u Is it bigoted to believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman?
A "bigot", according to Merriam-Webster, is "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices."
Does the belief that marriage is only between a man and a woman fit that definition? If so, how and why?
Marriage was done to see seriousness before starting a family. Only opposite-sex couples can have children. For others, it is just their entertainment.
If they want to marry, do it in their own way.
The sect should not be open to everyone. If someone is getting married according to the customs of your sect, then it has to be a male and female couple. Because marriage is culturally made for them only.
If the police or court intervenes, then they should be given a proper answer, this is what I believe.
But the fundamentalists will misuse this, they will torture innocent people.
But whoever wants to do whatever, let them do it, what does it matter to me?
If I had power, I would do whatever i like
My question would be why should it be only between a man and woman?
If marriage is about 2 people who love each other. Why can't two consisting adults who love each other be able to marry?
Why should they not have civil rights just because they don't like the same genitals as you? Seems along the same lines as treating people of color differently and not allowing them to do some of the things you get to do as well. Just because they look different. Should we go back to making people of color eat at different restaurants and drink out of different water fountains? Seems hateful and not loving at all to look down on people who aren't the same as you. Isn't the bible about love? Doesn't sound very Christian to me. And if it is then maybe your God isn't so understanding and loving.
What is the purpose of marriage?
It's not for procreation if that's where you are going lol. You can do that without marriage.
Marriage is to legally bind together 2 people that love each other and want to be with each other till death do they part. That's literally it. That's all. There are certain benefits that come with marriage as far as tax breaks and stuff but overall that's the point of marriage.
It's basically just a legal binding show of love.
What sets marriage apart then?
Then not being married? Literally just legalities.
Being recognized by the state. Like I said there are several financial benefits legally associated with marriage. That's it though.
Love doesn't have to be dependent on the state but the benefits are better if it is.
Doesn't that cheapen it though? It doesn't seem that significant or important if it's just legality and benefits.
What should it be about if it's already about love already? What more should it be about? Love is all that matters.
The love comes before marriage and the marriage just makes it legal.
Love is already there. Marriage makes it legally recognized, what else is left though?
I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at (and also sorry for the delay; busy weekendl.
If love is already in the relationship, then what does marriage add outside of being legally recognized and financial benefits?
That's what I'm asking.
Can you say you and your spouse absolutely love each other more than two people of the same sex? Can you prove that?
So why should you get to be married and not them? It's about love after all isn't it?
Okay thank you.
What I would say to that is I think part of the issue here is simple framing and mindset. Yes, the legal aspect of marriage IS important, but there has to be more to it than that for it to have the title of "marriage". Think about it. What is a family? A small society, right? So get ten of those small societies together, you get a neighborhood, and from ten neighborhoods, a city. From ten cities, a state, province, or nation. And as a result, shared values and culture. That said, there has to be a unique characteristic or requirement of the primary, most immediate unit of that society at large. So that's why procreation is a core, essential element here.
As for your second comment, I don't presume that I love my wife more or less than any other man loves his own. True, love is also important; I didn't marry my wife just to give the government a future tax base via my children (see the above paragraph). If you want go help build a happy and healthy society, then yes, a husband and wife ought to love each other. But the state is not going to say "yeah, you get the feels for each other, so you're married". And they shouldn't either. They do have a legitimate interest in marriage.
Yeah I understand but does everybody have to procreate? Or can some people procreate and others in that same community not procreate? Can some people adopt children that desperately need adopting? Just because a few people are gay and married doesn't mean that then everybody in society has to become gay. Gay people and straight people can coexist in society. And I don't see why both can't get married.
They don't "have to", in the sense that no one is requiring them to get married and have children. There could be a cultural presumption that they will, but a presumption is not a requirement. Those who do though have more of a stake in society. They're more invested because they are producing the members of society, both physically and in terms of moral and cultural formation. That's why the institution which effects this has the specific recognition as marriage.
As for coexistence? I've not said they can't.
What about people who get married and don't have kids? Straight people who get married and have no kids? Should they have to procreate to get married? Should people who procreate and not get married be forced to get married? That's why marriage isn't specifically about procreation. It's about love. When people say "this person shouldn't have the right to do this or to that" it literally comes down to, they view that person or persons as being beneath them. They don't think that person is equal to them. It's civil rights. If people don't think others should have civil rights, well that's no different than believing women shouldn't vote, black people shouldn't eat in the same restaurant as you, or an interracial couple shouldn't be married because they are "different". Gay people are equal to straight people. They just love differently is all, should they have their civil and human rights stripped because of who they love?
