Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


HOMOPHOBIA OF ANTI-SAME SEX MARRIAGE ARGUMENTS
 
CHRISTIAN SAYS CHRIST STATED THAT NOT ALL ARE TO BE EXPECTED TO MARRY
 
Jesus spoke of how divorce was always a sin. It would be odd to think that a man who was that harsh could stomach and even endorse same sex marriage! The apostles said his teaching was too much.  He did not back down and said such ideas are down to hardness of heart.

Then the apostles said it would be better not to marry at all.  This would suggest that marriage tended to breakdown.  They considered the problem serious enough to warrant divorce as a solution.  If most marriages are good you cannot say it is best not to marry if divorce is unavailable.

Jesus at that point said something that is hard to interpret.  He that some are born eunuchs and others are made eunuchs by men and others make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. The Christians always make out that eunuchs means people not who are castrated but who do not have sex. This does not fit what Jesus said. Eunuchs is literal for it is true that some are born and others become eunuchs through being mutilated by others or self-mutilation. Jesus is banning marriage if you don't have your testicles. The thinking is that as the eunuch is not much of a man he should not marry. For Jesus only "real" men and "real" women can wed each other in an opposite sex marriage.
 
Jesus then would have been against same sex marriage and the Christians are right to state that he was but wrong to state that he was right.
 
CHRISTIAN SAYS THAT SAME SEX-MARRIAGE WRECKS AND ATTACKS THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE
 
Who cares? If this is true, only a minority of same-sex marriages will take place and so the wrecking and the attacking will be therefore tolerable. If same-sex marriage is about commitment that cannot harm marriage but only strengthen it. If a man and wife are committed, same-sex marriage will do them no harm. Its not even their affair.
 
CHRISTIAN SAYS THAT THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE AS BEING BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN WILL BE CHANGED AND THAT IS BAD.  HE THINKS SAME SEX MARRIAGE SAYS THE BODY AND ITS DESIGN DOES NOT MATTER. SO YOU CAN MANIPULATE AND EVEN ABUSE THE BODY TO MAKE YOURSELF FEEL GOOD.
 
Big deal! Christians won't admit that they are opposed to the fact that the law of the land has departed from the Christian definition of marriage anyway. For example, the law defines marriage as a union you are part of until you want a divorce. Marriage not being about a lifelong commitment is a bigger matter than marriage being about two people of the same or opposite sex who wed. The Christian carping is motivated by religious prejudice and the desire to get special rights for religion. Its not about concern for marriage but for Christian doctrine being abandoned. Its an attitude of "Dogmas matter and people don't".
 
CHRISTIAN SAYS THAT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LOGICALLY IMPLIES THAT YOU CAN MARRY YOUR DOG OR EVEN MORE THAN ONE PERSON. CHRISTIAN ARGUES THAT IF YOU CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE AS BEING BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN, THEN WHY STOP WITH ALLOWING ONE MAN TO MARRY ONE MAN OR ONE WOMAN TO MARRY ONE WOMAN? 
 
Marriage is recognised by law. But it is hard to take this recognition seriously for there is no punishment for desertion or adultery for example. A law saying, "This man and woman must stay together for life", is not a law at all if it has no intention of enforcing. A law must be an enforcement on pain of punishment. Marriage is only something the law pretends to take seriously. The Christian objections are meaningless. When the believers don't complain about the laws hypocrisy in relation to marriage, they should not complain about Same-Sex Marriage and its alleged undermining of respect for marriage.
 
Also, you cannot love two people equally. If marriage is good, then marry the one you love the most. Then you won't need to marry the other as well. Same sex marriage need not lead to plural marriage.
 
CHRISTIANS SAY THAT IN THE UNITED KINGDOM, THE SAME SEX MARRIED COUPLE CANNOT COMMIT ADULTERY UNDER THE LAW EXCEPT WITH A PERSON OF THE OPPOSITE SEX. SOON LGBT PEOPLE WILL WANT TO CHANGE THAT FOR IT SUGGESTS THEIR MARRIAGE IS BEING TREATED DIFFERENTLY FROM HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE.
 
I say they should get the law to recognise any extra-marital sex with either gender as adultery or they should do away with adultery altogether.
 
CHRISTIAN SAYS THAT REFUSING TO LET SAME-SEX COUPLES WED IS NOT DISCRIMINATION FOR THEY SIMPLY CANNOT WED. MEN CANNOT MARRY MEN AND WOMEN CANNOT MARRY WOMEN. AN ATTEMPT TO MARRY A PERSON OF THE SAME SEX WILL ONLY RESULT IN A FAKE MARRIAGE.
 
This is over-legalistic. It could be argued that if a same-sex couple is very close and very committed that this proves they are married. The legal recognition is not what binds them together but their love. The recognition only sees the love. Are we to hold that a couple that love a little is married because they went through a ceremony while a devoted couple that never did the ceremony is not married? That is inhuman.
 
