• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

Marriage is an obligation of a husband to his wife and children, representative of CHRIST's obligation for HIS CHURCH. What you said and what I said diverge at what GOD expects regarding a moral obligation ---- and that of ending up with a child as the result of fornication or adultery.
Everyday of your life you diverge from what God expects that's what Christ came for. Read Romans 3:23
 
So God is all powerful, but lazy it seems.
God is an under-performing slacker. All powerful, all knowing and a plan for everyone before birth, but apparently she just doesn't give a sh*t.


Sounds like the work of an office temp with a bad attitude.
 
God is an under-performing slacker. All powerful, all knowing and a plan for everyone before birth, but apparently she just doesn't give a sh*t.


Sounds like the work of an office temp with a bad attitude.
Excellent reference 😉
 
I assumed you would catch that reference. :)
Absolutely. I've often referenced the source myself. Pure genius with wisdom thrown in
 
Everyday of your life you diverge from what God expects that's what Christ came for. Read Romans 3:23
But don't forget Romans 5:19-21

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lo

Romans 6

1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
 
But don't forget Romans 5:19-21

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lo

Romans 6

1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
I didn't we all still fall short of the grace of God. That's actually what Christianity is all about. Salvation despite not deserving it.

This isn't judgment I'm in the same boat.

And I want to give the Lord the longest stick for which to measure me not the shortest one.
 
Polyamory should also be legal or non-criminal conduct.
Is it illegal?
That is news to me.

You can only be legally married to one person but you can have consensual sex with as many adults as you want to or you and your partner agree to.

I know this particular set of posts are 2 years ago, but since the thread is opened back up, I'll take a moment to address the overall question.

Polyamory in and of itself is not illegal. There are no laws, at least enforced (there are some that are still technically on the books that have been forgotten) that prevents one from loving multiple people at the same time nor engaging in sexual relations with several people at the same time, whether together or individually.

With that said, there is often a mixing of the terms of polyamory and polygamy, which are actually two separate concepts and practices. Polyamory is about the engaging of multiple emotional relationship simultaneously. Sex may or may not be a part of those relationship, although with most people it is. Polygamy is pretty much the same but in a context of marriage. The term polygamy is often mistaken to be the specific subset of polygyny, which is a marriage that includes one husband and multiple wives. The opposite of that is polyandry, which is one wife with multiple husbands. Of the two, polygyny is the most known and more widely practiced among those countries that allow multiple marriages. However, polyandry is still a legal practiced form of marriage in several countries, mostly, but not limited to, Asia. The most common form is fraternal polyandry, where all the brothers of a family marry one woman. Polygamy also exists where the marriage includes 2+ husbands and 2+ wives, or in plural marriages where those who identify as other than husband or wife exist.

In the US, polygamy is illegal. However, it is most often perused as a legal violation when the conditions of bigamy are present, which means that multiple legal marriages have been obtained. Many states also have laws which make it illegal to even present as a polygamous marriage, even if no legal status is present, or only the one marriage license exist between two specific members of the claimed marriage. As polyamory grows and many gather to form polygamous marriage of the religious or social forms (no not all or even most polyamourous people are Mormon) there as actually been talk, where the laws still exist, of using common law marriage to force the legal status upon polycules (one of the names for a poly grouping), especially if they make a single home together. Utah is one such state, and it began an investigation into the Browns of Sister Wives to see if they could do that. The Browns found out and brought suit against the state over it, since the Browns never sought to obtain more than the single legal marriage. They actually prevaled in district court but the case was declared as not having standing in the 10th circuit court, and nothing came after that. The interesting thing to note is that the 10th circuit did not claim that the district court's ruling was wrong. Only that the suit never had standing. So there is precedence to say that a state cannot impose the legal status when it is not sought. It remains to be seen whether this will hold up in other states. But for now, most states seem to be not worrying about polygamous marriages as long as there is no legal fraud or child abuse or trafficking involved.
 
How about a biological argument? The main reasons for marriage is to propagate the race (which, interestingly, is what the Bible says). You might say that people mainly marry for love but that's only been for for the past 100 years or so.

