English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-03-13 06:41:49 · 46 answers · asked by shout it before i shout it for u 1 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

anyone who thinks it should be, repent and turn to Jesus, the blood of Jesus cleans us from all ungodlyness.Jesus does not hate the sinner but the sin.

2007-03-13 07:08:10 · update #1

i am done here. i hope God opens the eyes of some of you. Jesus will for give you if you just turn to Him.

2007-03-13 07:12:15 · update #2

46 answers

Because it is an abomination in God's eyes...

It will ruin our society if it's allowed to be.

Would you really want a child growing up with 2 dads? Or 2 moms?

And all in the same house????

What confusion that would be.....

2007-03-13 06:44:20 · answer #1 · answered by primoa1970 7 · 4 15

Because the goverment gave non-religious reasons like

"They won't make children" What about adoption? Artificial insemination? Overpopulation? And anyways, I don't see the elderly or infertal couples being banned from marriage.

"It'll undermine the sanctity of marriage." What sanctity? We have reality TV shows that determine who marries who. And two people who love each other wouldn't undermine anything.

"It's unnatural." So are contact lenses and soap. I'm not complaining.

Any religious reasons shouldn't even come up because of a little thing I like to call "Separation of Church and State".

2007-03-17 04:16:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The first marriage was performed by God - Adam and Eve - one man and one woman. In America, marriages are predominately performed before God, as stated by the Pastor.
Government has traditionally recognized marriage in this context. Many scriptures speak of homosexuality as not only a sin, but an abomination, before God. For this reason, Christians do not recognize this as a valid marriage.
This sets up a dilema for government that is moved by popular sentiment, rather than absolute truths of right and wrong. Many governments have tried to create a somewhat equivalent arrangement called a civil union, thereby preserving the sanctity of marriage.

2007-03-13 06:52:07 · answer #3 · answered by BowtiePasta 6 · 1 2

No, even regardless of the indisputable fact that civil partnerships are notably lots the comparable project, granting legal rights etc. as they could in a marriage. the main important distinction is that the ceremonies can not be executed in a church or different religious construction. even regardless of the indisputable fact that some church homes now will carry out civil partnership social gathering facilities, this could contain having the fairly civil partnership ceremony in a registry workplace, then having a separate provider interior the church - somewhat like the way Charles and Camilla married.

2016-12-19 04:34:22 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Because being an active gay is immoral, a sin. And we can't allow sinners to have equal marital rights. Marriage has always been a vow made in the eyes of God since the beginning of time. Marital vows have always started as a religious commitment, not secular like is has come to be.

If gays are going to openly gay and be proud to let everyone know that they are living a sinful life, then let them. But I will not vote to let them change what marriage means, what it has been, symbolized for thousands of years. It's a religious vows between a man and woman in the eyes of God/in the name of God. And God will never approve of this act. Just because a state says a couple is legally married doesn't make it right. And we the people vote for these officials.

2007-03-13 06:59:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 4

Well as one of your other answers stated: Church and state arent really all that separate. I may not agree with the concept of gay marriage but who the hell am I to tell 2 consenting what they should or shouldnt do. And who the hell would I be to hate against them. Our governement, however, still feels as if they can dictate to people what they can and can not do. And the church is the DRIVING force behind this. Live and let live. I have gay friends. They know how I feel about it. But we are all STILL very close friends. Gay people are just as human as I am and it shouldnt be mine, nor the governments right to tell people what to do as long as it isnt HARMING to others.

2007-03-13 06:56:24 · answer #6 · answered by Papi G 2 · 3 1

I think it is because of religious discrimination which in the USA should not exist. As for marriage being related to God, I got married on a beach by an officiant with no religious affiliation and the ceremony was completely secular. Yet the state recognizes my marriage as legal. Obviously, the definition of marriage is different for different people. For me it was a ceremony to pledge our commitment to each other before our friends and family, not about God. I can't see the grounds to deny civil marriage to consenting adults. I can see certain churches denying to marry couples based on their religious beliefs but not a government ban on gay marriage.

2007-03-13 06:49:34 · answer #7 · answered by Zen Pirate 6 · 5 2

Because it's the last bastion of bigotry and hate, supported by $$$ from certain religious lobbying groups. It's based on an interpretation of religion that has nothing to do with science, instead it's about projection by religious groups, ignorance and arrogance.

_()_

2007-03-13 06:55:12 · answer #8 · answered by vinslave 7 · 3 1

Because of selfishness and self-righteousness. There is not a single coherent argument against it that doesn't start with "the Bible says..." or "eew, they're gross", nor is there a single compelling public interest against it... but dozens in favor of it. Starting with real kids, and the basic concept of fairness and protecting real families- not just "ideal families".

The nonsensical and irrelevant arguments about "ideal families" , "marriage is about procreation", and "slippery slopes" are just attempts at an argument against it that doesn't include either "the Bible says" or "eew, they're gross".

2007-03-13 06:54:52 · answer #9 · answered by kena2mi 4 · 3 1

It beats me.
I fail to see why state-supported discrimination is still being practiced.

We all know that the rights given with marriage are administered by the STATE. Not giving two unrelated people who have consensually agreed to marry and love each other such STATE rights is discrimination, pure and simple. Religion should have no say in which citizens get such STATE-given rights. There is nothing "moral" about this question.

How does upholding the Constitution, where all are created equal "dilute" or "defame" present marriages in any way? Of course, it would actually strengthen them, if one looks at it in a non-bigoted and non-prejudiced way.

And please don't give me the "slippery slope" malarkey posing as an argument. Please look up. Two people, unrelated - no cats, dogs, chickens, relatives, polygamy etc. You insult our intelligence with such a statement.

Also, please don't ask me to call my marriage anything else, unless you are going to use that term for every single marriage that is performed. "Separate but equal" doesn't work and is not just - just ask any black American in the 1950s.

2007-03-13 06:48:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 8 3

Because of christians... the majority of people are christian (or rather so-called christian). But due to the fact that if they do not believe in it then it will be hard to get...
And the fact that lots of people are insecure with their own sexuality and insecure with their own marriage they feel it will hurt hetero's marriages...
But if people would stop being so insecure about their own or we get someone who is not so insecure and narrowminded in office maybe we will be able to marry out partners..

2007-03-13 06:55:17 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers