Opinion On Same-Sex Marriage

[Kannap]

To get this back on topic I have yet to hear a valid argument as to why same sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry or adopt other than citing the Bible.

You're not going to hear a valid argument for either one. For the former, any argument somebody gives you you'll rule invalid. For the latter, that's not the topic of the thread, and we've literally just been knocked back onto the tracks.

[Cekoviu]

To get this back on topic I have yet to hear a valid argument as to why same sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry or adopt other than citing the Bible.

and there are also compelling arguments for legally allowing gay marriage + adoption
- if we ban adultery (which we should), allowing gay marriage can reduce the rate of casual sex among gay people and therefore reduce STD prevalence and improve public health
- gay adoptive parents are just as good, if not better, than straight adoptive parents according to current knowledge
- increasing the pool of possible adoptive parents while not decreasing the average quality, as is done with allowing gay adoption, is a no-brainer - we want as many orphans to be adopted as possible
- it's better for kids' parents to be married, so that's another reason to allow marriage if you're accepting gay adoption

[Novus America]

To get this back on topic I have yet to hear a valid argument as to why same sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry or adopt other than citing the Bible.

and there are also compelling arguments for legally allowing gay marriage + adoption
- if we ban adultery (which we should), allowing gay marriage can reduce the rate of casual sex among gay people and therefore reduce STD prevalence and improve public health
- gay adoptive parents are just as good, if not better, than straight adoptive parents according to current knowledge
- increasing the pool of possible adoptive parents while not decreasing the average quality, as is done with allowing gay adoption, is a no-brainer - we want as many orphans to be adopted as possible
- it's better for kids' parents to be married, so that's another reason to allow marriage if you're accepting gay adoption

These are all valid points, although I am not sure about “banning” adultery per se, just using it to give the non adulterous party a massive advantage in divorce proceedings and the ability to sue the adulterous spouse AND the person they committed adultery with and a party committing adultery should be prohibited from claiming alimony against one who did not. I think family and civil law can deter it effectively without the criminal element.

Especially as criminalizing it actually makes the divorce and civil proceedings more difficult as they can plead the Fifth.

But yes I agree on this, from a legal perspective denying gay couples the legal benefits makes little sense.

[State of Turelisa]

To get this back on topic I have yet to hear a valid argument as to why same sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry or adopt other than citing the Bible.

The topic isn't the argument of whether homosexual couples ought to adopt children or not, excluding Biblical prescription.

I believe marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman who are in love. This love is part of God's will and grace, and therefore it is defined and bound by the terms in the vows which they exchange before Him and promise to obey.
The Bible defines matrimony as 'a man...shall cleave unto his wife and they shall become one flesh.' and an emotional and physical attachment, which is outside of these premises, between two people who are of the same sex, is invalid.

[The New California Republic]

To get this back on topic I have yet to hear a valid argument as to why same sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry or adopt other than citing the Bible.

The topic isn't the argument of whether homosexual couples ought to adopt children or not, excluding Biblical prescription.

You kinda missed a bit of that question. I just put it in big letters to draw your attention to it, as you seem to not be seeing it for some reason.

[State of Turelisa]

The topic isn't the argument of whether homosexual couples ought to adopt children or not, excluding Biblical prescription.

You kinda missed a bit of that question. I just put it in big letters to draw your attention to it, as you seem to not be seeing it for some reason.

I did see it. I was focusing on the part concerning adoption and homosexuals, which the poster is determined to conflate with the question of the topic.

[The New California Republic]

You kinda missed a bit of that question. I just put it in big letters to draw your attention to it, as you seem to not be seeing it for some reason.

I did see it. I was focusing on the part concerning adoption and homosexuals, which the poster is determined to conflate with the question of the topic.

Thought it needed pointing out to you since you had somehow not seen it on a previous occasion too.

[San Lumen]

To get this back on topic I have yet to hear a valid argument as to why same sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry or adopt other than citing the Bible.

The topic isn't the argument of whether homosexual couples ought to adopt children or not, excluding Biblical prescription.

I believe marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman who are in love. This love is part of God's will and grace, and therefore it is defined and bound by the terms in the vows which they exchange before Him and promise to obey.
The Bible defines matrimony as 'a man...shall cleave unto his wife and they shall become one flesh.' and an emotional and physical attachment, which is outside of these premises, between two people who are of the same sex, is invalid.

The Bible condones slavery as well.

[Necroghastia]

To get this back on topic I have yet to hear a valid argument as to why same sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry or adopt other than citing the Bible.

The topic isn't the argument of whether homosexual couples ought to adopt children or not, excluding Biblical prescription.

I believe marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman who are in love. This love is part of God's will and grace, and therefore it is defined and bound by the terms in the vows which they exchange before Him and promise to obey.
The Bible defines matrimony as 'a man...shall cleave unto his wife and they shall become one flesh.' and an emotional and physical attachment, which is outside of these premises, between two people who are of the same sex, is invalid.

Okay but WHY just a man and a woman? What's the reason for it?

[State of Turelisa]

The topic isn't the argument of whether homosexual couples ought to adopt children or not, excluding Biblical prescription.

I believe marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman who are in love. This love is part of God's will and grace, and therefore it is defined and bound by the terms in the vows which they exchange before Him and promise to obey.
The Bible defines matrimony as 'a man...shall cleave unto his wife and they shall become one flesh.' and an emotional and physical attachment, which is outside of these premises, between two people who are of the same sex, is invalid.

The Bible condones slavery as well.

*withdraws to bang head against brick wall*

[State of Turelisa]

The topic isn't the argument of whether homosexual couples ought to adopt children or not, excluding Biblical prescription.

I believe marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman who are in love. This love is part of God's will and grace, and therefore it is defined and bound by the terms in the vows which they exchange before Him and promise to obey.
The Bible defines matrimony as 'a man...shall cleave unto his wife and they shall become one flesh.' and an emotional and physical attachment, which is outside of these premises, between two people who are of the same sex, is invalid.

Okay but WHY just a man and a woman? What's the reason for it?

The male and female genitals are naturally compatible. Man and woman are designed for coitus. A certain part of the human anatomy, including the mouth, isn't. Male sperm carries the seed of human life to the egg inside the woman by sexual intercourse between man and woman as intended, and male ejaculation is intended to result in the creation of life, not spilled in vain during masturbation or any other sexual act which isn't coitus.

[San Lumen]

The Bible condones slavery as well.

*withdraws to bang head against brick wall*

Why are you picking and choosing what parts of the Bible you’ll follow?

[Washington Resistance Army]

*withdraws to bang head against brick wall*

Why are you picking and choosing what parts of the Bible you’ll follow?

The New Covenant doesn't mandate slavery. There are certainly guidelines for how slaves should be treated, yes, but literally every religion that existed in those times has basic codes of conduct for things like that.

[The New California Republic]

Okay but WHY just a man and a woman? What's the reason for it?

The male and female genitals are naturally compatible. Man and woman are designed for coitus. A certain part of the human anatomy, including the mouth, isn't. Male sperm carries the seed of human life to the egg inside the woman by sexual intercourse between man and woman as intended

Oh sweet summer child...

[Jedi Council]

Okay but WHY just a man and a woman? What's the reason for it?

The male and female genitals are naturally compatible. Man and woman are designed for coitus. A certain part of the human anatomy, including the mouth, isn't. Male sperm carries the seed of human life to the egg inside the woman by sexual intercourse between man and woman as intended, and male ejaculation is intended to result in the creation of life, not spilled in vain during masturbation or any other sexual act which isn't coitus.

There is no intent to sexual activity, especially among a species as evolved as we are. You can intend to procreate, and you can engage in intimacy without this intent. We are not even the only animals to do this. Moralizing the point is just being a prude.

[West Leas Oros 2]

I couldn't care less, so long as the relationship between the two is sound. Even then, it's not really any of my - or anyone's business.

A fair point. I don’t see the purpose in getting so caught up in other people’s relationships. Sounds kind of perverted, honestly.

[Jedi Council]

I couldn't care less, so long as the relationship between the two is sound. Even then, it's not really any of my - or anyone's business.

A fair point. I don’t see the purpose in getting so caught up in other people’s relationships. Sounds kind of perverted, honestly.

Most religions have always been obsessed with sex. It's all about power and control.

[Ethel mermania]

Why are you picking and choosing what parts of the Bible you’ll follow?

The New Covenant doesn't mandate slavery. There are certainly guidelines for how slaves should be treated, yes, but literally every religion that existed in those times has basic codes of conduct for things like that.

Neither does the old, but as far as the intent of your post, I agree

[Ethel mermania]

Okay but WHY just a man and a woman? What's the reason for it?

The male and female genitals are naturally compatible. Man and woman are designed for coitus. A certain part of the human anatomy, including the mouth, isn't. Male sperm carries the seed of human life to the egg inside the woman by sexual intercourse between man and woman as intended, and male ejaculation is intended to result in the creation of life, not spilled in vain during masturbation or any other sexual act which isn't coitus.

only to you heretics, the jewish faith also says sex is to strengthen the bonds of marriage.

[West Leas Oros 2]

A fair point. I don’t see the purpose in getting so caught up in other people’s relationships. Sounds kind of perverted, honestly.

Most religions have always been obsessed with sex. It's all about power and control.

That I’m keenly aware of. Religion makes a point of controlling nearly every aspect of life, in a manner that reminds one of other varieties of repression and control.

[Kiu Ghesik]

The male and female genitals are naturally compatible. Man and woman are designed for coitus. A certain part of the human anatomy, including the mouth, isn't. Male sperm carries the seed of human life to the egg inside the woman by sexual intercourse between man and woman as intended, and male ejaculation is intended to result in the creation of life, not spilled in vain during masturbation or any other sexual act which isn't coitus.

only to you heretics, the jewish faith also says sex is to strengthen the bonds of marriage.

Technically we're apostates!

[State of Turelisa]

The male and female genitals are naturally compatible. Man and woman are designed for coitus. A certain part of the human anatomy, including the mouth, isn't. Male sperm carries the seed of human life to the egg inside the woman by sexual intercourse between man and woman as intended, and male ejaculation is intended to result in the creation of life, not spilled in vain during masturbation or any other sexual act which isn't coitus.

only to you heretics, the jewish faith also says sex is to strengthen the bonds of marriage.

The Son of God was crucified by Jews like a common criminal, and you, the person who has taken upon himself to speak for all other Jews, have the temerity to call us Christians heretic.

[The New California Republic]

only to you heretics, the jewish faith also says sex is to strengthen the bonds of marriage.

The Son of God was crucified by Jews like a common criminal, and you, the person who has taken upon himself to speak for all other Jews, have the temerity to call us Christians heretic.

Oh no here comes the antisemitism.

[Necroghastia]

Okay but WHY just a man and a woman? What's the reason for it?

The male and female genitals are naturally compatible. Man and woman are designed for coitus. A certain part of the human anatomy, including the mouth, isn't.

Well, someone hasn't read up on everything the prostate does...

Male sperm carries the seed of human life to the egg inside the woman by sexual intercourse between man and woman

So, what about gay couples where one person is cis and the other is pre- or non-op trans?

as intended, and male ejaculation is intended to result in the creation of life, not spilled in vain

"in vain?" What?

during masturbation or any other sexual act which isn't coitus.

So like... what about the elderly and infertile? People who are unable to have children? Should they be unable to be wed? Or have their marriages annulled post-menopause?
Your bible quote about cleavage and becoming one flesh said nothing about reproduction, just banging.

[Jedi Council]

only to you heretics, the jewish faith also says sex is to strengthen the bonds of marriage.

The Son of God was crucified by Jews like a common criminal, and you, the person who has taken upon himself to speak for all other Jews, have the temerity to call us Christians heretic.

Everybody is a heretic to somebody.

Also, show us the evidence he was the Son of God. Otherwise, it was just a normal execution, something Christianity has alot of experience with as well.