Your question was out of place on the forum then. Not being funny, but you asked a question about a sin on a Christian forum, then ask us to subtract God from our decision on whether it's right or not:
"Do you agree or disagree with me and please state why the courts are wrong if you believe they are- by the way I will call you wrong if you do." You didn't say that we should only take the Constitution into account when we replied. If we're allowed to take other things into consideration (such as God *gasp*), how is my reply incorrect? Tell me, what's the point of this topic again? If the Law doesn't stand with that which is morally right, what's the point of the Law? Now, I don't care about anyone's opinion but God. God says homosexuality is immoral, therefore so is gay marriage. If a law supports that immoral act, it doesn't make it a moral act, it's still wrong. Therefore, in the eyes of God, this Law is immoral, wrong, a sin. Whose opinion counts? Are you one of these people that actually believe that homosexual marriage doesn't harm anyone?
How does a murder in another state between two people living in a trailer park in the middle of nowhere, among people whom we have never known and who don't know anyone we know, affect us personally? It doesn't, but because it has no effect on us personally this doesn't mean that we should ignore the moral issues associated with murder and not condemn such actions. Murder is morally wrong, and when any moral law is broken we are all ultimately affected and we know that if such actions were to increase, society would be affected...no matter where you are.
Am I comparing homosexual marriage to murder and saying they are related or somehow equal? Not at all. I'm momentarily shifting the focus to something that we all agree is morally wrong in order to demonstrate that even though there can be an action somewhere that doesn't specifically affect us (i.e., murder), we should rightfully condemn it because it is wrong. It is a moral concern. Likewise, homosexual marriage is a moral issue and we must be concerned with its moral implications -- whether or not we are personally affected at the moment.
However, someone might say that homosexual marriage is not a moral issue, but is instead a civil rights issue. Though some pro-homosexual marriage proponents wave the flag of "civil rights" in support of their cause, which I believe is inappropriate, homosexual marriage is wrought with moral issues: faithfulness, promise, love, support, commitment, sex, etc. Besides, civil rights are based on moral rights. It is morally wrong to prevent someone from holding a job, eating at a restaurant, or using public bathrooms based on skin color. Likewise, the union of two people in a public ceremony where emotional, sexual, and faithful commitment to each other is recognized by the rest of society is also moral. If you disagree, then it is up to you to demonstrate that such public commitment is somehow a non-moral issue.
When we look at the question again, we can see an implied moral standard; namely, that morality is determined by how people are personally affected. But something is not right or wrong merely because of the effect an action might have on someone. Something is right or wrong because there is an inherent nature to moral truths. For example, it is wrong to murder. It is wrong to torture babies for your personal pleasure. It is wrong to divide society based on skin color. It is wrong to promise fidelity, commitment, and love to your marriage "partner" and then break that promise. It is wrong to hate someone without a cause. It is wrong to desire the death of someone just because you don't like his skin color. If morality were determined by how a person is affected, then all of morality would be based on effects, circumstances, and personal likes -- but only when they are acted on, not when they are felt. But this is problematic because if I believe that homosexual marriage is morally wrong, am I morally wrong for simply believing it? Am I morally right? Or is there no moral value to the belief? If you say there is no moral value to a mere belief, then hating someone based on skin color or "sexual orientation" isn't wrong, is it? See how morality based "only" on how someone is affected is wrought with problems? It ignores the underlying motives and says that evil motives aren't wrong until they are acted upon.
If you deny that there are intrinsic moral truths, then there is nothing wrong with hatred, anger, lust, coveting, prejudice, etc., as long as they aren't manifested. Again, if there are no intrinsic moral truths, then please find an exception to the statement that it is always wrong to torture babies merely for your person pleasure. If you can't, then aren't you admitting there are moral absolutes -- to which we must ultimately answer since it implies a moral Truth Giver? But, I digress.
Homosexual marriage is really about two things: love and sex. Sure, homosexuals profess love for one another. But, they also have sex with each other and it is the latter issue that, in my opinion, is the driving force behind their marriage redefinition. Think about it: homoSEXuality. Yeah, I know, its just a word. However, it leads us to the practical concerns as they are related to sex, the very thing that the homosexual community has brought out of the closet/bedroom into the public eye.
If a single homosexual couple is married on the other side of the world, it has no effect on me -- but that doesn't mean it isn't a moral issue. However, if a homosexual couple is legally married in the country in which I live, I am affected. First of all, writing this article is the result of the question raised by pro-homosexual marriage supporters. I was affected, and I'm writing this as the result. Second, the redefinition of marriage away from the public promissory bond of a man and woman affects society as a whole, since society is based on the family unit in which marriage is the legal contract of fidelity and commitment through which children are brought into the world. Third, by redefining marriage away from a man and a woman, where normal physical sexual intercourse can occur, the absolutes of male female marriage relationships are broken down and sexual permissiveness is encouraged. This opens the door to further redefinitions of familial and sexual relationships. Take, for example, the 2011 symposium "Living in Truth and Dignity" in Baltimore, Maryland on August 17. In it, pedophilia was redefined as "minor attracted persons," and the symposium sought to raise concerns about how the DSM1considers it a mental disorder.
At the symposium, one of the lectures was titled "Decriminalizing Mental Disorder Concepts - Pedophilia as an Example." It was presented by John Z. Sadler, M.D., Prof. of medical ethics and psychiatry, UT Southwestern Medical Ctr., Dallas, TX.2
Is this a precursor of more sexual "reconsiderations" in a changing world where sexual permissiveness in the form of homosexual behavior now seeks acceptability by redefining marriage so it can hide within its sacred halls and gain acceptability? We have to ask if such a symposium would have gained traction if the fidelity of traditional marriage had remained intact, and along with it the sanctity of sexuality that marriage provides. I can't see how. With the redefining of sexual roles and marriage partners, the dike that holds back the immoral deluge is cracking.
When the door to marriage redefinition is opened, a host of sexual moral obscenities can slip in. When and how do we close the door again? After pedophilia is accepted by society? What about polygamy, polyandry, and polyamory? Without a definite statement that marriage is between a man and a woman, and with it the natural biologically designed sexual union that is guarded within marriage, then anything goes -- pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, gender identity, and more. Philosophically, this can have profound moral ramifications for society, and when morals change society changes and everyone within it is affected.
As history too often demonstrates, when a society's morality frays the wicked prosper and they soon turn their attention to the morally conservative and persecute them. This is already occurring here in America where people who dare express contrary opinions to the politically correct view of homosexual marriage are fired from jobs, ridiculed, and/or called bigots. This causes others, myself included, to be wary about saying anything, lest the brown-shirts3 of the homosexual agenda turn us in and we be punished for simply believing that homosexual marriage is wrong. Think it won't happen? It already is! Harm is a relative term. What might be considered harmful to one person might not to another. There are different kinds of harm: physical, emotional, spiritual, financial, etc. Therefore, harm is a personal thing that is experienced and is a bit subjective. So, when we ask how gay marriage harms anyone, we have to look at more than just one aspect.
Marriage has been universally acknowledged throughout history as a legal contract between a man and a woman in which there is emotional and sexual fidelity, along with childrearing. But homosexual marriage would change this. Since marriage is also a moral issue, redefining marriage is redefining morals. Furthermore, marriage is an extremely wide-spread practice within any society and has many legal and moral issues attached to it. So, when marriage is redefined, the society is dramatically affected. Legalizing gay marriage means changing the laws of the land. The ramifications are vast and we are seeing the effects of homosexual legal "rights" affecting housing, education, the work place, medicine, the armed forces, adoption, religion, etc. Are all the changes good? That is hotly debated. But we have to ask, is it morally right to force all of society to adopt the morals of a minority? (See Statistics on the percentage of the population that are homosexual and lesbian)
So, how would gay marriage harm anyone? First, let's define harm. Harm is damage to a person physically, emotionally, mentally, spiritually, financially, morally, etc. The definition is obviously broad and subjective, and this is problematic. People experience harm in different ways.
Here is a list of ways in which gay marriage can bring harm.
- It can bring huge financial and emotional stress.
- Homosexuals can sue people who are exercising their religious beliefs. For example, a heterosexual married couple with children who do not want to rent a room in their own family household to homosexuals could be sued for discrimination based on "sexual orientation." This can incur significant financial and emotional stress upon the family, not to mention the "prior restraint" effect of the fear of being sued which results in a family not renting out a room.
- The health risks are enormous to themselves and others.
- The fact is that homosexuals do not live as long as heterosexuals due to the health risks associated with the lifestyle, and billions of dollars are spent annually in health care for them. See Statistics on HIV/AIDS and health related issues
- But the HIV/AIDS epidemic is not only in the homosexual community. It has crossed over to the heterosexual community.
- Whether or not you want to say that HIV/AIDS is a homosexual disease, the fact is that it is highly prevalent among the gay and lesbian community due to their great number of sex partners. The collateral damage to the rest of society, as far as health risks, cannot be denied.
- Gay Marriage means having the morals of the minority forced upon the majority.
- This can also be said in the reverse. Either way, there is a problem. Normally, morals should not be forced on anyone, though there are exceptions. We force morals on others by preventing them from stealing, raping, murdering, etc. So, it is not automatically wrong to force morals on someone. But the issue then becomes what is morally right and wrong in the first place, and altering morals in a society definitely causes stress.
- The percentage of homosexuals in society is less than 5%, yet it is being forced upon the other 95% of society in movies, TV, literature, and political periods. See Statistics on the percentage of the population that are homosexual and lesbian.
- Gay Marriage means a redefinition of sexual morality, and with it other sexually related practices will be affected and this can be harmful.
- See the article Collateral damage effect as a result the change in sexual morals for a discussion on the increase in pedophilia, pornography, child pornography, prostitution, and sex trafficking that are occurring in the world. These increases are not due to an increase in conservative sexual morals, but a reduction of conservative sexual morals.
- Gay Marriage reduces the number of children born in society and we need a stable population base to operate properly. Therefore, society can be harmed.
- Gay Marriage affects people spiritually.
- Don't assume that people's spiritual beliefs are irrelevant. People consider spiritual issues to be extremely important, and the stress imposed on religious people by forcing them to "accept" and/or support homosexual practice and/or intimidate them into silence harms a person's spiritual and emotional health.
- It forces government to get involved in changing laws which automatically affect everyone in society.
- Homosexuality is being force fed to our youth via the education system.
- Civil unions are being recognized by employers which effect co-workers, money payouts, work time, etc.
- It exposes adopted children within potential homosexual unions to ridicule from others.