To the first few items, I'd say the following.
1) "What about people who get married and don't have kids? Straight people who get married and have no kids?" Acting in contradiction to, or at least not in accordance with a thing does not change the nature of the thing itself. Whether it's infertility or conscious choice, it doesn't change what marriage is ordered towards.
2) "Should people who procreate and not get married be forced to get married?" That's where I'd say wait until getting married to have sex. And before you do, take a serious inventory of yourself and evaluate who you are, what you want in life, what you want and need from a marriage partner, and who best fits that bill.
3) "Should they have to procreate to get married?" If what I'm hearing these days about the demographic challenges we're facing is true, I could see civic and political leaders having to have serious discussions about how to address them.
CONTINUED IN THE NEXT COMMENT
As for the remainder? It doesn't necessarily follow that opposition to same-sex marriage is because of looking down on gays and lesbians or anything like that. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's a false dichotomy; "You either support and accept same-sex marriage or you're a hateful bigot who thinks you're superior" is not a sound argument or conclusion. We just look at what marriage is and say that same-sex attraction (likewise same-sex sex acts) does not fulfill the requirements to be considered marriage. That's not looking down on them or hating them.
I mean, one can oppose gay marriage (as I do), but still also believe (again, as I do) that gays and lesbians should not be targeted for bullying and hatred (which the Catechism of the Catholic Church also says). I've worked with and for gay men before and got along with them just fine. One of them in fact, he and I had often planned to meet off the clock for dinner or coffee.
From a Catholic perspective, I think the best and most powerful explanation of Catholic beliefs on the matter at hand is then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's (later Pope Benedict XVI) 1986 declaration entitled "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons", which I'd highly encourage anyone to read. I'll link it here if you're interested...
www.vatican.va/.../...1_homosexual-persons_en.html
So in light of what I've said, can you explain how I am a bigot for believing that true marriage can only be between a man and a woman?
You think the government should start making decisions about birth? Yikes that sounds like fascism. Forcing things on the public.
Same sex attraction doesn't fulfill the requirements to be considered marriage? Why? Because you personally don't like the idea? You don't make the rules. Your true reasoning would basically boil down to, you don't like same sex attraction. You don't think they should have the same rights. Isn't being able to get married a right? You don't want a minority to have the same rights as you. No way to spin that. You're beating around the bush instead of just admitting: some people shouldn't have the same rights in society as others. Which is stating they aren't equal to you because they're different. Not looking at people as equal based on differences is the definition of bigotry.
You're just beating around the bush but basically just saying they shouldn't because they are different then you.
I'm part of the lgbtq community and I shouldn't be restricted on what I can do based on who I love. Why would you get more opportunities and rights than me? When I work just as hard as you and contribute just as much to society as you do if not more? Can you tell me that? Why should I suffer and do without certain opportunities and rights? Seems kinda messed up.
What I said was that I could see them having to have discussions. And what I said is what I meant.
See, this is the problem with discussions like this. People jump to the worst conclusions about what others say and think. You think I'm beating around the bush. I could just as easily say that you're being incredulous, and that you're projecting what you think I think onto me. I don't expect you to change your mind or anything. And yes, I've seen your posts. I know you're LGBT and I don't think you're a bad person, that I'm better than you, or whatever.
Having said all that, would I be wasting my time continuing this conversation?
I mean, possibly, yeah it seems like you would be wasting your time. Most people's minds are made up anyway, especially if it ties into their religion. There's no way they're seeing anything else other than that.
I still really didn't get a definitive answer on why gay people shouldn't be able to legally get married though. With adoption being a thing that gay couples do, it kind of removes the procreation argument and having more in stake with society because they can have children as well. I just never got a true answer I guess that can't be solved or debunked yet. So maybe we both need to move on at this point. No harm no foul.
In modern times, yes, though I think "behind the times" is a better term for it than bigoted.
Is "behind the times a bad thing?
Holy matrimony is a practice that ties its roots to religion.
Pagan religions at first and monotheistic ones later.
Today we also have civil marriage which is a cut and dry document drawn up by a lawyer, not deity involved
So it is bigoted to assume civil marriage should be between men and women.
It isn’t, however, bigoted or homophobic to maintain religious marriages conform with the tenets of the associated religions
Most of which consider homosexuality a mortal sin
Opinion
18Opinion
no. because marriage has traiditionally always been the marriage of 2 opposite but complementary things. like when we put a motor in a car body, we call that marriage. same in most parts of engineering. it's when you add completely different functional groups together to complete a thing. and thus i think from that usage of the word, it's stupid to add 2 exact same things together and call that marriage.
like i'm not at all opposed to gay people being able to live a life together and have that contractually solidified somewhat similar to a marriage. but i disagree with calling that marriage. i think we should have a different word for that cause it's different and not the same.
By definition, you can't marry two things that are functionally the same. Great argument. It's the best I've heard in favor of that perspective.
@Christian_Cartier well another one would be that the societal function of the institution of marriage was to facilitate ideal family building conditions with the prospect of supplying society with valuable offspring. none of that is gonna happen in gay marriages.
it's like if you're not gonna have children, why should you get the financial benefit of a family? you're not providing what was expected with that institution.
I suppose it is, but seems right to me. should honor something that is unique union that makes offspring.
the others can have their own name for their union. but there is no way they will reproduce without artificial means. Sadly, they are too selfish to recognize this reality.
That was Clintons view and I agree.
but it's water under the bridge when obama bowed to this group.
I'm Catholic and that's how it goes to me. Idc what others say, idc what the state says either.
Me as well. Which diocese?
Based on the dictionary definition, yes - but it's equally bigoted to insist that it can be between anyone and their favourite tree.
Dictionary definitions don't help "progressive" fucktards who wants to celebrate mental illness. I'm sure it won't be long before the definitions are "updated" to include "modern" and "archaic" meanings 🙄🤦
Definitely bigoted to still be on the “only cis man cis woman” train in the 2020s, we decided gay folx were people back in the 90s so rolling it back is pretty cringe at this point.
How and why?
You’re limiting the choices of others to fit your own moral norms/desires. It’s colonial since we have had gay marriages since pre colonization in North America.
It would be like me saying Christian men can’t buy cars because it’s against my religion. It’s simply not your decision to make just as that wouldn’t be mine, no matter how strongly I felt about it.
Who says it's about my preferences and norms?
How are you defining marriage?
The only practical definition is that it's a legal contract. In that case your belief is incorrect in many countries.
If you consider marriage as a religious whatever, then it is whatever you say it is.
Not really. It's just the definition of a word. There can be a concept of any other combination of people making some kind of lifelong commitment to one another. Having a word that describes one man and one woman making such a commitment doesn't prevent that.
Nah, not really.. By definition it's not bigoted at all.. Of course, anything somebody doesn't like it liable to be called some terrible ad hominem to vilify it..
Not bigoted but perhaps literally a bit ignorant.
"The heart wants what it wants", and that person might not be the gender that others expect it to be. No harm is done.
What makes it ignorant?
No. It's God's design, and isn't my opinion or prejudice.
No. But definitely homophobic by the terms of what is defined as homophobic.
Personally I don't think you are married unless it's in the house of the lord.
What do you care? Just because you are on a diet doesn't mean that they can't have a donut!
I don't know. But whatever it is, it is not a bad thing
No. It's not an opinion. It is written in the bible.
Which is an opinion technically. Written by men.
@mandyfire98 Do you mean "men" held the pen and wrote the scrolls? Either way, it doesn't fit the definition.
It's still an opinion. If I said to you "there is a flying spaghetti monster" and I wrote that into a book. It's my opinion that there is a flying spaghetti monster.
You said it's not an opinion. Most everything in the Bible is an opinion of the men who wrote the bible. As in, marriage should only be between a man and woman. That's absolutely an opinion, written by a man.
@mandyfire98 Ok, it sounds like you want to debate the bible. It's your prerogative to be devoted to your own opinion and prejudice about the bible and sadly it sounds like you've never opened one.
I already stated my answer to @BCRanger10 's queston.
I'm very educated on the bible. I was raised in the church. I'm just saying that anything written by a person or spoken by a person is technically their opinion. A believer's faith is their opinion, so is a non believer's. And it's ok to have your opinion. Nothing wrong with having an opinion.
"Anything written by or spoken by a person is technically their opinion." Is that a fact? 😂
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
I mean it would be unfactual, marriage is legal between same sex couples too, I might be a preference that it is between a man and woman but to not believe it would be denying facts, there are thousands of marriages between same sex couples
Marriage is a religious sacrament and religions have the right to define it however they want to.
Nah, its just thousands of years of human tradition
What do you mean “believe?” That’s how it SHOULD be, or same sex marriage is just a myth?
No, but it is culture centered
not inherently no
Nope
It's not.
Kinda.
No..
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
