Young Writers Society

I don't think it's wrong, everyone I've talked to about it said that their sexual preference wasn't a choice. If they didn't have control over it, it can't be wrong. I think that many religious texts that say homosexuality is wrong were influenced by personal beliefs rather than the Higher-power.

Although I choose to remain abstinent, I do believe that some marriage laws in religious texts should be followed, like having only one partner, remaining faithful to said partner, sexual interactions only with other humans, and so on. These laws were put forth to prevent disease, violence, and other complications.

I would like to reply to those people that say that homosexual people have choice of who they love, comparing it to a bad habit. Have you had a choice when you see someone of the opposite sex for the first time and think "They're cute." Yes, later you might get to know them, and your feelings might change, and you don't like them anymore. but are you capable of saying to your self " no, they're not cute! I can't like them because..." and completely convincing yourself of it?

(This is a valid question, as I have never tried to think that way of someone who's personality I don't know.)

I have no problem with them as a person, really, I just don't want to see gay marrige passed. Marrige is just too special in my eyes.

Stargazer, I'm going to ask you a question. And I want you to really think about this question. How is gay marriage going to hurt marriage?

Divorce rates are sky high. Economic downturn puts lots of stress on families today, you have celebrity marriages being run to the mouth like diarrhea after a night of Thai food, and then they get divorced in half the time the celebrities announce their marriages. Kim Kardashian made $17 million off her marriage. In fact there are countries like Germany and Denmark who have legalized gay marriage, and have lower divorce rates than the US. Of course it is important to point out that correlation does not lead to causation, but at the very least you can conclude that marriage is not being harmed by gays, unless somehow a gay getting married is the total abomination of the "institution" of marriage.

skwmusic wrote:Divorce rates are sky high. Economic downturn puts lots of stress on families today, you have celebrity marriages being run to the mouth like diarrhea after a night of Thai food, and then they get divorced in half the time the celebrities announce their marriages. Kim Kardashian made $17 million off her marriage. In fact there are countries like Germany and Denmark who have legalized gay marriage, and have lower divorce rates than the US. Of course it is important to point out that correlation does not lead to causation, but at the very least you can conclude that marriage is not being harmed by gays, unless somehow a gay getting married is the total abomination of the "institution" of marriage.

That's just what the world has done to marrige, and adding gays to the picture is going to bring it down even further. The world may do what they may, and celebrities may do horrible things such as that, but that doesn't change my view on marrige. The world can say God doesn't exist, say it's alright to do things with someone you're not married to, or legalize abortion, but that doesn't mean any of those are right. The world can do what they may, but that doesn't change God's laws. That's my take on it.

An exchange on an Amazon.com Christian forum:
John D. Wagner says: "I just support the Biblical view of marriage".
Analyst responded: "Really? One man, and as many wives, concubines, and sex slaves (of either sex and any age) as you can afford? You support that do you?"



Marriage has always been messed up. Monogamy is new. Marriage for love is new. Women's consent is new. If you take those things into account, marriage has been getting better, not worse.

That's just what the world has done to marrige, and adding gays to the picture is going to bring it down even further.

How? Can someone please explain to me how a gay couple getting married in any way impacts on anyone else.

If you seriously believe homosexual marriage could damage your heterosexual marriage then you probably should not be getting married until you're more sure of your relationship (directed at no-one).

A state enjoying the separation of church and state has no business legislating on purely religious grounds in contravention of the principles of harm, public welfare, tolerance and equality.

Moreover, those who have a problem with homosexuality, religiously motivated or otherwise, should take note that the state institution of marriage is not strictly religious (and certainly not set aside for a single religion. Seeking to forestall gay marriage advocates appears petty and spiteful, especially when there are more meaningful social issues with which to engage. Slavery, Extreme Poverty, Genocide, Democide, Mass Rape etc.

Pigeon, I'm curious to know what you're talking about. Yes, the people in the bible had cocubines, and I don't consider that right. But the bible isn't something I take word-for-word because it's not perfect. The bible also says Mary was a prositute, and I don't believe that. Evil men (the same evil men that killed Christians after Christ died) did so much to it and you can't claim it as completely true. And where does it mention sex slaves? I've never heard of this. Doing that to a woman is complete sin, and if it's in there it certainly wasn't approved by the Lord, just as David having an affair with Bathseba wasn't approved by him. Women very much did have a say if you found the right guy. That's like saying women today don't have a say. Some don't, but most do. I not claiming the times in the bible as perfect, and things have certainly gotten better, but if it was that bad it had nothing to do with the Lord.

But with that said the same rule of the bible doesn't apply to homosexuality because it's not just in there it's taught (at least for me) so I know it's wrong.

And Rubric, that's your opinion (I'm quite sure that was directed at me by the way). It won't affect my marrige personally, but it will effect marrige as a whole.

I agree that church and state are seperate, but I stand by what I say about marrige and from personal experience life is so much easier for us when we're all on the same page with our laws.

Pigeon, I'm curious to know what you're talking about. Yes, the people in the bible had cocubines, and I don't consider that right. But the bible isn't something I take word-for-word because it's not perfect. The bible also says Mary was a prositute, and I don't believe that. Evil men (the same evil men that killed Christians after Christ died) did so much to it and you can't claim it as completely true.

So you choose to disbelieve that Mary was a prostitute, and to believe that homosexuality is wrong? What criteria are you using to make these judgements?

And where does it mention sex slaves? I've never heard of this.

Servants were property in those times. Jacob slept with his wives maids and had children by them. Abraham did the same thing. I never said God gave some kind of divine approval for abuse, I was just pointing out that biblical marriage is no gold standard, and that there hasn't been 'moral decay' from some perfect time, marriage has always been messed up.

Women very much did have a say if you found the right guy.

Women were the property of their fathers, and through marriage they became the property of their husbands. Husbands didn't require a woman's consent for sex, because the woman belonged to them.

It won't affect my marrige personally, but it will effect marrige as a whole.

How?

I agree that church and state are seperate, but I stand by what I say about marrige and from personal experience life is so much easier for us when we're all on the same page with our laws.

In that case you may want to switch sides so we can all be on the same page. Marriage equality will happen, it's just a matter of when. Like you said, it'd be so much easier if we were all on the same page.

So you choose to disbelieve that Mary was a prostitute, and to believe that homosexuality is wrong? What criteria are you using to make these judgements?

I told you, I believe in other things than just the bible.

Servants were property in those times. Jacob slept with his wives maids and had children by them. Abraham did the same thing. I never said God gave some kind of divine approval for abuse, I was just pointing out that biblical marriage is no gold standard, and that there hasn't been 'moral decay' from some perfect time, marriage has always been messed up.

I know, but that doesn't mean it was approved of by God. Yes, it wasn't a gold standard, but when I refer to marrige I don't care about what kind of abuse people have done to it.

Women were the property of their fathers, and through marriage they became the property of their husbands. Husbands didn't require a woman's consent for sex, because the woman belonged to them.

Men were more respectful to women at that time, so even if that were true it didn't mean they were like that. I knew of plenty of great stories of finding love and the right guy.

How?

As I said before, marrige is a very important thing.

In that case you may want to switch sides so we can all be on the same page. Marriage equality will happen, it's just a matter of when. Like you said, it'd be so much easier if we were all on the same page.

I don't plan to switch sides, because I'm not on the same page, and that won't be changing.

As I said before, marrige is a very important thing.

I asked you how equal marriage will adversely affect marriage as a whole. Telling me that marriage is important does not answer that question. I happen to think that marriage is very important too, but unfortunately the current marriage laws in my country don't allow me to take part in it. I am an advocate for marriage equality because I think marriage is important.
You are of the opinion that allowing gay people to marry degrades marriage. I believe the opposite - that the exclusion of gay people degrades marriage. I know other (heterosexual) people who believe this to the point that they won't get married until the marriage laws stop being discriminatory.

But that's beside the point. What I'm asking you is simple enough. In what way would allowing gay people to marry degrade or 'drag down' marriage?

"But with that said the same rule of the bible doesn't apply to homosexuality because it's not just in there it's taught (at least for me) so I know it's wrong."

stargazer9927 I'm having a hard time understanding where your argument is coming from. You seem to be arguing that the Bible isn't perfect but that your opinion is based on teachings outside of the bible aswell, and that it is from those teachings that your position is based. Could you please clarify what these extrabiblical teachings are so that other participants of this debate might engage with them? Otherwise it seems that this thread will simply devolve into all of us stating our opinions rather than engaging meaningfully with the opinions of others.

Obviously things that I state are my opinion, but that does not preclude them from being true. As I stated quite clearly in my post, it was not directed at anyone in particular. However, now that you have addressed a response to my post I feel driven to second Pigeon's request. How exactly would the legalisation of marriage between gay couples affect a marriage that you might find yourself in? I accept that the institution of marriage would be altered by such a legalisation, but that's entirely the point and as pigeon has repeatedly, and accurately, pointed out, the governmental institution of marriage has been improved for the better many times in recent centures. Tradition for its own sake is an incredibly weak argument.

It's also worth noting that Marriage is inextricably tied up with the growth of gender equality and that as Pigeon has argued, women have been treated as owned property by the customs and laws of many societies for most of human history. Any attempt to romanticise the legal and customary situations of such early historical moments essentially erases the meaningful societal changes wrought by the feminist movement.

Christ changed what marriage actually meant. The "Biblical" view of marriage probably refers to what Christ established as marriage; one spouse, man and woman, and the only reason for divorce is adultery.

EDIT:

Christ thought marriage was powerful because it symbolically described the relationship between God and His church. The church is God's bride. Marriage is a holy union, which is why Christ despised divorce.

Are we all forgetting that "traditional" marriage is removed from religion? Are we forgetting that it is not a Christian institution? How then can we sit back and say the Bible, or any religious text for that matter, should be enforced on an institution it historically has nothing to do with?

The Ancient Greeks were not Christian, as any slightly well-read person will tell you, and they married couples off all the time. Their views on it? A Man must own a Woman. A woman has no worth in society unless she is attached to her father, her husband or her son. She cannot touch any wealth she's inherited or entitled to after her father's death. It is attached to her name and passed on to her husband. THAT is why a marriage is between a man and a woman. Because someone, TRADITIONALLY, has to own a woman. That's why we call them HUSBAND and WIFE.

To husband means to manage something economically. To wife is less appealing, with some sources stating its origins come from a word meaning shame, or to be less than. That's why we have "fish-husband" and "fishwife". So to say that marriage should be between a man and a woman is, regardless of why you're saying it, to re-enforce age old misogyny and the worthlessness of a woman unless she has a man by her side.

THAT'S the traditional sanctity of marriage. Any arguments regarding the bible, the koran, the torah, or anything in that vain are useless, they have no place in marriage. Marriage is ownership. Marriage has always been ownership. And half of the arguments on this thread are perpetuating the belief that it should always be ownership. A woman should not marry another woman because who would own who? They would both be worthless, right? Is that what I'm expected to believe?

Arguments of religion are, as far as I'm concerned, just an excuse to be homophobic. You don't believe in marriage equality? Great. Don't marry someone the same sex as you. It's the same as anything else. Don't like abortions? Don't have one. Don't like tattoos? Don't get one. Stop acting as though you and your precious religion have any control over the majority and take it as it is. You are following your faith because YOU believe it. No one is taking that away from you, are they? So why do you take rights away based on YOUR beliefs?

Religion is personal. Stop throwing it around as if it isn't.

stargazer you obviously didn't read this:

In fact there are countries like Germany and Denmark who have legalized gay marriage, and have lower divorce rates than the US.

But let's examine your argument. Do you know where divorce rates are the lowest? Countries like Sri Lanka, Libya, and Vietnam, where women are more oppressed. They're taught that marriage is a sacred institution and that you should never end one no matter what. In our country we teach that women should be just as strong as guys.

But I think Loose makes the best point. Marriage is not a christian institution. If you don't want to marry people of the same sex, that's fine. That's your choice. But don't force your religion on other people so that they can't have the same rights as you do.

You are following your faith because YOU believe it. No one is taking that away from you, are they? So why do you take rights away based on YOUR beliefs?

I could not have said it better myself, and I agree very strongly.

How can you [no one specifically] justify ruining another person's life based on your own beliefs? Opposing homosexuality or same-sex marriage on the basis of your own archaic text is making the assumption that everyone agrees with said text. Our law is supposed to be secular, and if people have freedom of religion, that means people are free to not believe. If you do not believe, you should not be bound by the laws of those who do.

On the subject of gay marriage specifically, I'm very proud to live in Ontario, which was the first North American jurisdiction to allow gay marriage. In the court case of Halpern vs. Canada, the court found that denying same-sex couples the right to marry was unconstitutional, and demanded that marriage licenses be issued to same-sex couples. Soon after, the court also found the laws laid out in the Divorce Act to exclude same-sex couples, and that was amended to include same-sex marriages as well.

What is important here is the finding that banning gay marriage would be violating the constitution - more specifically, section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which contains equality rights. This section gives equality to every individual, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. If same-sex couples were not allowed to marry, they would not be treated equal to heterosexual couples, because they would not have the same rights.

I couldn't quote the constitutions of other countries off the top of my head, but I'm fairly sure that the constitutions of the majority of developed countries speak of freedom and equality. The 14th amendment to the U.S constitution contains the Equal Protection Clause, which says that no state can deny a person the equal protection they are guarenteed under the law. This is presumably to support the idea of every man being created equal. Everyone is given the same rights, and in the First Amendment you'll see the right to freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, petition, and expression, I believe.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most major religions also stress the idea of equality? From my understanding of religion, God was supposed to have created everyone equal. You can say that homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals, but if they're not allowed the same right to marry the ones they love, how is that treating them equally? That's giving certain people rights that others don't have. That's inequality, and I don't see how that lines up with the idea that God created all man equal. So, in my opinion, that makes even religious objection to same-sex marriage hypocritical.