• 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!

Why are you against same sex marriage?

I thought we'd put this question to bed.

There are no good, non religious, reasons against same sex marriage.

If you're not interested in having this discussion don't read this thread.

People can have different viewpoints, I want to hear them rationalize it.

If you want to say there can be no rationalization that's fine but I'm not interested in having that discussion with you.

I'm personally not afraid asking people things they believe and why they believe them. I view my positions as rational and how you go about finding out if they truly are is by rationalizing them with people you disagree with.
 
Agent J,

I find it difficult to believe that any orthodox Christian denomination would permit a gay couple to marry in one of their churches. There are always fringe Christian churches or unorthodox, rebel clergy who might sanction gay marriage ceremonies, but my understanding is that the mainstream Christian denominations do not approve (to say the least) of gay marriages.

This IS some scientific evidence that suggest male homosexuality has a genetic (chromosomal) component but I doubt there will be any substantial research into any putative genetic (or other biological) basis for male/female homosexuality. This is because the issue is politically controversial, in the sense that to even suggest male/female homosexuality is a psychiatric DISORDER is to breach the current politically correct protocols. And actually conducting research into such a question (if it were even possible) would seriously jeopardize the career of any mainstream scientist. The political "blow - back" from any empirical research findings that s/he published would be "lethal."


Dachshund
 
Last edited:
1.)Agent J,

2.)I find it difficult to believe that any orthodox Christian denomination would permit a gay couple to marry in one of their churches. There are always fringe Christian churches or unorthodox, rebel clergy who might sanction gay marriage ceremonies, but my understanding is that the mainstream Christian denominations do not approve (to say the least) of gay marriages.

3.) This IS some scientific evidence that suggest male homosexuality has a genetic (chromosomal) component
4.) but I doubt there will be any substantial research into any putative genetic (or other biological) basis for male/female homosexuality. This is because the issue is politically controversial, in the sense that to even suggest male/female homosexuality is a psychiatric DISORDER is to breach the current politically correct protocols. And actually conducting research into such a question (if it were even possible) would seriously jeopardize the career of any mainstream scientist. The political "blow - back" from any empirical research findings that s/he published would be "lethal."


Dachshund

1.) please learn to quote scientist, simply use the (reply with quote button) thanks
2.) regardless of what you find hard to believe doesn't really matter, neither does moving the goal post and now trying to change what you said. The fact remains there are christian, churches and religions that accept gay marriage
3.) According to the medical science community sexual orientation is sexual orientation. Theres no real separating them.
4.) More of your unsupportable feelings that dont matter to the actual topic or reality.

Thank you for further proving that your are severely uneducated on this specific topic. You might want to look into it MUCH deeper in the future. ;)

Either way, god luck, and im glad i could help correcting your factual mistakes, you're welcome!
 
Agent J,

I find it difficult to believe that any orthodox Christian denomination would permit a gay couple to marry in one of their churches. There are always fringe Christian churches or unorthodox, rebel clergy who might sanction gay marriage ceremonies, but my understanding is that the mainstream Christian denominations do not approve (to say the least) of gay marriages.
Orthodox churches in the Catholic church the Greek Orthodox Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. Not yet, but I imagine one day they will. There are some mainstream churches recognize same-sex marriage.
This IS some scientific evidence that suggest male homosexuality has a genetic (chromosomal) component but I doubt there will be any substantial research into any putative genetic (or other biological) basis for male/female homosexuality. This is because the issue is politically controversial, in the sense that to even suggest male/female homosexuality is a psychiatric DISORDER is to breach the current politically correct protocols.
research absolutely is going on right now has been for decades. The problem is data is slow.

I think people have moved away from the idea that it's a psychological disorder for the most part. Although there certainly is research going into that as well
And actually conducting research into such a question (if it were even possible) would seriously jeopardize the career of any mainstream scientist. The political "blow - back" from any empirical research findings that s/he published would be "lethal."


Dachshund

I don't doubt for a minute it's being done I'm sure there's people funding the research and every effort is being made to keep it absolutely empirical.
 
So what remains to be rationalized is if you maintain that it's a paranoid disorder still, explain why.


So to give you a little catalyst framework for which to rationalize your position. Paranoia in the simplest terms is characterized by a delusion of persecution, unwarranted jealousy or exaggerated self-importance.

Thank you for your response thank you for the amount of time you put into it. I appreciate it and I wish to continue this discussion

You're welcome. I find the issue very interesting

To begin with, I do know what Paranoid Personality Disorder (PPD) is; it is classified as an Axis II mental disorder in the current DSM V, and I have just googled the DSM V diagnostic criteria fpr PPD to refresh my memory. I do not recall associating PPD with homosexuality in my post (above), though there are , no doubt, some homosexuals who are clinically paranoid. (we all are in certain situations!!) Generally speaking, however, clinical paranoid symptoms are not hallmark psychiatric features of homosexuality. Which brings me a point I wanted to make clear...

In medical psychiatry conditions like ADHD, Schizophrenia, Autism, Bipolar, etc; are termed mental DISORDERS, not mental illnesses. Strictly speaking the term "disorder" is not synonymous with "illness." An illness is a medical condition like malaria or lung cancer or cirrhosis of the liver.



In 2000, the American Medical Association (AMA) published three mainstream scientific studies into homosexual psychopathology ("psychopathology" is the field of psychiatry/neurology/psychology that deals with abnormal mental functioning that causes problems/ harms/distress for a person). These three studies converged on the conclusion that homosexual people are at SUBSTANTIALLY higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including: suicidality, Major Depressive Disorder and anxiety disorder.


In medicine, the term "disorder" has proven difficult to define. In the DSM-IV and the current DSM -V the definition of a mental disorder was largely based on a concept of disorder developed by an American guy called Jerome Wakefield in the late early 1992. Naturally, it is extremely important how the term "mental disorder" is officially defined in a national diagnostic manual like the DSM. Wakefield's notion of a mental disorder is what he calls a "harmful dysfunction", wherein "harmful" is a value term based on social norms, and "dysfunction" is a scientific term referring to the failure of a mental mechanism to perform a natural function for which it was designed by EVOLUTION (the process of natural selection).



Following Wakefield's theory, human evolution has worked in the majority of cases to assure heterosexuality and thus homosexuality may well represent a dysfunctional developmental error; that is, a failure of one or more mental mechanism/s to perform the natural function for which they were designed by evolution. Most mainstream scientists who have investigated the causes of homosexuality believe that it is a congenital condition; i.e; people are "born gay" and not responsible for their sexual orientation. By the mid-2000s there was an increasing recognition among the mainstream scientific community in the West that abnormal genetic, hormonal, neurological and immune system mechanisms were likely involved in causing homosexuality. Like everything in the brain these mechanisms are complex and interact with one another, so progress in identifying them all and understanding the details of exactly where and why they are dysfunctional will doubtless be slow. The point is, however, that in the opinion of scientists involved in this research there IS "DYFUNCTION" in the sense Wakefield defined it. To put it bluntly , homosexuality very likely derives from a F**K UP in some neurobiological hormonal (probably androgenic, testosterone) or genetic, etc; mechanism that is not abnormal; i.e; not designed according to natural evolution.


So if we use the (dominant) DSM -V definition of a mental disorder, - which is still largely based on Jerome Wakefied's conceptualization of a mental disorder as a "Harmful Dysfunction" -, in the case of homosexuality, it seems that we have both halves of the equation: (1) the "scientific" half (in dysfunctional neurobiological mechanism that have failed to function as natural evolution intended) and (2) the "value" half, in the research I mentioned above that shows homosexuals are at substantially higher risk for harmful emotional disorders like : suicidality; Major Depressive Disorder and Anxiety Disorders, among others.





Dachshund
 
I'm okay with separating the concept of a religious position from a civil one. I can even respect that opinion.
Christianity is not monolithic meaning there is no the Christian church there are hundreds maybe even thousands of different Christian churches by which I mean Christian denominations. Some of them do permit same-sex couples to marry.
legally speaking in any of the states in the u.s. outside of Utah there was never a regulation on being married in order to adopt. So single people could adopt children, people who are legally single but in a partnership with someone of the same sex could have ducts children anywhere outside of Utah.

children that are up for adoption normally have neither a mother or a father that's interested or capable of raising them. I would think one adult outside of foster care willing to take on the commitment to that child would be better than nothing.

Oh marriage would do with regard to this is allow a single adoptive parent who's in a relationship with another person for that person to also pee a paired adoptive parent that would be the only thing that would change. Sanford children that are in that situation already their lives would improve because now they have two legal guardians.
a father not wanting to be part of their child's life is almost absolutely one hundred percent a heterosexual problem. Homosexuals adopting their spouses son or daughter as a stepchild would have no effect on that.

as far as the children go I'm pretty sure most adoption agencies would prefer a child to be adopted by a male and female couple and I actually agree with that they should have preference because that's closer to the ideal. So if you want these kids to be cared for by your mother and father you need to go adopt children but them being cared for in foster care is far worse than a single parent or a couple of the same sex. we're not talking about taking a child away from a loving mother and father were talking about taking a child away from Foster Care or an orphanage where they have no parents.

Yes, that's a good point, being in foster care or an orphanage is pretty grim, but I don't think we really know much at all about how adopted children fare in terms of life outcomes when they have gay parents. How do we know that being raised by homosexual parents does not generate serious psychosocial dysfunction and subsequent functional impairments in a child they have adopted.

With regard to a Christian Church agreeing to marry homosexuals, I have no doubt that there are some eccentric Christian "sects" that would not object. Though the Bible (which is pretty much the revealed word of God) emphatically says NO !! If you were to tell me that the Anglican Church (the Church of England) which was the Church I attended as a kid, now said that it had no problem with marrying gay couples, I would find that very surprising. Likewise the Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc Churches.

Dachshund
 
Last edited:
I agree with Cougarbear. They say that Western civilization was founded on two ("spiritual") cities: Athens and Jerusalem....
Rome was more important than either

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Christian Church does not permit the marriage of homosexual couples...

You're wrong

Marriage Equality - United Church of Christ


...speaking as a scientist, my opinion is that homosexuality IS a bone fide psychiatric disorder....


You're no scientist and homosexuality is not a disorder.


Homosexuality was always classified as a paraphilia (sexual psychiatric disorder) in the US, until "gay" activists brought intense political pressure to bear on the American Psychiatric Association in 1975...

Doctors used to think that leaches were beneficial too

People being treated for insanity had buckets of hot water thrown over them

Those were in the medically ignorant days when Homosexuality was regarded as a choice and it was illegal.
 
Yes, that's a good point, being in foster care or an orphanage is pretty grim, but I don't think we really know much at all about how adopted children fare in terms of life outcomes when they have gay parents. How do we know that being raised by homosexual parents does not generate serious psychosocial dysfunction and subsequent functional impairments in a child they have adopted.

With regard to a Christian Church agreeing to marry homosexuals, I have no doubt that there are some eccentric Christian "sects" that would not object. Though the Bible (which is pretty much the revealed word of God) emphatically says NO !! If you were to tell me that the Anglican Church (the Church of England) which was the Church I attended as a kid, now said that it had no problem with marrying gay couples, I would find that very surprising. Likewise the Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc Churches.

Dachshund

I would hardly call the Episcopal church an eccentric or a fringe sect. They expanded their religious rite of marriage in all dioceses in 2018. That is one of many christian denominations that do marry same sex couples including the Presbyterian church USA.

A quick google search will turn up many different churches that allow same sex marriage. But there is a difference between civil marriage, and religious marriage. Many people both heterosexual and homosexual don't have a church wedding, they have a civil ceremony, those people are just as married legally as someone that gets married in a church by a priest, preacher, or rabbi. I got married in a ceremony at my house, and my marriage is just as legal as a marriage ceremony done in the church down the street. Both couples have to go to the state to get a marriage license and then file that marriage license with the state after the ceremony is over or it's signed off by the officiant.
 
If you're not interested in having this discussion don't read this thread.

People can have different viewpoints, I want to hear them rationalize it.

If you want to say there can be no rationalization that's fine but I'm not interested in having that discussion with you.

I'm personally not afraid asking people things they believe and why they believe them. I view my positions as rational and how you go about finding out if they truly are is by rationalizing them with people you disagree with.

You're just asking the same question over.

There are no, good, non-religious, arguments, against same sex marriage.
 
You're just asking the same question over.

There are no, good, non-religious, arguments, against same sex marriage.

Thanks for your input. I will ask others to rationalize their position. If I wanted you to do it for them I wouldn't have posted a thread.
 
Thanks for your input. I will ask others to rationalize their position. If I wanted you to do it for them I wouldn't have posted a thread.

I will be watching to see if, yet again, anyone claim to have such an argument.


No such argument has be raised before.
 
You're welcome. I find the issue very interesting

To begin with, I do know what Paranoid Personality Disorder (PPD) is; it is classified as an Axis II mental disorder in the current DSM V, and I have just googled the DSM V diagnostic criteria fpr PPD to refresh my memory. I do not recall associating PPD with homosexuality in my post (above), though there are , no doubt, some homosexuals who are clinically paranoid. (we all are in certain situations!!) Generally speaking, however, clinical paranoid symptoms are not hallmark psychiatric features of homosexuality. Which brings me a point I wanted to make clear...
you referenced previous DSM classifications and previous DSM classifications have been rather schizophrenic on where homosexuality fits. One of those was a paranoid personality disorder. So you're disagreeing with the DSM II. So it can be wrong.
In medical psychiatry conditions like ADHD, Schizophrenia, Autism, Bipolar, etc; are termed mental DISORDERS, not mental illnesses. Strictly speaking the term "disorder" is not synonymous with "illness." An illness is a medical condition like malaria or lung cancer or cirrhosis of the liver.
at one time mental disorders were called mental illnesses.


In 2000, the American Medical Association (AMA) published three mainstream scientific studies into homosexual psychopathology ("psychopathology" is the field of psychiatry/neurology/psychology that deals with abnormal mental functioning that causes problems/ harms/distress for a person). These three studies converged on the conclusion that homosexual people are at SUBSTANTIALLY higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including: suicidality, Major Depressive Disorder and anxiety disorder.
proclivity does not indicate causation.

In medicine, the term "disorder" has proven difficult to define. In the DSM-IV and the current DSM -V the definition of a mental disorder was largely based on a concept of disorder developed by an American guy called Jerome Wakefield in the late early 1992. Naturally, it is extremely important how the term "mental disorder" is officially defined in a national diagnostic manual like the DSM. Wakefield's notion of a mental disorder is what he calls a "harmful dysfunction", wherein "harmful" is a value term based on social norms, and "dysfunction" is a scientific term referring to the failure of a mental mechanism to perform a natural function for which it was designed by EVOLUTION (the process of natural selection).
so if procreation is Paramount anyone that doesn't do it is mentally disordered by this definition.


Following Wakefield's theory, human evolution has worked in the majority of cases to assure heterosexuality and thus homosexuality may well represent a dysfunctional developmental error; that is, a failure of one or more mental mechanism/s to perform the natural function for which they were designed by evolution. Most mainstream scientists who have investigated the causes of homosexuality believe that it is a congenital condition; i.e; people are "born gay" and not responsible for their sexual orientation. By the mid-2000s there was an increasing recognition among the mainstream scientific community in the West that abnormal genetic, hormonal, neurological and immune system mechanisms were likely involved in causing homosexuality. Like everything in the brain these mechanisms are complex and interact with one another, so progress in identifying them all and understanding the details of exactly where and why they are dysfunctional will doubtless be slow.
I really don't find this that important.

The point is, however, that in the opinion of scientists involved in this research there IS "DYFUNCTION" in the sense Wakefield defined it. To put it bluntly , homosexuality very likely derives from a F**K UP in some neurobiological hormonal (probably androgenic, testosterone) or genetic, etc; mechanism that is not abnormal; i.e; not designed according to natural evolution.
well isn't that what causes just about every genetic trait that's considered undesirable?


So if we use the (dominant) DSM -V definition of a mental disorder, - which is still largely based on Jerome Wakefied's conceptualization of a mental disorder as a "Harmful Dysfunction" -, in the case of homosexuality, it seems that we have both halves of the equation: (1) the "scientific" half (in dysfunctional neurobiological mechanism that have failed to function as natural evolution intended) and (2) the "value" half, in the research I mentioned above that shows homosexuals are at substantially higher risk for harmful emotional disorders like : suicidality; Major Depressive Disorder and Anxiety Disorders, among others.
is that due to them being homosexual or could it be something else?

Correlation is not causation
 
Yes, that's a good point, being in foster care or an orphanage is pretty grim, but I don't think we really know much at all about how adopted children fare in terms of life outcomes when they have gay parents. How do we know that being raised by homosexual parents does not generate serious psychosocial dysfunction and subsequent functional impairments in a child they have adopted.
there is nothing to suggest that it would. Further there is no law against a single person adopting a child outside of Utah. we know a child is better with a single parent than they are in foster care.

you would have to prove that there is some fatal flaw with a dumbass sexual relationship that causes a child to be worse off with them as it would for them to be in foster care.
With regard to a Christian Church agreeing to marry homosexuals, I have no doubt that there are some eccentric Christian "sects" that would not object. Though the Bible (which is pretty much the revealed word of God) emphatically says NO !!
I'm sorry but there is not a single place in the Bible that it says no. it is never expressly forbidden for two men to marry each other anywhere in the Bible.


If you were to tell me that the Anglican Church (the Church of England) which was the Church I attended as a kid, now said that it had no problem with marrying gay couples, I would find that very surprising. Likewise the Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc Churches.

Dachshund[/QUOTE] the Anglican church does not have a problem with same-sex couples marrying but there is the stipulation that one of the partners should go through whatever is that church considers to be a sex change.

Seems like a progressive step toward accepting same-sex marriage.
 
Thank you - is that the best come back you could think of ?
No it's genuine confusion. I honestly have no idea why you're kidding can you to post it to me there is no discussion here.

I understood it the previous thousand times you said it it hasn't changed meaning. I accept itI'm not arguing your position.


And has anyone submitted a good argument on your recycled thread ?
If you're bored with the subject you don't have to respond to this thread
 
There are 2 types of marriages: 1. Religious 2. Civil With regards to civil marriages or civil unions, I have no objection. I don't, however, approve of homosexual behavior.With regards to a marriage that would include a covenant with God then I object to marriages that are homosexual or evil. When God is included in the marriage covenant, then it can only be done between a man and a woman. Because that's what God wants and I follow God's commandments. Everyone of them.

Don't agree with any of your points, but you are free to have those views. Where I draw the line is when you try to force your beliefs onto others to disallow adoptions to gays and try to take away marriage from them.

And FYI, it's great that you have FAITH of what your "god" wants, but no religious person has been able to prove THEIR god is the one and only god.
 
I find it quite strange that you believe in tribalism but refuse to understand the argument that gays aren't qualified to be married?:roll:
 
No it's genuine confusion. I honestly have no idea why you're kidding can you to post it to me there is no discussion here.

That's because this subject has been done to death and there are no good, non-religious, arguments against same sex marriage.


I understood it the previous thousand times you said it it hasn't changed meaning. I accept it. I'm not arguing your position.


We'll see if anyone can come up with one - they haven't before.


If you're bored with the subject you don't have to respond to this thread[/QUOTE]
 
Back
Top Bottom