There are NO good emotional arguments for gay marriage.
Marriage has held a number of functions over the years. Marriage has been used as a business tool or a political tool as much as it has been used for "propagation". I will agree that marriage for love, is a historically recent development. But marriage has held a number of forms over the centuries and cultures throughout history, including ghost marriages where propagation was not possible. Despite religious claims, there is no one singular form of marriage.
 
Marriage is a legal function, not a biological one.

Marriage has also been a social and religious function, in addition to legal. Further, no form has to be recognized by the others, or even between different sources of the same form.
 
Marriage has also been a social and religious function, in addition to legal. Further, no form has to be recognized by the others, or even between different sources of the same form.
The religious function is purely ceremonial and carries no legal weight in this country.
 
Pagans turned marriage into what it is today, regardless of their propensity.
Given that pagans existed long before Christians, Jews or Muslims, they started it, so it with the other religions who changed it. And no Judaism did not always exist. It began with Abraham.
 
People are abandoning religious belief because of it.

I think that this might be inaccurate. People are leaving organized religion, not necessarily abandoning their personal religious beliefs. Especially when you look at the numbers who convert from Christianity to Wicca and other pagan beliefs.
 
The religious function is purely ceremonial and carries no legal weight in this country.
I agree, especially since legal marriage is its own form. However, a lack of legal weight does not automatically mean a lack of social weight. But the point of noting the different forms to further support that the religious form, specifically the Christians one that many opponents cite, is not sufficient in and of itself to impose legal limitations. But similarly we should not also dismiss the other forms, save for a legal aspect, such as whether the marriage qualifies for a legal benefit.
 
The religious function is purely ceremonial and carries no legal weight in this country.
Agreed.

The ironic part is that before a certain point in this country's history, the "religious" part of marriage was the only part of public marriage in existence. There were no marriage licenses until people became concerned that INTERRACIAL COUPLES were getting married and they could not be "stopped".
As such, governmental recognition of marriage was created along with withholding marriage licenses from couples who the general public disapproved of.
 
Agreed.

The ironic part is that before a certain point in this country's history, the "religious" part of marriage was the only part of public marriage in existence. There were no marriage licenses until people became concerned that INTERRACIAL COUPLES were getting married and they could not be "stopped".
As such, governmental recognition of marriage was created along with withholding marriage licenses from couples who the general public disapproved of.
And that too has gone by the wayside. People are now getting married religiously and socially, and not bothering with the legal marriage. My legal wife and I were married for about 8 years before we went and got the legal one done. We didn't need the legal benefits before. When there came a point where the legal benefits would be to our advantage, we got it. But that wasn't the beginning of our marriage. It's one of the reasons why I say that it's important to not only recognize the different types of marriage, but to understand their actual functions. Legal marriage has no other function than to serve as a means to determine who qualifies for legal benefits.
 
With the recent news from Brunei about imposing the death penalty on gays and adulterers, I've been wondering just what is the justification fo opposing gay marriage. Why do some people really hate homosexuals, whether male or female?

Here's a list of arguments against same sex marriage that I found on the internets:

  1. It requires a new definition of marriage
  2. Not the same as laws that prohibited mixed race marriages
  3. Marriage is meant to increase population
  4. Infringes upon some peoples' religion freedom
  5. Rights are granted by God and He doesn't like gay marriage
  6. Morality comes from God and He doesn't like the gays
  7. Acceptance of gay marriage will lead to incest and paedophilia
  8. Homosexuals are unhealthy – that whole AIDS thing, you know.
  9. Allowing gay marriage will cause societal collapse, as other immoral behaviour becomes more accepted.
This is the epitome of bigotry
 
Marriage can only be male-female because the whole purpose is to reproduce. A bit of a problem for straight couples who don't wish to have offspring.
And I guess older people cannot marry either because they can’t have offspring.
 
Marriage can only be male-female because the whole purpose is to reproduce. A bit of a problem for straight couples who don't wish to have offspring.
Is a fertility test now part of the marriage application process?

Did somone happen to mention to these social conservatives that marriage is not required to create kidlets? It's been known to happen.................
 
Back
Top Bottom