Do you oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons?

[Keith 0]

If more people were to be truly honest in answering this question, I believe the predominant answer would be, "Because the idea of two men having sex gives me wood and I don't know how to deal with it so I say ban it."

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I think most opposition to SSM can be generally boiled down to xeno-phobia.

Fear of warrior princesses?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

Lots of departures from the "traditional" family have occurred in recent generations, and I fear that they are not for the better. The big problem is, we are not able to run test-scenarios. We are doing a live exercise and we will be living the result, even if it is disastrous as far as the kind of people who are raised up from these kinds of "families."

The whole notion of a "traditional" family is false. What was traditional in the 50s is not traditional today. The idea of a single parent household back then was crazy, yet look at how many kids are being raised by single parents now. Also look at how many household now have both parents working. The mere mention of a working wife was crazy till about the middle of the 20th century. How about traditional families in Victorian England. What was traditional then would be considered insane today. Arranged marriages were common too and viewed as the traditional way to start a family. How common are they now? Whats wrong with raising a kid in loving respectful household regardless if its a single parent, a husband and wife, two men or two women.

[happythoughts 0]

I think that same-sex marriages will suffer from the same issues as different-sex marriages.

The non-religious basis (contractual/property) has been gutted. As a contract, it no longer has any validity.

From a moral standpoint, people just ignore any of the guidelines (rules is far too harsh a phrase to use).

Marriage as a structure will have no value to same-sex unions either.

[Dolph 0]

This is the same basic conclusion I've arrived at.

But that is more of a children/family issue than one of same-sex marriage. People have children without being married or while having a same-sex partner today, so it is not prohibited today at least in the country where I live.

I don't practise any organised religion so I don't oppose anything on religious grounds. On the issue of marriage - this is a religious institution and given that there is religious freedom, I feel it is appropriate that adherents/creators of religions are free to define their own dogma and rituals. That includes moral values on what is "right" and "wrong".

Unfortunately, such individuals have in the past been highly succesful in tying their religious values to things of a secular nature - in the case of marriage to tax breaks and other benefits. These benefits should not be excluded for people in much the same situation but with other religious values.

Guess I am saying: marriage tends to be a religious institution. Let each religion dictate the terms, since religion is a choice. Allow the freedom not to follow religions and allow the *same benefits* to those that don't as to those that do follow some predefined dogma.

The same sex parents/single mom/single dad/ one of each situation and its influence on the psychology of kids is a whole different can of worms and one where the most important variables do not appears to be the gender or the number of parents involved.

[SpeedRacer 1]

whoa, what a concept.

since we are supposed to have a separation of church and state.....

hey, why not take the government out of the marriage business all together.

That way the gay people who wanna get married can do it & mind their own business without asking the rest of us for moral support.

And those people who oppose gay marriage don't have to be involved at all, neither morally supporting it or somehow financially supporting it by proxy via taxpayer dollars towards anything that would result from ANYONE'S marriage regardless of sexual orientation.


Holy shit, is that too libertarian?? Is that too much freedom or something??

golly geee whillikers...i'm not sure we should give people that much freedom....

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

That is exactly what I was going to say. People who want to have children enough to go through the process of adopting are generally going to provide a loving and healthy home for that child. That is so much more important than the sex of the parents involved. Who cares if they are the same or opposite sexes. If they love their child and teach them how to behave in the world and provide a good stable home life, that child has a chance. To say that the child will have problems because they grew up in a gay home is absurd. That is just as ridiculous as saying they will be fine because they grew up in a straight home.

Look, I see a lot of wisdom in your post and in Shotgun's. I did not say that all of my feelings and thoughts on this subject are developed to their conclusions. Don't everybody hang me and my statements as "absurd" just yet. All I'm saying is that a two-daddy or two-mommy household is pretty far outside of "traditional," and we don't yet know what we can expect of the resulting child who grows up in that environment -- on a large, long-term scale. I did not condemn it (you will not find condemnation in my post). I am just leery.

We all know that a split family is far from ideal for a kid. We all know that a single-parent family is also far from ideal. We have good reason to believe that what nature made is what works best. That is not to say it can't work with same-sex parents, but for the time being, the world is not very ready to accept it.

Think about the muslim issue for a moment. There are over a billion muslims -- will their religion allow them to accept same-sex marriage or parenthood? If not, there goes acceptance by about 1/5 of humanity...

Just so that no one gives me shit about it -- I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT GAY PEOPLE ARE BORN THAT WAY AND AS SUCH ARE ENTITLED TO EVERY SINGLE RIGHT OF EVERYONE ELSE. I hesitate a bit on the adopting a child thing, and even there I don't hesitate a lot.


-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

If more people were to be truly honest in answering this question, I believe the predominant answer would be, "Because the idea of two men having sex gives me wood and I don't know how to deal with it so I say ban it."

I... I just couldn't whittle it down to so few concise words...


-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

The whole notion of a "traditional" family is false. What was traditional in the 50s is not traditional today. The idea of a single parent household back then was crazy, yet look at how many kids are being raised by single parents now. Also look at how many household now have both parents working. The mere mention of a working wife was crazy till about the middle of the 20th century.

Yes, and those are the examples I gave. I do not think that single-parent, or both-working-parent households raise children nearly as well as two-parent households do. I'm entitled to feel that way, and although I can't quote anything, I believe I've seen articles talking about studies that find kids from those "non-traditional" homes get into trouble at a higher rate than the others.

By "traditional," I don't mean Victorian England, dude! I just mean, "What most people have always thought of as a 'family.'"


-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[ROK 0]

Heres an opinion for you...

I believe that a child needs a mother, and a father. I do know in society today that this is almost a thing of the past. I was raised without a mother and over the years have discovered that there are things lacking in myself. My wife's family is the story book example of a traditional family. I see how they relate and it really opened my eyes. I also see emotions and sentiments that I didn't even know existed.

As far as hate, or phobia, my hat is off to anyone that can find true love. I am a Christian and know that the 2nd most important commandment is to love thy neighbor as thy self. There is no room for hate, or disdain in that statement. I also know that as a Christian I am far from perfect and never will even see the foot of that mountain. Who the hell am I to judge...

One fear that I see in the Church is the fear of being forced to go against doctrine and perform same sex marriages. If same sex marriage becomes law, they will have to perform the ceremony, or risk losing their tax exempt status.

I guarantee you that you'll see lawsuits pretty damn quickly too...

[L.O. 0]

Look at the posts my friend, I was correct. New to SC, but not to skydivers. We have a more accepting attitude towards life, I love us.

HPDBs, I hate those guys.
AFB, charter member.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

ahh the thread is young...you should find some of the odl threads on this subject.....

[Steel 0]

since we are supposed to have a separation of church and state.....

hey, why not take the government out of the marriage business all together.
==================================
Close but you missed the cigar. The correct way would be to take goverment out of marriage all together. Because marriage is a religious institution that has been adopted by government, not the other way around.

If government wants to police who people fuck and live with, they should be restricted to doing so with civil unions leaving marriage to religious institutions. Personally I very much resent government telling me that because I fuck somebody, that I must split my and their assets one way or the other with that person, because its what THEY (government) think is fair. Yeah as a whole I am for banning marriage or civil unions all together, from a governmental perspective at least.

,

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

The correct way would be to take goverment out of marriage all together. Because marriage is a religious institution that has been adopted by government, not the other way around.

Marriage is not now and has never been a religious institution. A religious figure head may or may not preside over the ceremony, but the marriage is not legally valid unless it is approved by the state. If you are to end a marriage, you don't do it in church. You go to court and file divorce documents with the state. It is even possible for two people who don't believe in god at all to get married.

edit to actually address something: the correct way would be to continue to leave religion out of it and remove government from it as well and let it be what it truly is: an agreement between two people that is unique at every instance.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

>>>I hear of the sanctity of marriage in this country..... and the 50%+ divorce rate and see some HUGE amounts of hypocrisy there.



Currently in the USA it is at 64% of all marriges end in divorce.

That seems pretty high. Can you please cite your specific source?

Here's one source that puts it at 49%: http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsWorld.shtml

So, I'd be curious to see your source.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

I think most opposition to SSM can be generally boiled down to xeno-phobia.

Fear of warrior princesses?

Xeno would be a boy. Forget your noun endings now you're a manager, Bill? Or are you calling the boy "Princess"?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ragnarok 0]

I support gay mariage, but only if both chicks are hot.

_________________________________________
Twin Otter N203-Echo,29 July 2006
Cessna P206 N2537X, 19 April 2008
Blue Skies Forever

[Airman1270 0]

...I am a Christian and belive its not my place to judge others...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

You have every right to judge others. Jesus Himself told us to make judgements according to God's moral standards. ("...hate what is evil, cling to what is good...", etc.) Besides, everyone else gets away with passing judgements. Why should Christians be
prohibited from participating?

Homosexuals have always been allowed to marry, and many of them have. Of course, if they're not attracted to the opposite sex there's little point in doing so, but they're free to marry if they really want to.

However, they are not free to arbirtarily change the definition of the word, which has meant a certain thing throughout thousands of years of recorded history. Marriage, by definition, is a union between a man and a woman. Period. This is the basis of the family unit, which itself is the basis of a stable, civilized society.

Redefining marriage to accomodate homosexuals is like redefining aviation to accomodate SCUBA divers.

Cheers,
Jon S.

[Nightingale 0]

Marriage started out as a political institution used to sort out the distribution of property amongst heirs and political alliances between families, tribes, and states. The ceremony was performed by the church because the church WAS the state. So, you have a political institution that has been adopted by religion, and a refusal by religion to give it back.

[Airman1270 0]

Quote

Marriage started out as a political institution used to sort out the distribution of property amongst heirs and political alliances between families, tribes, and states. The ceremony was performed by the church because the church WAS the state...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Umm... Marriage has been around since the times recorded in the book of Genesis. This was several thousand years before the creation of the Church. It may well be a political institution, but it is also much more than that.

Cheers,
Jon

• Quote

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Look at the posts my friend, I was correct. New to SC, but not to skydivers. We have a more accepting attitude towards life, I love us.

I think you're right about most skydivers. And I think that even most people who post here have no problem with same-sex marriage... But from some past threads on this same topic, there are definitely some on here who are strongly against it... One that was particularly interesting where several BASE jumpers (who I would have thought might have a more accepting attitude towards life) were quite vocal in their condemnation of homosexuality and gay marriage, which I seem to recall was mostly for religious/moral reasons (which brings up an interesting question - How does God feel about trespassing? Hmm, but that's getting off-topic ;)

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

Marriage, by definition, is a union between a man and a woman. Period. This is the basis of the family unit, which itself is the basis of a stable, civilized society.

This whole marriage is the basis of stable society is a bunch of BS. Fifty percent of marriages end in divorce in the states, how many husbands abuse their wives, this was very common and sad part is that its common today too. Look at married life back throughout history. Wives were chattel, they did not have any rights. The husbands could do what they wanted and get away with it. Did this form a stable society? Not to mention that many MANY husbands had misstresses and this was normal. What makes society stable is laws, not marriage. We need to get away from the whole 1950s idea of the Beaver Cleaver clan of married life = good society and well brought up kids.

[ryoder 1,384]

"I'm all for gay marriage! If we have to get married, then they have to get married! They've been getting a free ride way too long!"

-- Tom Arnold on a late-night talk show.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Homosexuals have always been allowed to marry, and many of them have. Of course, if they're not attracted to the opposite sex there's little point in doing so, but they're free to marry if they really want to.

I wrote this elsewhere but it's appropriate here too:

Straight people, like gay people, have the right to marry any partner the government approves of.

Straight people, like gay people, should want the government to get out of the spouse-approval business.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Darius11 12]

Most religions Christianity, Judaism, and Islam look at homosexuality as a sin and want people who practice homosexuality to be killed.

I don’t agree with my religion on this point. I think homosexuals should be allowed the same rights as a heterosexuals, However I can see if people do not want them married in a church, synagogue, or masque as homosexuality is forbidden in those religions but I think they should be able to get married under law.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain