Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Gay Marriage Immoral?
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 1 of 134 (331967)
07-15-2006 12:52 PM


Starting a new thread because we were dragging a different one radically off topic.
Here's the issue -
LudoRepham writes on why he feels it's important for the nation to ban gay marriage:
... my reasons for the Nation would be that if you legalize gay marraige, you promote a lifestyle that is Immoral and sickening.
My question is this -
How do we determine that homosexuality is "immoral and sickening"? Either the sexual acts, the relationships, or the idea of gay marriage. Any of them.
I've heard this arguement - "Cuz the Bible sez it is!". I don't buy that. There needs to be a solid, rational, reasoning behind what's said if it's to be obeyed. There is PLENTY in the Bible which is not rational and therefore completely ignored - sacrific a goat lately, anyone?
There are plenty of cultures who do not rely on the Bible for the establishment of moral codes. Further, the Bible doesn't cover new acts, leaving us with questions like - "Is cow tipping immoral?" "Is reading someone else's email immoral?" etc.
What I am looking for in this thread is for someone who is anti-"gay marriage", anti-"gay sex", or anti-"gay people caring about one another" to muscle up and explain why these three things are "immoral" without simply falling back onto "cuz it says so" type arguements.
Here's an example of a non-"says so" based argument--
I would argue that cow tipping is immoral because it causes unwanted harm to a living creature for no more benefit than human amusement.
I would rank cow tippings as less of an offense than say cock-fights, which are likewise immoral for the same reasons.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by LudoRephaim, posted 07-15-2006 1:17 PM Nuggin has replied
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 07-15-2006 1:19 PM Nuggin has replied
 Message 5 by LudoRephaim, posted 07-15-2006 1:20 PM Nuggin has not replied
 Message 38 by ikabod, posted 07-17-2006 10:28 AM Nuggin has not replied
 Message 47 by AlienInvader, posted 07-24-2006 11:43 AM Nuggin has replied
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 07-24-2006 9:24 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 134 (331968)
07-15-2006 12:54 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
LudoRephaim
Member (Idle past 5083 days)
Posts: 651
From: Jareth's labyrinth
Joined: 03-12-2006


Message 3 of 134 (331973)
07-15-2006 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
07-15-2006 12:52 PM


Here we goooooo!!!!!!!
Okay, ill respond.
Nuggin writes:
How do we determine that Homosexuality is "immoral and sickening"
Good question. Ancient Greeks seemed to not have had a problem with homosexuality. It was a major part of their life (though "Bi-sexuality, or however you call or spell it, is better when in terms of the Greeks of olde)But modern times, most would probably see it as sickening, but many would not care if homosexuals married. Just as long as they dont have to see them kiss or have sex on our television. Others (like mua) would see it as immoral, but as you said, based on religious grounds. But some might see natural grounds on it as well. After all, the only animals That (as far as I and many know) that do this kind of sex are Bonobos (or Pygmy Chimps). Plus, unless someone provides evidence to the opposite, it can leads to the , um, dreaded "Gay Bowel Syndrome" (source will be posted shortly)So based on the potential for harm in this kind of sex, one shouldn't do it, let alone marry to make it "okay" and "legit". In that sense (unless someone disproves that Gay Bowel syndrome is the result of , um, anal sex. ShrafnaTOR, i'm looking in thou direction)gay "sex" (Gag)is indeed immoral. Of course, there are certain heterosexual sex acts that can cause injury or sickness (I dont want to be explicit, but it involves a choking response...), but then again, like anal (and therefore gay) sex our bodies where not "evolved/designed" for sex LIKE that.
Now, if Lesbian "sex" (Which is not as sickening, But it is still wrong, in my beliefs and opinion)is considered, much of above also is presented against it, except for GBS. I've heared that syphilis is more common than normal with Lesbian than heterosexual acts, but I have to check a particular source to really present it.
The source on "GBS" will be here shortly. Gotta go

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 07-15-2006 12:52 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 07-15-2006 1:28 PM LudoRephaim has replied
 Message 8 by Modulous, posted 07-15-2006 2:14 PM LudoRephaim has not replied
 Message 9 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-15-2006 2:51 PM LudoRephaim has not replied
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 07-15-2006 2:54 PM LudoRephaim has not replied
 Message 16 by Coragyps, posted 07-15-2006 3:39 PM LudoRephaim has not replied
 Message 21 by Nuggin, posted 07-16-2006 2:35 AM LudoRephaim has replied
 Message 28 by Jaderis, posted 07-16-2006 6:59 PM LudoRephaim has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 4 of 134 (331974)
07-15-2006 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
07-15-2006 12:52 PM


