nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

APART FROM RELIGIOUS BELIEFS what are the arguments against gay marriage?

TheIrishGrover

Please don't let this descend into a religion-bashing thread. I'm agnostic but I have no problem with people's beliefs so long as they do not affect others. Each to their own.

I'm just wondering, are there any rational, articulate arguments against gay marriage that would make you think "Hmm, that's worth thinking about"?

I'm all for gay marriage. I don't think a church should, by state law, be forced into accepting it. I think that's for each church to work on internally and, obviously, I believe that state laws should not be based on religious beliefs. But that's another argument.

I just have not heard any arguments that did not revolve around the whole "Against the bible/reducing the sanctity of marriage" arguments. I mean, NOT ONE!!!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Corkfeen

The worrying thing is that's not the worst rubbish that shes_crazy has posted to date. :rolleyes:

shes_crazy

endacl wrote: »

In fairness, you probably haven't even tried it. How do you know?

I haven't engaged in consensual incest either. Have you?

hoodwinked

shes_crazy wrote: »

That gay "sex" is disgusting imo is as good a reason as any to make it illegal again.

fyp

don't forget you are entitled to your opinions but we should keep them to ourselves,

i find coffee disgusting, the taste/smell....etc

should we ban everyone from drinking coffee? make it illegal?

you can't stop people doing what they want in a free society. why do we stop two people who want to be with each other from doing what they want? and what effect does it have on my marriage? none!

endacl

Corkfeen wrote: »

The worrying thing is that's not the worst rubbish that shes_crazy has posted to date. :rolleyes:

I look forward to it, I must say. Different genre, but there's been a big empty space left here since a certain CT poster was permabanned.

Cody Pomeray

pragmatic1 wrote: »

No. It was a full blown religion.

That's probably as stupid as calling atheism a religion. Communism was a moral authority.

shes_crazy

hoodwinked wrote: »

fyp

don't forget you are entitled to your opinions but we should keep them to ourselves,

i find coffee disgusting, the taste/smell....etc

should we ban everyone from drinking coffee? make it illegal?

you can't stop people doing what they want in a free society. why do we stop two people who want to be with each other from doing what they want? and what effect does it have on my marriage? none!

Ripping apart ones anal cavity is quite different from the smell of coffee.

Anyway, you guys asked for non-religious reasons as to why homosexuality should be banned. I have stated the obvious.

If you want more reasons, I'm more than happy to provide them to you. And give you plenty of medical evidence too.

Finally, why should people hide their religious beliefs so as to appease anti-theists? Excluding the religious dimension is to exclude a whole body of knowledge that you just wish to conveniently exclude because you don't like it. Ostriches with their heads in the sand comes to mind.

shes_crazy

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

That's probably as stupid as calling atheism a religion.

Atheism bears all the hallmarks of a belief system. It's just it's intellectually shallow, inferior and faddish.

endacl

shes_crazy wrote: »

Ostriches with their heads in the sand comes to mind.

And their bums in the air? Why was that the image that sprang to mind for you...?

shes_crazy

endacl wrote: »

And their bums in the air? Why was that the image that sprang to mind for you...?

Yes, you guessed it. Latent homosexuality...

F*cked if you like men. F*cked if you don't. Can't win.

Corkfeen

Shes_crazy, religious beliefs should not influence the position of a government or their policies unless they are actually arguing from a factual perspective. Leviticus should have no implications upon laws in a state.:pac:

hoodwinked

shes_crazy wrote: »

Ripping apart ones anal cavity is quite different from the smell of coffee.

Anyway, you guys asked for non-religious reasons as to why homosexuality should be banned. I have stated the obvious.

If you want more reasons, I'm more than happy to provide them to you. And give you plenty of medical evidence too.

.

what if it is two females having sex? its not all about anal or intercourse for that matter,

plenty of hetro marriages are based on other factors why do you assume gay marriage is all about intercourse?

1ZRed

shes_crazy wrote: »

Ripping apart ones anal cavity is quite different from the smell of coffee.

Anyway, you guys asked for non-religious reasons as to why homosexuality should be banned. I have stated the obvious.

If you want more reasons, I'm more than happy to provide them to you. And give you plenty of medical evidence too.

Finally, why should people hide their religious beliefs so as to appease anti-theists? Excluding the religious dimension is to exclude a whole body of knowledge that you just wish to conveniently exclude because you don't like it. Ostriches with their heads in the sand comes to mind.

Hi actor! Missed you around the place!

So being gay should be banned but you're free to come back in drag to troll us?

youreadthat

I'm not against gay relationships, but it is interesting how societies deem things as acceptable and not.

For example, incest is illegal, and massively frowned upon in our society, and I too like most people am against it.

But most arguments for gay marriage and relationships in general could also be applied to incest.

StinkyMunkey

shes_crazy wrote: »

I'm glad you raised the point of the nasal orifice -- use of the body's orifices contrary to their design is immoral and often unhealthy.

If I ate a load of food and made myself sick, it would be pointless, immoral and disgusting. If I slid my hands down my underpants it would be the same. If I bummed another man it would be the same too -- pointless, self-gratuitious and unhealthy (both physically and mentally).

So if its pointless, why worry about it. I think eating oysters is disgusting, I don't lose sleep over it though. To me, just because you don't agree with someone's lifestyle and bashing it is immoral!

shes_crazy

Corkfeen wrote: »

Shes_crazy, religious beliefs should not influence the position of a government or their policies unless they are actually arguing from a factual perspective. Leviticus should have no implications upon laws in a state.:pac:

Religious people make up government. Nobody should be forced to hide their beliefs to appease an aggressively secularist lobby.

Leviticus is Old Testament. How many members of Seanad Eireann take Leviticus literally do you know?

kowloon

bluewolf wrote: »

"I think it's icky so I'll pretend it's about saving the kids despite studies showing kids with gay parents do super"

I'm pretty sure it was put to me in a similar way: 'They're all like gay, and in your face and yuck and gay and stuff'. I realised I could never hope to win an argument with such a towering intellect.

Gbear

youreadthat wrote: »

I'm not against gay relationships, but it is interesting how societies deem things as acceptable and not.

For example, incest is illegal, and massively frowned upon in our society, and I too like most people am against it.

But most arguments for gay marriage and relationships in general could also be applied to incest.

If they're consenting adults who gives a ****? Why do you care?

shes_crazy

Gbear wrote: »

If they're consenting adults who gives a ****? Why do you care?

The mask slips...

StinkyMunkey

youreadthat wrote: »

I'm not against gay relationships, but it is interesting how societies deem things as acceptable and not.

For example, incest is illegal, and massively frowned upon in our society, and I too like most people am against it.

But most arguments for gay marriage and relationships in general could also be applied to incest.

Not many 2 headed babies born out of gay relationships I'd imagine.

shes_crazy

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Not many 2 headed babies born out of gay relationships I'd imagine.

Yeah, they just abort them in the test tube.

<lisp>Heaven forbid our designer baby had the wrong hair colour!</lisp>

jill_valentine

hoodwinked wrote: »

what if it is two females having sex?

Actor's had this put to him a few times, he usually just ignores it so he can get back to the aul anuses. Fixates on anuses he does, can't get enough of them.

hoodwinked

youreadthat wrote: »

I'm not against gay relationships, but it is interesting how societies deem things as acceptable and not.

For example, incest is illegal, and massively frowned upon in our society, and I too like most people am against it.

But most arguments for gay marriage and relationships in general could also be applied to incest.

with incest though is it not down to genetics? having a higher risk of genetic defects if a pregnancy arises,
not to mention not mixing the gene pool can cause problems in itself (*cough* royal families *cough*)

where as two (non incest) people being married is totally different. we allow people marry because one is male one is female, yet not if they are the same gender?

Corkfeen

shes_crazy wrote: »

Religious people make up government. Nobody should be forced to hide their beliefs to appease an aggressively secularist lobby.

Leviticus is Old Testament. How many members of Seanad Eireann take Leviticus literally do you know?

You seem to take Leviticus pretty seriously, maybe not literally but it's the foundation for your homophobia and you have lowered the bar entirely for this discussion.

What you are arguing in favour of is a theocracy, Ireland is not a theocracy so therefore has no basis for banning homosexuality. I'm grateful that we do not love in a theocracy as they're not considered the best for human right. The vast majority of the Irish public support gay marriage so the dail would legislate in favour of it when the referendum does eventually pass, politician's personal beliefs have nothing to do with it.

hoodwinked wrote: »

with incest though is it not down to genetics? having a higher risk of genetic defects if a pregnancy arises,
not to mention not mixing the gene pool can cause problems in itself (*cough* royal families *cough*)

where as two (non incest) people being married is totally different. we allow people marry because one is male one is female, yet not if they are the same gender?

Besides birth defects, the foundation of many incestuous relationships is abuse or grooming of some variety. So it become a relationship where the abuser is in power.

StinkyMunkey

shes_crazy wrote: »

Yeah, they just abort them in the test tube.

<lisp>Heaven forbid our designer baby had the wrong hair colour!</lisp>

Sorry to break it to you, a man can't get pregnant when another guy does him up the gicker!

Gbear

shes_crazy wrote: »

Atheism bears all the hallmarks of a belief system. It's just it's intellectually shallow, inferior and faddish.

Yup.. A large and diverse system...

I don't believe in god(s)... and... emmm...

Like I said it's both large and diverse.
Barely have room to fit it in one post!

darced

This post has been deleted.

krudler

shes_crazy wrote: »

The mask slips...

That you're a re-reg obsessed with anal sex? indeed it does. what is it with you and assfcuking? really now. you're like the energizer bunny of arse tampering on here

Gbear

krudler wrote: »

That you're a re-reg obsessed with anal sex? indeed it does. what is it with you and assfcuking? really now. you're like the energizer bunny of arse tampering on here

It's like a magnetic attraction to anuses. It calls out to them through the internets.

They want to resist the anuses... but they just can't.

endacl

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nah. You can't. They're not.

One is a relationship between consenting adults. The other is abuse. Really? You need this explained?!?

endacl

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

... as is incompatibility with homophobia, you appear to be suggesting.

Sorry. Got distracted there.

No. I'm not suggesting that at all, and I think you know it. Do you really just want to get into sniping over and back, based on a selective interpretation of posts?