toward enhancing the current state.

Now, what does banning gay people from marriage affect gay people?

Let's look back to the mid 1900's.
At that time, there were absolutely no recognition of gay relationships, no protections at the workplace/school, discrimination in the justice system, no rights to adopt, and in many states same-sex relations were flat-out crimes until Lawrence v Texas (2003). Noted that some of these things do exist, although not to the same degree.

The product of these policies were apparent. Compared to today, gay people were rarely developing relationships, had poor psychological health, underwent dangerous and detrimental medical "therapies", had no regard for safe-sex, were more involved in criminal activity as both criminals and victims, and these are just some among numerous other negative affects. The changes that have incurred in policy has improved many of these negative effects, thereby making gay people more likely to live productive lives. When people live more productive lives it has a positive effect on the entire population. Although some may not believe homosexuality is moral, improving the lives of gay people and gay couples, and making their rights equitable to straight people and straight couples will help integrate the two groups and encourage more productivity and cohesiveness in society.

Whether or not gay marriage is legal, gay people will have sex and/or relationship with people of the same sex; gay marriage does not increase the number of homosexual people. All banning gay marriage does is promote promiscuity, create/maintain a divide between gay/straight people, and maintain the higher rates of poor psychological health of gay people.

Pragmatically, which is better for gay people and society?

1) Gay people getting married and increase relationship committal rates, adopting the millions of children that are without parents, lowering the rates of spreading STD's, lower substance abuse rates among gay people, increase psychological health of gay people, increase the ability of gay people to function in society, and improve the relations with straight/gay people.

2) Gay people not committing to relationships, not adopting children, maintain high rates of STD's, maintain high rates of substance abuse and psychological health problems, negatively affect productivity (from the previous stated points), and maintain a divide between gay and straight people.

 

[droomph]

Okay. Another point based on that conversation with my teacher.

Gay people were banned in ancient societies, because they were hindering society because they were wasting precious man goo that could have made a baby. Underpopulation was an issue back then, so that's why any form of marriage that would not result in lots of kids was considered illegal.

Meanwhile, here, we have way more people than the ecosystem can support. Therefore, we don't need that fifty kids that would have come from those two gay and lesbian couples, in fact, we need more people that will reduce the amount of kids born.

And since there are tons of foster/orphanage kids, these people can simply adopt them, and solve, not contribute to, the problem.

So either way, effectively or beneficially, gay marriage should not be illegal.