CreateDebate


Debate Info

142
81
Same-sex Opposite-sex
Debate Score:223
Arguments:114
Total Votes:266
Ended:09/10/14
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Same-sex (68)
 
 Opposite-sex (43)

Debate Creator

elizabeth69(6) pic



This debate has ended. You can no longer add arguments or vote in this debate.

Should gay marriage be allowed

I am so for same-sex marriage, but like the whole poplulation of nova scotia doesn't allow it.

Same-sex

Side Score: 142
Winning Side!
VS.

Opposite-sex

Side Score: 81
7 points

Of course they should. Who am I or you, or any other person to say who can and can't be in love?

Side: Same-sex
dwah(25) Disputed
0 points

They can be in love without getting married. You haven't really made a point there. If you mean marriage, then who are you to say they should be able to do things. Your belief that they should is no more valid than someone else that says "Of course they shouldn't". It being self-evident to you is no better than it being self-evident to them.

Side: Opposite-sex
_deleted0_(850) Disputed
1 point

I can be in love without getting married, but I don't wanna. Why souldn't they want to as well?

Who am I to say to let them do things???

That dosen't make any sence. I believe no matter sex, skincolor and what sex you're into, shouldn't keep you from living just like anybody else.

Its normal to get married.

Side: Same-sex
4 points

It should be allowed because it's love.

IT'S LOVE PEOPLE

Side: Same-sex
RTN1994(19) Disputed
0 points

This has nothing to do about their actions. Listen, they will be confronted and dealt with in the end, not my problem. I do not want to control them from being together, I honestly don't care. However, they DO NOT get to claim the title of marriage and receive the benefits of marriage when there is no such a thing! http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage read it and weep!

It is not recognized by our constitution as a right. The end. And it won't get added. If a state wants to legalize it they can try.

Personally, I say don't legalize it nor make it illegal, that way it will not be legally recognized however a person can either deny or accept "ceremonially" performing a wedding for them.

Side: Opposite-sex
anachronist(889) Disputed
2 points

Marriage is a civil ceremony, and therefore a civil right. Someone wanting the same rights as you is not asking for "special" rights, just the same ones you have.

Side: Same-sex
darthtimon(41) Disputed
2 points

You can't seriously use a dictionary definition to argue against gay marriage, especially when the definition of words and phrases changes all the time.

Fact of the matter is, any modern society worth its salt is always changing. Fifty years ago inter-racial relationships were unthinkable, let alone marriages. Once upon a time marriage had more to do with status and family importance than anything else. The world will not collapse due to gay marriage and those who feel it will are ignorant of history.

Side: Same-sex
dwah(25) Disputed
0 points

Love does not require marriage. You have not made an argument.

Side: Opposite-sex
3 points

Same sex couples can adopt and help kids in foster-care.

Peace!

Side: Same-sex
RTN1994(19) Clarified
0 points

They don't have to be married to do so. Besides, that has nothing to do with my point about them not having a special set of rights that no one else has!

Side: Same-sex
3 points

Saying gay people can't be married is like saying black people can't be married. It is completely bigoted.

You Christians are saying that gay marriage is not Christian because of the bible. Well, if you want to stick to biblical standards of marriage, then you have to stone women who cheat on their husbands. Also, you are allowed to take as many wives as you like. Oh and by the way, women, you are your husbands property according to the "Good Book".

So much for "a Christian tradition". I don't really understand why gays want to be part of Christianity anyway, it's like being a Jewish Nazi.

Side: Same-sex
2 points

I don't like the way this question is phrased.

People should be "allowed" to be with whoever they want. And they're going to. Even if we decided to be unconstitutional and dissolve the separation of church and state how would you enforce peoples personal relationships? So naturally people should be legally allowed to be with whoever they want.

But that doesn't mean we have to change the definition of marriage. The protection of marriage is about protecting the definition of marriage by law. So it's not a question of gay people being oppressed.

So "gay marriage" does exist in some states. So it's more a question of should the definition of marriage be changed at a national level. Why? Marriage is a religious thing. So it all seems kind of ironic. Most People for gay marriage are not religious.

It would be a good compromise if they formed some other type of union. I think they just wan't what they can't have. It's like two children and a toy.

Side: Same-sex
dwah(25) Disputed
1 point

Marriage has been swallowed by religion. Records of marriage go back as far as we have records. It is something that has essentially always happened. The main religions didn't exist back then. Essentially, we chose to have marriage defined like that in a time when gays were oppressed. If we created it, why can't we change it?

Side: Opposite-sex
JakeJ(3255) Disputed
1 point

"Marriage has been swallowed by religion."

Fine but it's still a religiouse thing. You're merely describing how it got that way. So my point still stands.

"Essentially, we chose to have marriage defined like that in a time when gays were oppressed. If we created it, why can't we change it?"

Because we (the majority) don't want to.

Also, I never said we couldn't. My point has always been that we don't have to.

Side: Same-sex
2 points

I don't think we should deny them the benefits that married people get, man and woman, because it is basically the same thing. You can call it what you want, but they should be treated equally.

Side: Same-sex
2 points

There is no non-religious (and undefendable) reason to not allow it when biologically, psychologically, culturally, historically it is accepted.

Side: Same-sex
2 points

I think it's useless talking about the dictionary definition of marriage. Marriage is based on love, this is important. Honestly I think that there is no difference in love if people are of different sex or no, the feelings and the affection are important. Futhermore we cannot judge other people's love. If they want to get married it's their own right!

Side: Same-sex
1 point

There is no such thing as gay marriage just like there is no such thing as gay rights, everyone has the same rights no one has different rights than others. Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, with one of the main purposes being to procreate and have children, once you take that ability away there is no way it can be a marriage. This does not include those who just can't have babies because of sperm count or medical reasons.

Side: Same-sex
ChuckHades(3198) Disputed
2 points

there is no such thing as gay rights

There most certainly is.

everyone has the same rights no one has different rights than others.

So why on Earth are you arguing against gay marriage (you're on the wrong side, by the way).

Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman,

This was pointed out to me by Liber. You are right in saying that marriage is between a man and a woman, but only because the word structure necessitates it. And I think we'd live in a boring world if we didn't stretch definitions and rules every now and again.

with one of the main purposes being to procreate and have children,

Find me a single dictionary that says this.

once you take that ability away there is no way it can be a marriage.

So the infertile can't marry?

This does not include those who just can't have babies because of sperm count or medical reasons

On your definition, it does.

Side: Opposite-sex
RTN1994(19) Disputed
1 point

This has nothing to do about their actions. Listen, they will be confronted and dealt with in the end, not my problem. I do not want to control them from being together, I honestly don't care. However, they DO NOT get to claim the title of marriage and receive the benefits of marriage when there is no such a thing! http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage read it and weep!

It is not recognized by our constitution as a right. The end. And it won't get added. If a state wants to legalize it they can try.

Personally, I say don't legalize it nor make it illegal, that way it will not be legally recognized however a person can either deny or accept "ceremonially" performing a wedding for them.

Side: Same-sex
TheAshman(2299) Disputed
2 points

This is the dictionary definition of marriage:

a.

the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.

b.

a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.

2.

the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. Synonyms: matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness; separation.

3.

the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment.

4.

a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.

5.

any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song. Synonyms: blend, merger, unity, oneness; alliance, confederation. Antonyms: separation, division, disunion, schism.

There is no mention of the reason for marriage being to Pro-create, the only reason people should get married should be because they love each other and if two Gay people love each other they should be allowed to marry. You can Pro-create without getting married and I know many straight married people who dont have Children they married because they loved each other not to have children and Gay people should be allowed this right as well

Side: Same-sex
RTN1994(19) Disputed
0 points

This has nothing to do about their actions. Listen, they will be confronted and dealt with in the end, not my problem. I do not want to control them from being together, I honestly don't care. However, they DO NOT get to claim the title of marriage and receive the benefits of marriage when there is no such a thing! http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage read it and weep!

It is not recognized by our constitution as a right. The end. And it won't get added. If a state wants to legalize it they can try.

Personally, I say don't legalize it nor make it illegal, that way it will not be legally recognized however a person can either deny or accept "ceremonially" performing a wedding for them.

Side: Opposite-sex
_deleted0_(850) Disputed
0 points

No silly, silly person.

Having children isn't the reason people get married.

LOVE is the reason people get married.

Side: Opposite-sex
RTN1994(19) Disputed
1 point

This has nothing to do about their actions. Listen, they will be confronted and dealt with in the end, not my problem. I do not want to control them from being together, I honestly don't care. However, they DO NOT get to claim the title of marriage and receive the benefits of marriage when there is no such a thing! http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage read it and weep!

It is not recognized by our constitution as a right. The end. And it won't get added. If a state wants to legalize it they can try.

Personally, I say don't legalize it nor make it illegal, that way it will not be legally recognized however a person can either deny or accept "ceremonially" performing a wedding for them.

Side: Same-sex
Tim17(103) Disputed
0 points

You probably cant help who you love but you certainly can help who you marry.

Side: Same-sex
truthteller(64) Disputed
0 points

Gays do have extra rights ! I don't care if they get married as long as they don't try to change religions I'm catholic I don't belive in it but I don't care what other people do as long as they don't bother me

Side: Opposite-sex
1 point

Someone took my point and they do have extra rights my friend beat up a Homo and got extra time for beating up a Homo they are protected under law u just can't beat them if u do u get alote more extra time and its not in the bill of rights becuase the homos were chiken shits and didn't want to come out and say they were Homo at that time

Side: Opposite-sex
RTN1994(19) Clarified
-1 points

No they don't have extra rights! Show me in the constitution where they do? Wait what? They don't? That's right! No they don't have extra rights and you are no practicing catholic because you are going against church doctrine. Course, the majority of Catholics in America are Hippocrates anyways!

Side: Same-sex
1 point

Definitely.

I'm quite confident there is no valid justification for banning same sex couples from a legally recognized marriage. Stop being so involved in people's romantic and sex lives. It's honestly a bit creepy.

Side: Same-sex
1 point

Yes it should. The principal argument of who doesn't want to the law allow that say that it's against the Bible. So, following that type of thinking, let's see what you probably doesn't follow AND is on it... 1 Corinthians 11:3

3 "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God."

1 Corinthians 11:7 - 9

8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Esther 1:22

22 For he sent letters into all the king's provinces, into every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language, that every man should bear rule in his own house, and that [it] should be published according to the language of every people.

THE BIBLE IS SEXIST! GO SEARCH IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME. NOW, ANSWER ME, DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS? DOES THE LAW AGREE WITH THIS? DOES THE SOCIETY IN THE GENERAL AGREE? SO WHY A MAN CAN'T MARRIAGE ANOTHER MAN AND A WOMAN CAN'T MARRIAGE ANOTHER WOMAN? ANSWER ME THAT.

Side: Same-sex
1 point

Support for same sex marriage is growing rapidly and it IS only a matter of time before it is legal in ALL the states. I believe it is mostly due to the younger generations such as myself. Older generations were mind-fucked into believing many things were "OK" such as slavery and even after that was abolished racism was practiced in many households. as I'm sure after Gay marriage is legal there will be many homophobic households. Its like someones Dad being a racist and 20 years down the line they find themselves spurting a racist comment and catch themselves not even believing their own words. It was forced into their young minds. Younger generations have been increasingly allowed to explore their OWN beliefs the result of which is increased support for things that older generations were protecting out of tradition. Just because something is tradition doesn't mean its right.

Side: Same-sex

Since a ritual that binds two people together as life-mates has absolutely no harmful effect upon society, and since romantic love is regarded as a good thing, I'd like to know why disallowing gay marriage is a good thing.

If it's not harmful, why outlaw it? Because you're squeamish? So, you'd let your squeamishness prevent two people from performing a ritual that harms no one and only strengthens their relationship? What kind of immoral douche are you to allow mere squeamishness to let you do something so selfish?

Except, of course, people against gay marriage would say I'm wrong. Though I'm not. They are all just squeamish, and they use pointless excuses to try and reason away that they're just squeamish. But really, they're all just pointless excuses for you to justify your selfish behavior of wanting to stop people from loving each other to their fullest potential.

Shame on you.

Side: Same-sex
1 point

I take issue with the word "allowed." Government should have no jurisdiction over marriage. The concept of marriage "license" is not only an anachronism, but it is invalid in its original purpose.

Side: Same-sex
1 point

I will use the argument which I have used countless times: Why not?

Honestly, it'll make them happy, it'll drain the congested orphanages, and it'll bring us one step closer to true equality.

However, one must keep in mind the heightened risk of STDs in same-sex intercourse

Side: Same-sex
1 point

Yes, gay marriage should be allowed. Many people in my family are so against it because it goes against their religious and political principles, but I am not, and I just don't understand, why so many people have to have such a grudge against them being married. It's not like gay people are harming anyone by getting married, so what is the big deal? The government should allow gay marriage in every state, it seems to violate the freedom of choice, for gay people.

Side: Same-sex
0 points

Why is it such a big deal about gay marriage?It's not like it's going to hurt our planet!I mean,the law isn't always right!It's just wrong to keep people from marrying others who they love.That's why our society's messed up,because of people being judge mental (there are also other reasons why are society is messed up)!You don't like being kept from the person you love,so why should they be kept from theirs'?Just be happy for them!Respect them and their' love!

Side: Same-sex
5 points

then humans will die out because men only bones other men. so no babies :(

Side: Opposite-sex
dwah(25) Disputed
5 points

Did I misread? Was the topic "Ban heterosexual relationships"?

Side: Same-sex
compcase92(3) Disputed
3 points

Actually at this rate earth will be overpopulated anyway. So the more gay men and women the merrier (no pun intended) and as for "no more babies." just because you allow some gay men and women to marry doesn't mean every man and women on the planet will want to fuck the same sex. I'm completely FOR gay marriage but I don't feel the urge to go marry another dude. your argument sounds like that of an 8 year old.

Side: Same-sex
4 points

There are many practical reasons for not allowing same sex marriage. I forgot a few but one I can recall goes like this: studies show that children need a mother and a father for parental role models. It keeps the child’s emotional health in check. Also the bible calls gay marriage unnatural and basically, wrong. If you are a Christian, you are a hypocrite if you support gay marriage.

Side: Opposite-sex
bhagwad(5) Disputed
4 points

So you're in favor of banning single parents? And how can you bring the bible into a logical debate?

Side: Same-sex
numan(6) Disputed
4 points

Bhagwad no one is trying to ban single parents, but the facts are most children thrive when there is a mother and farther around ,yes people spit and become single parents but they do not choose to do this, people in gay marriges choose to put any child they bring into there household in to an alien situation to be brought up by to people of the same genderfor there own whimsth this is child abuse and we only allow it to appease the namby pamby equal rights brigade, well what about the rights of the child to be brought up by a mother and farther.,,,,,,,,,,,,WE ARE GLASS

Side: Opposite-sex
casper3912(1581) Disputed
4 points

The studies only show that it is generally preferable for a child to be raised by a couple, or more, due to there being more income, emotional support, and so on. The gender of the couple, has, to my knowledge, not been shown to matter.

Side: Same-sex
jake117(5) Disputed
1 point

thats not true. it does matter to have a couple of a male and a female.

Side: Opposite-sex
4 points

Let me just say, gay patnerships should be allowed but not gay marrige,my farther was gay but he hid the fact and walked out on us to pursue his gay lifestyle when i was 4.A marrige is to all intents to allow to people of the oppiste sex to procreate gays can simply not do this, nor should they be allowed to have children as my experienceof life showed me how much i missed in not having a farther so why deny that right to a child to fullfill your own selfish wantspeople can bleat all they want if you are gay fine ilve together but do not force churches to marry you.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,we are so fragile

Side: Opposite-sex
casper3912(1581) Disputed
3 points

First, you are making a hasty generalization.

second, your making an anecdotal argument.

3rd; If gays could marry and were accepted, your father wouldn't of used your mother to hide and try to deny who he was, further more there may of been less social stigma and he might of stuck around.

4th. Marriage, in this sense, is strictly a governmental institution; NO one, or at least very few, is even hinted that churches should be forced to marry anyone. There are legitimate legal rights and privileges granted to married couples by government, and there is no secular reason to deny them these rights based on their sexuality. Marriage is not only a religious or cultural thing, but a governmental one.

Side: Same-sex
1 point

A marrige is to all intents to allow to people of the oppiste sex to procreate

Well, if that's a reason to ban homosexuals from marriage, then along the same line of thought, then any couple that is infertile or chooses not to have children should not be permitted to get married. And I didn't have a father either, and it wasn't bad, so buck up. Some people have great parents, some don't. The number and the genders don't matter if they're great parents, and don't improve bad parents. Plus, I imagine all the kids trapped in the foster system would love to have any family, even a gay one. Who says they are going to force the churches to marry them? I'm just concerned about the governmental benefits.

Side: Same-sex
3 points

Marraige is a christian tradition, and homosexuality is against Christianity. If you want to be gay then don't bother getting married, just sleep/live together, Churches shouldn't be forced to hold gay marraiges.

Side: Opposite-sex
dwah(25) Disputed
7 points

You seem to be mistaking "tradition" for "monopoly". (I assume) You don't mind Muslims marrying and they certainly aren't Christian.

And if you can be bothered to check the bible, there is nothing in there against homosexuality which doesn't have something silly nearby. Since you ignore the sillies, you should also ignore the homophobia.

But I would agree that Churches shouldn't be forced to hold them.

Side: Same-sex
Axmeister(4317) Disputed
2 points

"You seem to be mistaking "tradition" for "monopoly". (I assume) You don't mind Muslims marrying and they certainly aren't Christian."

Of course Christians have a monopoly on marraige it's their institution, wy is it that homosexuals need to be married in the first place? A civili partnership is good enough for them.

Anyway, the same applies for other religions and their forms of marraige.

"And if you can be bothered to check the bible, there is nothing in there against homosexuality which doesn't have something silly nearby. Since you ignore the sillies, you should also ignore the homophobia."

The Biblie is clearly against homosexuality, that is common knowledge.

Side: Opposite-sex
obama12(5) Disputed
5 points

go fuck yourself love is love!! Neither you or me can deny them the right to marry! If you were a good christian you would support love.

Side: Opposite-sex
Axmeister(4317) Disputed
2 points

"go fuck yourself love is love!! "

Rot in a dustbin, you deluded liberal!

" Neither you or me can deny them the right to marry!"

Yes we can, the right to marry only applies to a man and a woman of appropriate age, if we give homosexuals the right to marry then pedophiles can call for the same right.

"If you were a good christian you would support love."

Pah, the ramblings of an imbecile, what would you know about good Christianity.

Side: Same-sex
anachronist(889) Disputed
5 points

No one is forcing churches to perform gay marriges, what is wrong with you people?

Side: Same-sex
Axmeister(4317) Disputed
3 points

Who else will perform the marraige if it isn't the church?

Side: Opposite-sex
bhagwad(5) Disputed
4 points

Marriage is not a christian tradition. There was marriage long before christianity came into existence.

Side: Same-sex
Rosesown(34) Disputed
3 points

People will interpret the bible differently. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all from the same scripts, just read differently.

Side: Same-sex
BlueShaman(3) Disputed
3 points

Jewish people get married.

Islamic people get married.

Hindus, Buddhists, even Atheists get married.

The Churches are the only people who AREN'T involved in the marriage process. Marriage is a legal thing as well as a cultural one, and this repression actually and fiscally hurts people.

Side: Same-sex
Axmeister(4317) Disputed
1 point

"Jewish people get married.

Islamic people get married.

Hindus, Buddhists, even Atheists get married."

Of course other religions get married, my reasoning also applies for them. Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism also have the right to choose who they wish to marry, none of those religions allow homosexuality.

"The Churches are the only people who AREN'T involved in the marriage process. Marriage is a legal thing as well as a cultural one, and this repression actually and fiscally hurts people."

Gay people can get civil partnerships, why do they have to be allowed to marry as well. Why do they even need to get married in the first place? If they sin once they might as well sin again.

Side: Opposite-sex
3 points

There are lots of binding traditions you could call "marriage" and Christians were far from the first to invent these. It seems silly they would be allowed to ban others from it because it's their word (not their concept).

Also marriage is a lot more than a religious tradition nowadays; you can have many different churches preform a marriage, not all of them Christian, as you can the government through a courthouse. One acceptable option would to be to completely sever the link between church and state in this regard and stop giving financial benefits to married couples; then gays would only be denied something of religious significance.

Another viable option is for Christianity to change it's views, as it has done numerous times in the past, to allow gay marriage. Yet another alternative is for Christianity to allow the gays to form a splinter religion, as has been done numerous times in the past, and this similar and affiliated religion would be able to sanction gay marriage.

In conclusion: Christians didn't invent marriage, it's not their business to police it. If they want to police it, the state shouldn't compensate and reward them for their efforts. If they still want tax breaks and financial aid, they need to drag themselves out of the stone age yet again, or otherwise allow gay churches to preform their own gay marriages, if they really want nothing to do with it.

Side: Same-sex
Axmeister(4317) Disputed
2 points

I did not say Christianity invented marraige, I merely said it was their tradition, meaning they adopted it. (I am aware that other religions conduct marraiges, but seeing as thie debate involves mainly British and Americans I've just used Christianity as an example everyone would be familiar with).

Why would someone want to be married in the first place unless the specifically follow that religion? Gay people can have civili partnerships why do the need to be allowed to marry as well.

Side: Opposite-sex
casper3912(1581) Disputed
3 points

You are apparently a moron.

Does the bible not speak of marriages before Christ was born?

Homosexuality is not against Christianity, for homosexuality is not an ideology but a description of sexuality, however some forms of Christianity are against homosexuality;

Marriage is also a secular, governmental institution, and very few, if anyone is suggesting churchs be forced to do anything other than stop using their influence for violating basic principals of secularism. There are governmental privileged and rights granted with a marriage LICENCSE, and there is no secular basis to deny homosexuals these benefits from the government. There is no legitimate interest which the government has in doing such.

Side: Same-sex
Axmeister(4317) Disputed
1 point

"Does the bible not speak of marriages before Christ was born?"

I merely stated Chrsitianity to begin with as it is the main religion of the countries of which most of the debaters here are from, if you look in later arguments I changed it to religion.

"Homosexuality is not against Christianity, for homosexuality is not an ideology but a description of sexuality, however some forms of Christianity are against homosexuality;"

The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin, thus is you homosexual then you are against Christianity.

"Marriage is also a secular, governmental institution, and very few, if anyone is suggesting churchs be forced to do anything other than stop using their influence for violating basic principals of secularism. "

What is the point of marriage then if it is a secular, government institution?

"There are governmental privileged and rights granted with a marriage LICENCSE,"*

For example?

Side: Opposite-sex
3 points

It just seems weird and wrong. That's what FRIENDS are for. But same-sex isn't for MARRIAGE. ;P

Side: Opposite-sex
Saurbaby(5579) Disputed
3 points

What are friends for? Not that kind of relationship. If I am attracted to a female then I can't help it. And I don't think friends are meant for that intimacy.

Same-sex isn't for marriage because people can't get over themselves. If people want to live together in love than no one else should be able to stop them. Regardless of color, sex, or any other factor that people can't control.

Side: Same-sex
3 points

It's gross imagine if they did something on bed... imagine the honeymoon...

Side: Opposite-sex
1 point

whilst god does not discriminate it says in the bible that man must not lie with man, this geeration seems to think that you are above the law of the bible and if this is so just look towards god and ask him 'am i allowed?' and the answer will be do as you will but ot for lust only for love

jacob

yet the systematic abuse of this freedom to sleep with whom and whoever you want for love was jesus lega cy and he said for give them father for they know not what they do and this was his last words as a man so do you really want to go behind gods back and show yourself as heathans he died for you once and when the second coming arrives he shall do it again if you caqn live with the shame for breaking of the covenants is your forty pieces of silver if your heart is breaking speak to jeasus if you have lost your faith speak to the lord but if you continue to be promiscuous without asking for forgiveness then you may have your money and laugh for the lords say it will not happen again

Side: Opposite-sex

I CORINTHIANS CHAPTER 6 VERSE 9 AND 10 '''DO NOT BE MISLEAD .NEITHER FORNICATORS.NOR IDOLATERS,NOR ADULTERERS'' NOR MEN KEPT FOR UNNATURAL PURPOSE,NOR WHO LIE WITH MEN WILL IN INHERIT GODS KINGDOM..

Side: Opposite-sex

I don't see what the big deal is. They knew the rules of a "marriage", the main one being that it's suppose to be between a man and a woman.

They knew what they were getting into, so they have no right to complain about it.

Side: Opposite-sex