Social Question

KateTheGreat's avatar

Why do so many people think same sex marriage is wrong?

Asked by KateTheGreat (13595 points ) April 30th, 2011

Please explain it. I don’t understand why so many people are completely opposed to it.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

85 Answers

HungryGuy's avatar

I can’t explain it either. IMO, whatever two (or more) people do together that’s peaceful and consensual is nobody’s business but theirs.

ragingloli's avatar

Mostly religious dogma.

KateTheGreat's avatar

@HungryGuy I completely agree. Where I live, I am surrounded by homophobes and it’s just sad to me.

HungryGuy's avatar

Yeah, @ragingloli has the reason. The Bible says that homosexuality is bad. So religious extremists who want to be blind slaves to God (and who don’t care about what’s really right and wrong) condemn all sorts of things that people do in private that are none of their business.

Joker94's avatar

Religion.

creative1's avatar

Its sad to say people were raised with beliefs of certain prejudices and same sex marriage or relationship exceptance is one of those that were frowned upon. All we can do is change how we raise our children and teach them to be more open and accepting of the differences of others as well as striving to be open and accepting as well. I think the world had changed alot over the years and things are improving on the line of certain prejudices but it can only be us who change it.

KateTheGreat's avatar

If it’s not any trouble, can someone point out where in the bible is says that homosexuality is bad? I’ve read the bible before and I’ve never seen that in there.

Michael_Huntington's avatar

@KatetheGreat
Leviticus 18:22
‘Do not have sex with a man as you would with a woman. It is an abomination.’

KateTheGreat's avatar

@Michael_Huntington Thanks! But giving that it is the old testament, wouldn’t that statement not be taken at face value anymore?

ucme's avatar

I don’t waste time & energy on those particular tossers…..folks. Not worth a pot to piss in.

Michael_Huntington's avatar

@KatetheGreat Hell if I know. Some people just want to justify their hate.

downtide's avatar

I think it’s mainly due to religion.

cbloom8's avatar

It’s some combination of fear, ignorance, and a lack of understanding. Some people don’t understand why homosexuals are the way they are, and they won’t accept something they don’t understand. They don’t understand and don’t ‘get’ why someone would be like that, so they figure it has to be wrong and that there is something wrong with that person and that ‘wrong’ behavior should not be allowed. The thought process of someone who’s against gay marriage is basically

1) I don’t understand why anyone would be like that. It doesn’t make any sense and goes completely against how I think and feel.
2) Because it’s so radically against my personal system, and I believe there is nothing wrong with me and I am normal, then they must be different and something must be wrong with them.
3) Because it’s wrong, they shouldn’t be allowed to do it.

HungryGuy's avatar

Religious people believe that when they die, they’re going to go to Heaven and be immortal in a perfect utopia paradise, but only if they obey the rules ABSOLUTELY while here on Earth. So there’s a lot at stake to be totally obedient. Now, a lot of Christians say that the New Testament set aside all the rules of the Old (like animal sacrifices and whatnot), but when your immortality is at stake, one doesn’t want to take any chances.

(I’m not justifying it, just explaining it.)

AstroChuck's avatar

It’s just bigotry, pure and simple.

Religious fundamentalists love to quote Leviticus and use that as their excuse for their anti-gay prejudice. Yet they tend to ignore the other laws and “abominations” found in that same biblical book. As an example:

“For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him.” (Leviticus 20:9)

“If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people.” (Leviticus 20:18)

“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.” (Leviticus 25:44–45)

“Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.” (Leviticus 19:27)

”...and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you.” (Leviticus 11:7)

”...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material.” (Leviticus 19:19)

How many practice all these? Fundamentalists tend to say that these “laws of Moses” were superseded when Christ gave his sermon on the mount. However, they still love to quote this:

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22)

Apparently Jesus felt that rule should be untouched. Although it’s funny that Christ never mentions homosexuality in the Bible even once, seeing just how much of an abomination it is.

Buttonstc's avatar

@Kate

I think you’ll get the most thorough overview of the eight verses in both the New Testament as well as the old which provide the fuel for the anti-gay prejudice (explained by gay-positive Christians) if you follow some of the Google links from the phrase “clobber passages”.

This is the term which gay Christians use to refer to the Bible verses which others try to clobber them over the head with to convince them how wrong they are, hence the clobber passages. And, yes, there are plenty of Christians who are also gay. It’s not an oxymoron :) tho some seem to think so.

But the other factor which adds a bit of complexity to the entire issue is the involvement of government where it really doesn’t belong. I’m referring to the fact that there are NUMEROUS financial and legal advantages granted by the government toward those who are officially married (regardless of whether any religious service is even involved. It can be done in a courthouse or office as long as the paperwork is proper.)

If civil domestic partnerships (for Hetero or homo couples) were granted the EXACT SAME FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS as that which marriages currently have it would go a long way toward alleviating the entire issue from both points of view.

But that’s not currently a uniform policy applicable across all states. As long as this inequality exists, gay folks are going to continue (rightfully so) to campaign for full and absolute equality of rights (legal and financial) as any other citizen.

Some religious groups perceive this as an attack upon the traditional institution of marriage and ignore the inequality created by the govts own policies. Marriage has been so bound up with the church for centuries, it’s difficult for them to separate it from that.

If the government could provide the means to grant full equivalency for domestic partnerships for anyone, I’m fairly sure that many atheists or agnostics would also appreciate the separation of the secular from the religious. To me it seems the most practical and rational approach. But that’s just my personal take on it.

Mikewlf337's avatar

because of how some religions view it. I am a Christian and I there is no way I can deny that religion has caused the most opposition to same sex marriage. I really don’t get it. The Bible says same sex marriage is a sin and I am not arguing that. What I am arguing is why is it looked upon as a worse than some of the sins.

cloudvertigo's avatar

Personally, I think it’s great. I can only speculate otherwise. Maybe, they’re mad about the nationalist side of things; tax breaks for married couples are an incentive to have kids and, at a glance, gay couples might just be “milking it”—to say nothing of sterile matches and heterosexual couples that choose not to have children. Otherwise, maybe it’s a question of value—that is, they value their spouse and their loves so much (while believing so strongly in their own heterosexuality) that they are unable to comprehend the passion that a man and a man or the deep affection of two women.

It baffles me too. . . especially because this is America . . .the land where the pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness are the common goals.

Buttonstc's avatar

@Mike

Actually the Bible itself has zero to say about “gay marriage”, per se, since that was a nonexistent concept in the time period in which it was written. You won’t find one single verse in the entire Bible which specifically speaks about gay marriage as a sin. You have plenty of guys in pulpits telling you that’s what the Bible says. But that’s different from what the Bible actually says.

Those eight verses I mentioned earlier (clobber passages) is the sum total of what the entire Bible has to say on the subject. Read them for yourself and then the next time someone tries to tell you what they presume the Bible says, you’ll know what it actually does say. And some thoughtful gay Christians have also provided some thoughtful analyses of these verses in their total context.

The most it does is to speak against homosexual ACTS since the concept of homosexual orientation didn’t really exist then either.

The biggest problems with these passages (especially the NT ones) which are so condemning is that they are describing an entirely different set of homosexual practices, most of which were peculiar to that time period and have nothing to do with gay couples today.

Is there really any modern equivalent to the pagan practices of temple slave prostitution? Obviously not.

To try to apply verses condemning these types of frequently non-consensual Pagan practices to gay couples in a committed monogamous partnership, adopting or raising kids, is ludicrous and thoughtful Christians have come to the same conclusion.

Also remember that Paganism and all of it’s assorted practices (not JUST the homosexual ones) was viewed as an enormous threat to bot Judaism and fledgling Christianity IN THAT TIME PERIOD and a lot is written about avoiding it’s influence (meats offered to idols, etc.).

Nowadays it’s barely a blip on the radar. Vastly different from then.

And then you have idiots like Fred Phelps and Westboro Church who just delight in spewing hatred and using any verse they can grab to spew their hatred.

incendiary_dan's avatar

All viewpoints stem from premises assumed to be true about the world. People opposed to homosexuality and homosexual marriage are those that are operating based on the premise that heterosexuality is the only natural form, and/or that hetero marriage is the only thing that has existed historically, and/or that marriage exists for the purpose of reproduction rather than as social contracts between people.

JLeslie's avatar

Religion mostly, as people said above. Or, people influenced by the BS explanation that the word marriage should be reserved for only a marriage between a man and a woman, and just are ignorant to why that is so completely unfair, and ridiculous. They don’t get that civil marriage is separate from religious marriage, oops, there we go again back to religion, because in America we do them both at the same time and let the clergy officate it.

dxs's avatar

As most said, religion. I also think that it’s the fact that they cannot pass down their generation without having to adopt a child, let alone continue the family genes. I am okay with homosexuals, but not if there are too many of them.

incendiary_dan's avatar

@dxs Why does the number of them matter?

dxs's avatar

@incendiary_dan Well as I said, it seems that if all people were homosexual, then our race would end because it scientifically takes a man and a woman to produce offspring, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. That’s all I was saying.

ragingloli's avatar

lesbians can use artificial insemination, and the males can rent a womb.

dxs's avatar

@ragingloli I know; Hypothetically, steps would also be taken, though It would be harder.

nailpolishfanatic's avatar

I think its because of some religions and stuff.
Also people always judge a book by its cover.
I also think that its because those people hating and thinking that sex of the same sex is wrong are just closed minded… (is that even right?... closed minded? the opposite to open minded) – You get my point.

Mikewlf337's avatar

Wether it is wrong or not is not the concern of those who are not involved in it. Consensual sex between two people is of no concern to anyone uninvolved. Do I think those who think that homosexual sex is close minded? No, I do not. I just think they should mind their own business. Some Christians think that they will go to hell for it. I always tell them to judge not lest thee be judged yourselves. Oh they hate it when you tell them that and it makes me smile. When someone asks me if I believe that gays are going to hell. I tell them that it is not my decision. I’m not God and only God can make that decision.

HungryGuy's avatar

Let me play “Devil’s Advocate” for a second…

Suppose I’m using hard drugs in my home in private and am not driving or using dangerous machinery nor am responsible for anyone else’s safety in any way. It’s consensual, so should doing drugs be my own business and my right?

Ditto pornography…

ragingloli's avatar

@HungryGuy
Well, yes, of course.

bkcunningham's avatar

@HungryGuy to make the Devil’s Advocate case for this question, shouldn’t you ask, “It’s consensual, so should doing drugs be my own business and my legal right? Ditto pornography…”?

iamthemob's avatar

@bkcunningham – shouldn’t you first demonstrate how same sex marriage is similar to doing drugs or pornography.

The problem with discussing SS marriage in the context of it being about consenting adults is that, in essence, you’re not talking about marriage, but rather mostly the sexual behavior involved.

We’ve only recently, within the last seven years, legalized consensual adult sexual behavior. Prior to that, various forms of consensual sex could be criminalized. That is really what is arguably comparable to doing drugs and pornography.

Marriage (or a union) on the other hand is about public recognition on the state level that provides benefits and responsibilities if agreed to. It is more akin to whether x type of people should be able to become U.S. citizens, or if certain types of people should be able to enter into a contract.

bkcunningham's avatar

I wasn’t the promoter of the faith, @iamthemob. I was just the tweaker of @HungryGuy‘s question for discussion. But, good points. EDIT: also, the original question is about “marriage.”

El_Cadejo's avatar

Because they’re ignorant close minded fucks.

derekfnord's avatar

Although religion is the surface reason in most cases, frankly I think that’s just the excuse they’re using. Because people are usually perfectly fine ignoring anything their religion says that inconveniences themselves, and rationalizing why it shouldn’t apply anymore, or at least, shouldn’t apply to them. But as long as it’s someone else that’s being affected by it, they’re happy to self-righteously insist that their religion’s teachings are the One True Way of the world.

adr's avatar

the concept of marriage comes from religion, according to which marriage should be between a man and a woman.

some people get really stuck on that

iamthemob's avatar

@bkcunningham – I did consider directing it at @HungryGuy – I just figured I would to you as an “edit to the edit.” ;-)

Many who are against marriage (not most, though) consider any recognition a bad thing. Those who consider the marriage “wrong” will generally think the same about any public recognition (including a union). It’s different from those who just don’t agree with allowing SS couples to marry.

HungryGuy's avatar

I think a possible solution to the issue would be if the government merely recognized any voluntary contract between any two or more people, while marriage per-se would strictly be a religious function between a church and its members.

So a couple (any couple) would notarize a contract for legal purposes. Then find a church willing to perform the ritual, and the government has nothing to say about it.

gondwanalon's avatar

“Marriage is an act or ceremony, or procedure by which a man and a woman are legally united for the purpose of living together” (The American Dictionary). It is cool with me that gay people live together, just call it something else other than “marriage”. It is not cool to change the meaning of words.

ragingloli's avatar

@gondwanalon
The meaning of words changes all the time.
Gay once meant happy, for example.

incendiary_dan's avatar

@adr The origins of marriage far predate any of the monotheistic religions we’re talking about here. It’s a social contract, not a religious one. I think the problem is that most religious folks are suffering from that same faulty history.

@gondwanalon From everything we can tell, marriage in paleolithic societies probably included heterosexual and homosexual unions. Many existing cultures still recognize same sex marriages. There’s a lot of things in dictionaries that are so steeped in conservative cultural bias as to make definitions as a whole highly suspect.

gondwanalon's avatar

@ragingloli and @incendiary_dan
Pardon my conservative heterosexist blinders. But who am I? Of course I am a product of the old days when words had exact consistent meanings.

“Marriage” (relationship between husband and wife) is just a word, and today the legal significance of the word, as housing or describing the place of legal sexual expression, shared property, and, most importantly, core obligations for the care of children is much reduced from what it once was.

Marriage nowadays conveys a vision of discontinuity because the bright line that once existed between marriage and non-marriage had grown fuzzy and indistinct. In many ways marriage today is just a word for a particular contractual relationship. And marriage is a word that today, as in the past, matters politically, legally, culturally, and for individuals as they construct meaning in their lives.

“Gay-marriage” is also an effort to make the general population accept it as normal. But “normal” means conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural. Since there are only about 1% of the US population that are gay it looks like the definition of “normal” will also have to change now.

incendiary_dan's avatar

@gondwanalon You’re a product of the “old days”? What’s more old than since the frickin’ dawn of our species? Words had “exact, consistent meanings”? Like how monotheisms changed the context of marriage? Your argument kind of fails.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@gondwanalon If you really want to go back to the old days, then marriage would be an arrangement in which one man sells his daughter to another man for mutual benefit. Or an arrangement by which two people commit themselves to one another for the purposes of bilateral domestic service in a private ceremony with no governmental or religious oversight. Or an arrangement by which the leader of a group of people distributes women among the men, typically retaining two or three for himself. Or an arrangement in which a set of brothers all attach themselves to a single woman so as to not divide up a family estate. Or…

Moreover, dictionaries are not good sources for deciding disputes like these. I have one that defines marriage differently than yours, but how are we to tell which is more authoritative? The word “marriage” has applied to many things throughout time and has a broad meaning that could apply to much more than the simple “one man, one woman” picture that some insist upon—a picture that represents a rather small percentage of all the marriages that have occurred in history.

JLeslie's avatar

In my Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup the peanut butter and chocolate are married.

Brian1946's avatar

@JLeslie

Do you see that as being a heterogeneous or a homogeneous marriage?

JLeslie's avatar

Hetero. Not only hetero; but also, inter-racial.

That word marriage is used in many contexts, I am so tired of the “definition” argument. Even if it only meant a man and a woman back 500 years ago, who gives a fuck. Words change all of the time. I say again civil marriage. A contract of marriage. It is a legal document, that’s it.

gondwanalon's avatar

@ncendiary_dan Relax, take a deep breath. Now let it all out. I wonder what you are trying t say to me and or what meaning do you give to your words? Are you using English?

Don’t take me too seriously. Why someone has got to try to state the other side of an issue or it gets too boring.

@SavoirFaire I just think that I was born on generation too late. You make some good points. Marriage has been pretty weird in the past and I don’t condone any of the terrible things that you stated. I’m not a history expert. In fact I’m not an expert on anything except what I do professionally. I guess that I better start buying a new dictionary every year to try to keep up with all the rapid changes.

I’m just one small echo in the peanut gallery

incendiary_dan's avatar

@gondwanalon What makes you think I’m not relaxed? I think thou dost protest too much.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@gondwanalon The thing is, my dictionary is extremely old. It’s the new ones that are political.

bkcunningham's avatar

Hungry Guy, excellent response. I wish I could give you an extra “Great Answer.”

gondwanalon's avatar

@SavoirFaire Well excuse my Funk & Wagnalls!

gabbypotterrr's avatar

Because they have rocks for brains :)

seperate_reality's avatar

I think it simply goes against the rules of the game on the physical playing field, that we each agreed to long, long, ago and forgot. Man and Woman get married and have kids (family” to help keep the human species going. (survival) Gay marriage has no survival value per the rules of the physical world game and most individuals instinctively know this.

JLeslie's avatar

@seperate_reality I would duck if I were you.

seperate_reality's avatar

JLeslie, I doubt there is need for that, because I am entitled to my own opinion like any other member on here. I also happen to know, that what I stated is very true or I would not have even bothered to answer. On a side note, kinda, I’m also somewhat surprised to find a few choice spiritual hints to truth in the Bible for some odd reason.

Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. (mass amnesia)

JLeslie's avatar

@seperate_reality Of course you are entitled to your opinion. I hope you are fertile, otherwise why allow you to marry the person you love? No survival of your line going to happen.

seperate_reality's avatar

JLeslie, “it’s all in the game”.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@seperate_reality Marriage is completely unnecessary for procreation or survival, and heterosexuality is completely unnecessary to raise children or have a family. Your argument makes no sense.

incendiary_dan's avatar

Not to mention that basically all cultures up until a few recently have probably had fairly effective means of birth control available to women, and historically we see them using those methods to decided whether or not and when to have children. Kind of makes the child-producing argument on shaky ground.

That and the fact that numerous cultures have allowed same-sex marriages.

iamthemob's avatar

@seperate_reality

Monogamy, as marriage implies monogamy, is also counter-intuitive from the standpoint of men. Men have the best chance of maintaining a dominant position in the gene pool by reproducing with as many women as possible, as there is no need for them to have a nine-month downtime between children. There is a point where it stops being productive, and ends up being problematic for the species by reducing the diversity in the gene pool, but that point is clearly beyond the point of monogamy. Further, there is no benefit for an older man, who has proven reproductive as well as survival fitness, to remain with a woman past the point of fertility.

incendiary_dan's avatar

@iamthemob I don’t think marriage has really implied monogamy until relatively recently, and even now in only some cultures.

iamthemob's avatar

@incendiary_dan

I think that really depends on how wide our scope is.

In the end, attempting to have any discussion about what ‘marriage’ means falls apart if we attempt to nail down a universal definition of it, or meaning for it.

incendiary_dan's avatar

@iamthemob Good point. I define it as a social contract between two people concerning agreements about their romantic, sexual, and often economic behaviors. But I’m coming at it from an anthropologist’s viewpoint.

iamthemob's avatar

@incendiary_dan

That sounds fair.

Whenever we talk about “the objection to same sex marriage” I think it’s always clear what cultural understanding of marriage we’re dealing with is.

bkcunningham's avatar

“Further, there is no benefit for an older man, who has proven reproductive as well as survival fitness, to remain with a woman past the point of fertility,” @iamthemob said. What is your definition of older man for the benefit of your statement, which btw, I’m curious why you say that.

iamthemob's avatar

@bkcunningham

“Older man” was used in this scenario because I was considering the situation where a person was married and monogamous to a woman, and remained with her until menopause. Generally, such a man will be around the age of a menopausal woman (about 50 on average).

If that couple had children, the man is almost certainly fertile. As he is generally older, it is less likely that he suffers from or carries any debilitating diseases that would inflict his children so that they die young (especially if he has children who are now adults. At that point, it is a reproductively poor decision on both an individual and species level for him to remain monogamous rather than reproduce with a fertile woman.

bkcunningham's avatar

It may be a reproductively poor decision; but a wise one if he wants to keep his domicile, any of his finances and reproductive abilities as far as I, a menapausal woman, am concerned.

incendiary_dan's avatar

@bkcunningham Yep, which goes to show that marriages are about more than just reproduction.

iamthemob's avatar

@bkcunningham

Indeed.

Please note that my post was in response to @seperate_reality‘s attempt to make marriage about “survival benefit.” The arguments are solely in response to that.

JLeslie's avatar

@iamthemob The problem I have with the argument that men can get ten women pregnant in 10 days, but the womab has to wait 9 months, more like a year + to get pregnant again from the time of each conception is that nature produces very close to 50% females and 50% males, and so theoreically there can easily be 10 women pregnant in 10 days by ten different men. Another way to state it, impregnated by their husbands.

iamthemob's avatar

@JLeslie

But it is better from the prospective of one individual man to impregnate ten women, because then it is more likely that he will have more surviving children.

JLeslie's avatar

@iamthemob Why do you think God and nature favored men? Sometimes it is more beneficial in society to work as a team, rather than in a selfish manner. Sure, all his babies can produce more babies and give a slight nudge to some genetic problems, that does not benefit the father or society. And, if the father is responsible, all those babies are a burden, and hard to raise well. I don’t think necessarily you really think it. I realize you just might be making an argument for it.

iamthemob's avatar

@JLeslie

Indeed. As I stated, there’s a limit to the benefit of this, both on an individual and species-level. However, the most beneficial for him is somewhere inbetween monogamy and that point.

JLeslie's avatar

@iamthemob What comes to my mind is men will destroy themselves for selfish and power seeking reasons. Don’t take me too seriously though. You know, every so often we women need to bash men a little.

iamthemob's avatar

@JLeslie

Again, note that I am merely responding to @seperate_reality‘s comment about the nature of marriage as it relates to reproduction.

JLeslie's avatar

@iamthemob Yeah, I know. :)

bags's avatar

I know a gay man that dislikes the idea of gay marriage because he doesn’t like the changes that are going on it the gay community. He feels that now, in being able to live like ‘everyone else’, that they will become ‘like everyone else’. Families, children, dogs, PTA, all that is now becoming an integral part of ‘gay life’. Some gay men would prefer things stay the same as in Oscar Wilde’s day.

Other than this one person, I have never heard an objection that didn’t include SOME form of religious dogma.

SillyGirl's avatar

I think many folk associate same sex lovers as irresponsible beings that are promiscuous and reckless. In the industry I worked for for many years (nursery/plants) I met many same sex lovers who were the greatest artist, the most meticulous in style and not only in choice but in their dress as well. I found them very discreet in their affection toward one another. Thinking back, their was a landscaper who was one of the best in my province a perfectionist in his work, in his home and was far more respectful than most heterosexual males I know towards impatient beings. Then their were the two females in the medical field who was incredible gentle and had an incredible love for nature and treated their animals like children. And then their was the wealthy farmer who was extremely generous to his staff and family, he lived alone after a break up of a very long relationship with his lover and lived a very lonely and very private life – he dressed incredible beautiful and smelt devinne we loved him and felt very sorry for his loneliness. Then there was my friend from school we had a best friend he was a same sex lover after I left school I got a place and the two of them moved up to me. One night they experiment with sex the first time for both of them, she fell pregnant then and there….it broke their hearts and their friendship….even now after almost two decades she still pines for he best friend…..These people deserve all the love and acceptance we can give them. And I’d wish the world will stop stereotyping them an let them be, they have suffered enough coming to terms with their on sexuality….

Krislj10101's avatar

Most of the answers on this page aren’t fair, because you want religious people to see your side on same sex marriage but you won’t see the religious peoples side of it either. To me it seems very hypocritical and unfair. Just think for a minute how it makes you feel when you want someone to understand you and they don’t even want to hear it….then how do you think that they feel when you start closing off to hear them? I know from experience that it feels shitty when you can’t be heard. I read the bible and I believe in God, but I’m not religious at all, because religion is basically things you do to appear on the outside to be a great prideful godly person. Religion is not a good thing, but being spiritual is what really counts. So it basically comes down to what your personal beliefs are, and people will always be divided based on those beliefs until the end of time. I think that we should all just take a step back and try to not be so quick to judge others because they may be different than you. I really believe that things could really change if we all take the time to get to know someone before we pass judgement on them and not be so hypocritical. Thanks for all the answers and I hope that someone finds this helpful. : )

SavoirFaire's avatar

@Krislj10101 I don’t want the homophobic bigots to see my side; I want them to see reason. I’ve heard both sides of the argument, and one side is clearly, unequivocally wrong. It’s not that I don’t want to hear them, then, it’s that I’ve heard their case and found it to be completely without merit.

I would also suggest that this is not a matter of religious people versus non-religious people. I used to be a religious person. Indeed, I went so far as to train for the clergy. Despite that fact, I was never bigot. I’ve been in favor of same-sex marriage for as long as I’ve been aware of the issue.

JLeslie's avatar

@Krislj10101 I think that we should all just take a step back and try to not be so quick to judge others because they may be different than you Good advice, do that.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther