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

A reason universal to all faiths please (including those without a faith like me)


If you say AIDS then do you think heterosexuals with AIDS should not be able to get married?

2007-10-13 15:43:14 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

My guess is i will get no reason universal to all faiths/lack of

2007-10-13 15:47:14 · update #1

John no its not.its not even a choice i have tried to be straight and i like the way you block your emails because you know you cant defend your poor arguements

2007-10-13 15:50:29 · update #2

Blondie didn't you read the description

2007-10-13 15:52:30 · update #3

28 answers

There is NO good reason.
And most of the world is now waking up to that fact. Out of the G7 nations, the US is the ONLY one that still hasn't stepped out of the dark ages in that regard.
Sad isn't it?

2007-10-13 15:47:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 8 5

Part of the reason it has not been thought about in the past had to do with the raising of children. Prior to modern technology, the only way to bear and raise children was the old fashioned way - a man and a woman come together and have a child. It was then their responsibility to raise the child(ren) properly. Polygamy had been tried in many cultures, but that led to a lot of problems, so monogamy was settled upon as the best way to bring up children.

My only direct experience with this issue is through a student I currently have in my class. She is an Asian girl who has been adopted and raised by two lesbians. We were having an open class discussion about families and getting along with everyone in our families. The girl said that she really wanted to have a father because she doesn't know what that's like. She talked about how hard it is to be raised only by women, as she only gets that perspective in her life.

I pass that anecdote along without comment and let people decide what it means. I'm still pondering it myself, and it took place more than a month ago.

2007-10-13 15:53:05 · answer #2 · answered by Jude & Cristen H 3 · 2 1

Well to understand this you have to I will have to mention something about Christianity Im afraid but hear me out. This country was founded by active participants of the Christian religion but to give freedoms for anyone to believe nad practice what they want. So though the country isnt to promote Christianity, this religion was the inspiration for many of the principles of the Constitution.

Now as most know, biblical Christianity does not promote homosexuality. So the big deal about civil unions is that it would be the first time in the nations history that an anti-Christian practice would be supported by our government. Yes we can drink Alcohol and that is not Christian but the government doesn't have an Alcoholic of the Month program or anything.

Marriage would be even a more radical change because it already has a definition in biblical Christianity so for the government to officially recognize gay marriage would be to officially disrecognize the biblical definition.

These are the reasons why so many have an issue with civil unions and gay marriage

2007-10-13 15:54:59 · answer #3 · answered by h nitrogen 5 · 2 3

i don't know of a reason that applies to all faiths, but it is amazing how fornicators and adulters are allowed to get married if they so choose, but gays can't, and i know for a fact that all of those laws go aginst all monotheistic faiths, i can't speak for the others, because honestly i don't know much about them.

but i think the gov't should be more focused on education, the economy, and other important issues instead of whether or not someone should be allowed to get married.

i think that if someone had AIDS then they should tell the potential spouse and the spouse agree to stay then they get married if the person doesn't then they don't, but i don't think there should be any laws about it

2007-10-13 16:01:13 · answer #4 · answered by Nadine 5 · 3 1

Well...homosexual acts are a taboo act...so, most guys/girls do it in secret, without using the proper protection, then they go about their lives, not knowing they may have a S.T.D. so then they go and have sex with women/men, since that's socially acceptable, and spread the disease. Now, if gay marriage was legalized, the taboo would (hopefully) disappear, with more people being more at ease about it, and more men and women coming out of the closet, and the threat of S.T.D.'s would probably go down, since they don't have to cover up anymore. Also, I think that ALL marriages are the same sex...because after five years it's ALL the same sex. And gay guys should suffer just like us straight guys. Anyway...I hope this makes sense..and I know it might not be universal...but this is just a little bit of why I think gay marriage should be legalized....hope this helps! ^_^

2007-10-13 15:52:15 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4 2

There is no good reason why gays cannot get married. All religions should strongly encourage homosexual marriage.

Marriage is a spiritual thing because it is a demonstration that two people are prepared to honor, serve and commit their lives to one another. Marriage is a sign of emotional maturity and gratitude. Marriage removes people from the anguish, confusion and pain of having undependable and superficial human and sexual relationships.

All religions recommend marriage for these reasons.

However, some religions, especially Judeo/Christianity oppose homosexuality and quote the Bible as justification. However, the teachings found in the Bible about homosexuality are irrelevant for our times and society.

In the Bible, one will find Moses and St Paul taught against homosexuality but Jesus did not. Why?

Because during the time and culture of Moses and St Paul (in Greece), the practice of homosexuality was a cultural norm, having its roots in militaristic societies. People who were naturally heterosexual were caught up practicing homosexuality. So it was correct and compassionate to discourage heterosexuals from practicing homosexuality.

Moses and St Paul were establishing religions amongst cultures where homosexuality, incest, etc, where widely practiced, which does not engender religious perpetuation. Again, logically and correctly, they taught against homosexuality.

However, Jesus did not teach against homosexuality because his goal was to reform or improve the Jewish religion rather than introduce it. There was no need to teach against homosexuality because the Jewish society was a mainstream society with moral laws established.

Thus for Jesus, homosexuals would have been similar to prostitutes and tax collectors, those for whom should be shown special care and love because they are generally persecuted by mainstream societies, just like Jesus was.

Jesus would have had special empathy for those who were naturally inclined to homosexuality given they were "fringe dwellers".

Jesus would have been like the Buddha, who said, to quote: "There is not one living creature that the Enlightened One, the Radiant One, passes by or leaves aside, but regards them all with mind set free and deep heart felt love".

Therefore, to conclude, marriage for homosexuals is a wonderful thing and a great blessing. I know many homosexuals who have lived together for many years, even decades. They are caring, loving, compassionate and very generous and helpful human beings. Most of all, often their relationships are far better than many heterosexual relationships.

The homosexuals I know in our relatively small community display shining examples of how a relationship should be. Their faithfulness towards eachother is exceptionally strong.

2007-10-13 16:31:01 · answer #6 · answered by element 2 · 3 2

There isn't really a good reason. I believe in time people will learn that gays deserve to marry also. Except maybe Christians and Muslims who oppose homosexuality. But they aren't the government, despite what they think. Same-sex marriages are already legal in several states in the US.

2007-10-13 16:55:04 · answer #7 · answered by Bookworm 6 · 1 2

first marriage is a religious thing so i would call it a civil union second marriage in the legal term is to help a man and a woman start a family with tax breaks and so forth and surprise two men or women cant start there own family so there is no reason to get married in the legal term and adopting is a whole different question hope i made my point clear enough

2007-10-13 16:03:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

Because the United States is backwards.

2007-10-15 21:33:32 · answer #9 · answered by hobozombie 2 · 0 0

Through-out time or history, marriage has been man and women. I see no problem with civil union. AIDS should have no bearing, but must be considered in civil unions that include medical benefits.

2007-10-13 15:50:15 · answer #10 · answered by Premaholic 7 · 7 1

Biblically speaking, a marriage is a union between man and woman which is sanctioned by God.
Civil unions with laws to give a homosexual couple the rights of marriage without the title of marriage is another thing altogether. They should be able to cover each other on their insurance and set up housekeeping as a couple if they choose.
That said, homosexuality is a sin and it is plainly stated as such in the bible, which I believe. I also believe in the scripture that says I am not to judge their sins as mine are just as bad and therefore I cannot hold myself up as having any better standards of life.

2007-10-13 15:49:22 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 5 3

fedest.com, questions and answers