To say that marriage needs protection from same sex marriage is to accuse same sex partners of being dangerous. The more they try to make themselves committed the more evil they are.
 
To say we must fight same sex marriage in order to protect traditional marriage is homophobic for traditional marriage will still happen for most people.
 
To say marriage is sacred is to insult same sex civil marriage and the 68 per cent of marriages in 2010 that were non-religious.
 
To say marriage is a bond between a man and woman ignores the places where same sex marriage has taken place eg Spain, Iceland and Argentina.
 
To say same sex marriage will confuse gender roles is nonsense - many straight marriages have the woman as breadwinner while the man is the nurturing partner of the children. Not all women are good at nurturing even their own children.
 
To say same sex marriage is bad because it is infertile, insults straight couples who are infertile. It is to say that fertility matters more than love. And we know that though we do not have the science to do it yet, that we can enable two men to reproduce the same child or two women to reproduce the same child. Same sex relationships are only sterile because we have not advanced far enough in science to make them reproductive.
 
To say nobody has the right to redefine marriage ignores the fact that the state is always doing that. It is only in the last few centuries that marriage took its current form where the bride and groom give their consent in public. Marriage has been redefined in most countries to mean you are married until divorce or death. It used to be that marriage was for life. If God created marriage and established it, the state is redefining marriage by ignoring him and religion. And the Catholic Church redefines marriage as a sacrament and says that Muslim marriages or marriages between unbaptised people are not sacraments. Every religion defines the rules differently for marriage.
 
To say same sex marriage is the minority dictating to the majority is nonsense because same sex marriage will only affect a small percentage of the population. Anyway the percentage of LGBT people is rising. It would be higher if it were not for the decimation wrought by AIDS and most LGBT people stay in the closet.
 
To ask why same sex couples want to get married is an insulting question - it would not be asked of a heterosexual couple. The question implies that gay people can't really want to get married for they are not up to its duties.
 
To say same sex marriage is about same-sex couples getting society's approval is insulting - it is equality they want.
 
To say same sex civil partnership is enough is to applaud an institution that was set up to reaffirm society's wish to keep same sex couples unmarried in case they somehow contaminate marriage.
 
To say you love your friend and your dog and that does not mean you have the right to marry your friend or dog reduces same sex love to that of a friendship and bestiality.
 
Anti-same sex arguments are riddled with homophobic prejudice.
 
Some people who are against same-sex marriage say they are not against same-sex marriage but pro-family. That is really just putting a positive spin on something that is essentially negative.
 
Can a Catholic who believes same sex marriages are nonsense still vote in their favour on the grounds that the state cannot be expected to legislate just for Catholics?
 
Fr Iggy O’Donovan said yes. But that amounts to saying that you agree with the Catholic teaching but must vote according to a non-Catholic or secular mindset. This is really the notion that you must leave your religion at the door when you engage in politics. Your devotion to your religion is not very sincere if you think gay marriage is a hoax and you still vote or desire the law to endorse it and facilitate it. It does not agree with the Christian doctrine that homosexual acts must be given no help. It is not fair to expect a Catholic to vote in an unCatholic way for you have to put something first and if you put everybody first you put nobody first.

It is the state's business how it defines marriage. If the definition is terrible it is up to each couple to bypass that and form a good marriage. Same-sex marriage is a human right if marriage is a right. States that do not recognise same sex marriage should be forced to. And they must be forced to recognise same sex marriages contracted in other countries. Racism though abhorrent discriminates against people because of their skin. It attacks people directly and love indirectly. The problem is the unloving attitude. Opposing same sex marriage is also about having an unloving marriage. It is even more vicious than racism because it is a shameless and direct attack on love.

We are led to believe that marriage is defined as the union of a man and woman. We are not told that marriage is considered potential until the man and woman have sexual intercourse at least once. Then it is consummated or made real. This is degradingly putting more stress on sexual potency and a particular kind of sex than on love and happiness. Its over legalistic and sets a biological criterion of morality instead of considering human happiness and love. It discriminates against straight couples who do not like "normal" sex. Same sex marriage changes this archaic nonsense and allows for accepting different forms of sex as consummation. Thus it IMPROVES equality for heterosexual couples. With same sex marriage, there is no longer any need to hold that the marriage of a man who lost his penis in childhood is only a cosmetic marriage.

Same sex relationships do not get the same support as straight ones do and they need more.  Same sex relationships come under pressure from others and from those who are not okay with gay love.  Same-sex marriage is about giving same-sex sexual love the same support as heterosexual sexual love. The more support there is for relationships the better. Even if same-sex marriage is not real marriage, does it really matter that much? Who cares as long as it works or has a chance to work

Refusing equal support to same sex and heterosexual marriage is a very toxic form of homophobia and cruel.