Talk:Same-sex marriage

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JBrown (Talk | contribs) at 05:17, 16 May 2008. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search
  • It has been proposed that this page, Same-sex marriage, be titled, "Talk:Same-sex marriage".

List of viewpoints

  1. the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality as sin is 'merely a claim' rather than 'objective truth'.
    • The Bible's stance on homosexuality isn't a very clear one
      • the Old Testament considers it an abomination
        • The New Testament has very little to say about homosexuality.
        • Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.
  2. We need to keep the Ten Commandments, as they help live a Christ-like life
    • The Ten Commandments say nothing about homosexuality.
    • What about Jesus' commandment to love your neighbor as you love yourself?
  3. Old Testament prohibitions can be ignored, because
    1. it says quite a few things are abominations or illegal that we consider okay today.
    2. the old testament is somewhat irrelevant to Christianity
    3. only the New Testament really matters.
  4. marriage is a right
  5. homosexuals should have 'equal rights'
  6. same-sex "marriage" is simply a matter of giving equal rights to gays
  7. Very few homosexuals want to "marry" each other
    • "very few want to marry each other" is a lie
    • I want to marry another man.
  8. the immediate intent of same-sex "marriage" agitation is to remove the stigma of being called a "fornicator"
    • There are many reasons for fighting for gay marriage. There are over 1,000 rights that married heterosexual couples have, all of which are denied to same-sex couples because they can't legally marry.
  9. Same-sex "marriage" adopts the form of marriage for the supposed purpose of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality.
    • You are all right in saying the institution of marriage is falling apart. But, instead of actually trying to look at the problem and say, "Hm, what can we do better?", you all would rather blame it on a minority population because that's what is easy. Divorce rates are up to 50% or higher nowadays. Why is this? Not because of gay marriage, you idiots. It's a complete lack of respect for the institution of marriage.
  10. Nothing from the Old Testament is nullified unless it is nullified explicitly in the New Testament
  11. The New Testament is hostile to homosexuality.
    • Oh really, where?
    1. The Bible is clear on this
  12. Jewish religious law condemns the practice of male homosexual acts.
  13. giving 'equal legal rights' to male couples has no effect on the spiritual condition of couples bound by the Christian sacrament of holy matrimony
    • Exactly!

Well there is also the viewpoint that, even if gay marriage is wrong in the eyes of God, Christians are instructed to "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" and more importantly "render unto Caesar (i.e. the government) that which is Caesar's (i.e. the provision of government-made rights)" -- Jesus didn't say "go ahead and stone the bitch", he prevented the old law from being carried out, and then used his witness alone to persuade the sinner, saying "go forth and sin no more".... he didn't say that she hadn't sinned, but demonstrated that the Christian course of action is not to have the law prevent people from sinning -- if the government (i.e. Caesar) wants to let gays be "married" and give them tax breaks and hospital visitation and such, that doesn't involve the Church, which ought not be tainted by the corruption that is all politics, anyway.... the Christian course of action is to tell the sinners of their sin, and if they refuse to hear, trust God to deal with it.... trying to get the government to interfere one way or the other is the same as denying God.... Pandeism 22:50, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

In this belated reply, I'd like to point out that marriage is more of a responsibility than a "right". It's something which society encourages because it is an institution which promotes social stability by protecting women and children.
I've also written an essay just know on the Mysterious male-female relationship. --Ed Poor Talk 08:19, 18 December 2009 (EST)


"The rationale goes like this" is completly wrong

"The rationale goes like this:

Marriage is good. No one can criticize what is good. A same-sex union, defined as marriage, is good. Therefore, no one can criticize same-sex unions."

That is not the Liberal rationale for legalizing gay marriage, if that is going to remain there there should be at least a few sources as to which Leberal said that.

The actual liberal rational:

  • Marriage, like all institutions of the law, should not be defined by one or any specefic religion, or religion all together.
  • The fact that the legallity of Gay marriage is the debate proves its a matter of law, automatically disqualifing any given religions say on it. See also: seperation of church and state
  • Atheists can and do get married, further proof it isn't a religious establishment.
  • A homosexuals person's life has nothing to do with yours, and because homosexuallity does not violate any human rights, you should not have the right to tell them they cannot get married.


I realize this is conservapedia and you guys would rather have untruthful things that make you sound right, but reality is better than sounding right if you ask me.

Bias

I do not feel the article is from a neutral point of view. This article seems to be obviously against gay marriage. I also propose that the statistics for spousal abuse in heterosexual relationships are put up beside the homosexual statistics for a comparison. I personally believe not allowing homosexual marriage is not allowing equal freedoms for all people. Also I do not think the reason for not allowing gay marriage should be the bible, as not only should there be a complete separation between church and state, but Athiests and Agnostics are not stopped from getting married, neither should homosexuals.Strata 23:40, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree completely that there is bias here. It's one thing to be against same-sex marriage, but it's ridiculous to insinuate that same-sex marriage as an attack on heterosexual marriage. Forthewin827 15:22, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Is page protected?

B/c I wanted to edit it, but I can't. Won4tide1 17:41, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it is. Please post your suggested changes here first. Thanks.--Aschlafly 17:43, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Addition to Rationale

There is another rationale used by proponents of same sex marriage.

Essentially it is as follows:

Marriage exists as both a religiously and legally defined entity in the United States.

Marriage confers certain legal benefits upon those married. Additionaly marriage has social value in that it is used as a signifier of individuals' commitment to one another

There is a legal tradition in this country which holds that sexual orientation is not a valid status upon which one may deny legal rights or protections.

The refusal to recognize same sex marriage constitutes such a denial of legal rights and protections. Since those in a same sex marriage are, by definition, homosexual- this constitutes a denial of legal rights and protections based upon sexual orientation.

Refusing to recognize same sex marriages essentially violates long standing legal traditions.

The most logical remedy to this situation is to allow the recognition of same sex marriages.

There is also a philosophical justification that same sex marriage does not destroy the institution of marriage in society.

In most religious traditions, marriage exclusively recognizes the sacred bond of love between a man and woman.

However society has a more general definition of marriage as an institution that recognizes the profound (and one could still say sacred) bond of love existing between two individuals- traditionally a man and woman.

Recognizing same sex marriage recognizes the legitimacy of the bond of love between same sex partners.

However the religious definition of marriage is still unique in that it specifically focuses upon the devine blessing of the union between a man and a woman. Thus this traditional sense of marriage retains its unique character.

I think that it is important to add these rationales because these are the ones that you are most likely to encounter in the discourse on gay marriage. Those looking for information on the subject would be best served by being able to read the most commonly used rationales.

What?

Why is this marriage in inverted commas (quotes)? And why does it say that the purpose of same-sex marriage is to "destroy the sanctity of marriage"? In what doctrine supporting same sex marriage is that said?

Supporting Gay Marriage

By and large proponents of Gay Marriage only support removing the states role in prohibiting marriage; they still cannot force religious institutions to marry homosexuals. In other words, even if the Government deemed gay marriage to be ok, the religious institutions would still have all the power. After all, marriage is a union between a man and a woman under God - Why should the State have its neck involved in that? Graham 15:49, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

  • From what I know the proponents of gay Marriage do not seek to force religion to do anything, and while religious practices may change in the long run just as society changes... In my mind an alternative to gay marriage, a better alternative (Also since the United States separates church from state and marriage is religious)

Would be civil unions for ANY arrangement, i.e. MM,FF,MF, and make marriage a religious ceremony. Thus any two people could have the legal benefits of marriage, but under legal (state) terminology while if two people want to get married. The local Pastor, Rabbi, or Imam can do that and discriminate in who they partner up.

All these people want is to be happy, part of that is mutual trust and security, and that comes from Civil Unions, Marriage, whatever you want to call it. But seriously, this would work to keep marriage 'sacred' while Homosexuals could unionize with their partner. Nateland 19:05, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

The Unitarian church, among others, performs same sex weddings.Maestro 17:05, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't get it. People can be friends, with mutual trust and all that. I can even give my unmarried fried a power of attorney to handle things like me being in a coma and needing decisions about medical care. What does marriage have to do with "legal privileges for adults"? --Ed Poor Talk 17:10, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

This sentence is gramatically wrong...

"It is also referred to as "gay marriage" or "homosexual marriage", is the official certification in jurisdictions that allow a union between two people of the same sex."

and since I just got yelled at, maybe someone else can fix it. PaulH 00:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)


Tremendous pressure... needs revision

Combined with hate speech rules and hate crime laws, a government certification of "same-sex marriage" will place tremendous pressure on people who criticize homosexuality, oppose the gay agenda, or believe in the sanctity of marriage.[Citation Needed] "How do you know we're not married?" would be the simplest of rejoinders. Or, "How dare you criticize my spouse!" (see fighting words).

Same-sex marriage is already legal in Massachusetts and in several other countries, so if this assertion of "tremendous pressure" is true, it should be easy to find cite-able examples of it. I've had no luck thus far, so perhaps someone else should try... if not, we'll have to remove this section, because the article is seriously weakened by assertions we can't justify. Also, we need a working definition of the sanctity of marriage -- I'm sure that many people, churches, groups, etc. consider same-sex marriage perfectly sanctified, so we need to be more specific. I'm removing the language for now, and please, if you put it back in, clarify what is meant by 'sanctity.' Also, the 'fighting words' link appears to be dead, so I'm removing it.

Cheers! Gabe 14:58, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Sauce for you.

For the homosexual violence statement in the box beneath the spiffy graphic on the upper-right corner of the page: [1] Barikada 19:04, 16 January 2008 (EST)

That article also says that common law relationships (IE live-in but not formally married) are 5 times more likely to experience violence and is the only category seeing growth in violence. Thus, allowing gay marriage would, statistically speaking, reduce domestic violence among homosexual couples. This article actually supports gay marriage from a statistical standpoint....Kiss20 19:28 16, January 2008 (EST)

Yeah... But let's ignore the facts. Barikada 23:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)
What facts? Jinxmchue 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)
What the study shows. Barikada 15:45, 24 January 2008 (EST)
Non sequitur. It isn't saying that abusive people who get married will suddenly stop being abusive, which seems to be your argument. A more logical conclusion is that abusive people are less likely to get married in the first place. Jinxmchue 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Move?

Seriously, that would be a good idea. It's called same sex marriage throughout the article, why isn't it titled correctly? Barikada 22:13, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Yes, no? Barikada 00:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

A counterfeit counterfeit

The following is unintentionally amusing:

Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family refers to the phrase same-sex 'marriage,' with quotation
marks around the word marriage, to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as
well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that he therefore
believes that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."

Why did the author put quotation marks around the word counterfeits? Is it to call attention to his belief that "Dr." Dobson's views on counterfeits are themselves counterfeit? --GDewey 22:23, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Graphic

Even if the claim beneath the graphic is true: 1) violence is not a defining characteristic of homosexual marriage--therefore the graphic shouldn't be so prominently displayed here; and 2) the purported cycle of violence is not specific to homosexual relationships--therefore it is inappropriate in an article specifically dedicated to homosexual marriage. Dadsnagem2 16:09, 25 March 2008 (EDT)