Gay People Against Gay Marriage

[Edrof]

On Facebook, (I know, I know) a friend posted this link to an article on the BBC's site. The friend is a Christian male, I don't know how strong his views are, but I think they include a fairly deep-seated anti-homosexual stance. I've no idea if he represents most 'modern' Christians in the UK, though (does he?).

I'm of the opinion that gay and lesbian couples can do whatever the heck they want, as long as in doing so they don't hurt anyone. If heterosexual couples can marry and have kids then so should gay and lesbian couples be able to.

Truthfully though, I have done little research into it - but are there really any non-religious, hard, rational facts against gay marriage?

 

[Edrof]

My thoughts are simply, I don't care what two people I don't know get up-to as long as nobody is harmed.

My thoughts too, really.

Would be interesting to hear from any Christians on the board, whether they are pro or anti.

 

[Edrof]

Having children is a very important part of your life, maybe more so than being with someone you are sexually attracted to and for that reason I think gay marriage is a bad idea.

(yes you can adopt etc but it isn't the same).

For many people, procreation is not a part of marriage. It certainly is not a requirement. Lots of married couples decide not to have or adopt children for a variety of reasons.

Ancient Greeks did not get married, they had homosexual relations but it was never formalised as married.

I'm pretty sure that the Athenian and Spartan poleis (at the very least) had formalised marriage.

Im confused by the OP title and his post?

Why? I'll explain more clearly if I can. The title is taken from the BBC article linked.

 

[Edrof]

Its true! Jesus had 2 dads and turned out just fine!

Oh my, that is brilliant sir. Brilliant.

 

[Edrof]

So my friend posted this:

he bible is clear that marriage is for (as well as other things) procreation. Marriage is God-ordained. Therefore, society wanting to re-write God's rule can't be right - same sex partnerships cannot make a baby(!), nor does it fulfill how marriage is defined throughout the bible - being a picture of Christ's love to the church. Therefore we mustn't secularise something biblical and God given.

The church does (at times) get it wrong, the slave example highlights this, but when men and women call to re-write God's word, (in this instance with His definition of marriage) then Christians should stand up for marriage, not to be homophobic but to preserve what is given to men and women by Him who made us.

 

[Edrof]

Of which denomination is he a member? If he's an Anglican, direct him to the founding of Church of England.

The only thing I know is that he is an Evangelical Christian.

 

[Edrof]

When I was young you could walk down a street and call a young lady gay(originally it meant Happy-bright and showy and they would smile back.

Do that these days and you would get a slap. Worlds gone mad I tell you.

Language changes, granddad.


(*Mischievous giggle*)

 

[Edrof]

have you asked them how to explain the fact that marriage existed before the Christian religion did?

You could also enquire about couples who are childless through infertility - if they cannot procreate then does that mean their marriage is not equally valid?

I did, actually. Sadly, the replies are not the most rational of thoughts:

I believe that God predates all History, as God was there at the very beginning. First marriage was adam ad Eve. Whether one believes that or not, this is where marriage (from a christian point of view) came from, so therefore marriage predates all of that.

Its not the church who are against same sex marriage - its God himself. Procreation is just part of it, however mirroring God's relationship to the church is key.

Even my limited knowledge of the Bible can counter them. I remained very polite and respectful throughout the discussion (as did he), but I must say that everything I said was easily backed up by UK law and lexicographical entries; whereas the counter argument was just practiced rhetoric or missing the point entirely.

 

[Edrof]

Before I say anything, I just want to make clear I get on with both of you chaps and find you as better posters within this wonderful community, however, I do have a bone to pick.

Why is it there is a tendency to add words to the effect of 'as long as nobody gets hurt' when stating support for gay marriage? What does it even mean?

Heterosexual marriage can be an extremely destructive force that consumes more people than just the two engaged in the marriage - should we somehow be against that because it hurts people?

Why is it so difficult to just say; "I'm all for gay marriage" without introducing this allusion to pain and suffering?

Seriously though, it's just an add-on term to distinguish one's views from those that might be within the original statement, but extreme. For instance, being 'all for gay marriage' is quite vague and it could have other meanings to other people, such as making same-sex marriage ceremonies legal and available in all Anglican churches by ordained clergy. Something that would be against that religion's wishes (as far as I'm aware). But, with it being our 'national religion', some might say that it its edifices should welcome the nation's citizens equally. Personally, regardless of my views on gay marriage, I feel that such a step would be too great right now and would cause anger and distress to Anglican Christians. Hence as long as nobody gets hurt.

But I see where you're coming from and, at the end of the day, going forward, it's a game of two halves and people shouldn't band about idioms willy-nilly.

 

[Edrof]

I am not the warped one here. How is advocating for the traditional family warped? How is advocating for not brainwashing young children with pro homosexual information warped?

This is what you people do, you twist it all around, here we have our resident white knight feminist calling me authoritarian. Oh the irony.

Actually amazing.

 

[Edrof]

The people that create the syllabus and push these sorts of social-cultural programs through the education system. A while back they had a big movement to encourage homosexuality, they even created a website, with graphics encouraging little children to become homosexuals as its completely normal and at the same time telling them its all about equality and freedom to be a homosexual.

Source?

Very much so.

As flattered as I am groen that you seem to be curious about my sexuality, I don't actually swing that way.

Get back to Brighton! *shakes fist*

 

[Edrof]

Change is bad, tradition is good.

But at the same time, traditional government practices are bad and should be changed for good.

groenception!

My headache's getting worse!

 

[Edrof]

I would.

Two men could quite happily raise a child. Just like a single dad or single mum could happily raise a child. But broken families affect children as they grow up not having either the father figure in their life or the caring Mother there.

Men and Women provide different roles in emotional and physical support in raising children - sure the other partner can do it, But there are obvious things that women are better than men at, and things men are better than women at. We as Men could try and masquerade and act the part, but it will never be the same and likewise vice-versa.

Not being sexist, its just fact, we're different and have different roles. And if you force a child into a situation where they have two of the same gender raising them, you effectively are missing half of what was originally intended.

You may think I'm spouting rubbish but I would go as far to say as having a gay couple adopting children is practically the same as having a single father / mother as your guardian.

Aside from the research mentioned by other posters, a stable and loving home is the ideal environment for children. I don't care if one parent is the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man and the other is a plant pot. If they can provide a nurturing, loving home then they have my support.

 

[Edrof]

LOL, WTH happened in here?

 

[Edrof]

We're just blowing through nap time, aren't we?

Was that turn of phrase intentional?