I don't understand in what sense it's a "lifestyle."
I mean, yachting is a lifestyle. Competitive cycling is a lifestyle. These are activities that are more than hobbies; enjoying them fully necessitates a major rearrangement in your life and employment.
Being gay? How is that a lifestyle? Gay people work all jobs, they live everywhere, they raise families and run businesses like everybody else.
I would argue that cow tipping is immoral because it causes unwanted harm to a living creature for no more benefit than human amusement.
Humans have a need for amusement. Why is human amusement an insufficient justification for harming an animal? Check your shoes. Any leather in any of them? Why is it moral to cause suffering and death to an animal for no greater benefit than the protection and comfort of your feet? Just want to pin down the moral calculus, here.
On point - when the majority of Americans support granting homosexual couples the rights and privileges straight couples enjoy under certain arrangements, I simply don't see what possible argument could be made, under a democracy, to deny them those rights.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 07-15-2006 12:52 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Chiroptera, posted 07-15-2006 1:22 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 22 by Nuggin, posted 07-16-2006 2:40 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
LudoRephaim
Member (Idle past 5083 days)
Posts: 651
From: Jareth's labyrinth
Joined: 03-12-2006


Message 5 of 134 (331975)
07-15-2006 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
07-15-2006 12:52 PM


dah source.
Here is the source about Gay Bowel syndrome. It is not from a Bible webpage, but a Biology one.
Page not found - Biology Articles, Tutorials & Dictionary Online

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 07-15-2006 12:52 PM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2006 6:39 PM LudoRephaim has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 134 (331977)
07-15-2006 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog
07-15-2006 1:19 PM


quote:
Being gay? How is that a lifestyle?
Yeah. And I've always wondered what was this alleged "gay agenda", too. I've never understood why wanting the same rights and privileges as anyone else constitutes an "agenda".

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 07-15-2006 1:19 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 7 of 134 (331979)
07-15-2006 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by LudoRephaim
07-15-2006 1:17 PM


Re: Here we goooooo!!!!!!!
After all, the only animals That (as far as I and many know) that do this kind of sex are Bonobos (or Pygmy Chimps).
Actually gay sex in the animal world is well-documented in over 1000 seperate species. Why wouldn't they?
Plus, unless someone provides evidence to the opposite, it can leads to the , um, dreaded "Gay Bowel Syndrome"
Uh-huh. Lesbians get "gay bowel syndrome"? From what, exactly?
There's no such thing as "gay bowel syndrome." That's a fake illness made up to stigmatize homosexuals. I challenge you to find any reference to it in a standard physicians diagnostic manual.
Of course, there are certain heterosexual sex acts that can cause injury or sickness
I once knocked my head so hard on a headboard in totally plain-vanilla missionary position that I saw stars for a while. I once got a leg-cramp in the same position so bad that I pulled a calf-muscle and had to call in sick to work the next day. And everybody has heard of the 80-year-old playboy who expires from a heart attack, with a smile on his face, in a romp with his 20-year-old trophy wife.
Should heterosexual activities be banned because they pose these risks? Should my marriage to my wife be annuled because being married might encourage us to engage in these risky activities? (Realistically, of course, we need no encouragement from the government to engage in those dangerous acts. Why would it be different for homosexuals?)
Now, if Lesbian "sex" (Which is not as sickening,
Hah! I thought they were joking, but you've proved that it's true! Bigots really do make an exception for lesbians. Even gay-haters like to watch girls make out.
The source on "GBS" will be here shortly.
If it's not:
1) A refereed medical journal article
2) A physicians diagnostic reference with citations
don't bother. There's no such thing as "GBS." It's a fake illness invented to stigmatize homosexuals with arguments that their activities actually constitute a public health crisis. It's false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by LudoRephaim, posted 07-15-2006 1:17 PM LudoRephaim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by MangyTiger, posted 07-15-2006 2:54 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 26 by LudoRephaim, posted 07-16-2006 4:36 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 8 of 134 (331983)
07-15-2006 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by LudoRephaim
07-15-2006 1:17 PM


Re: Here we goooooo!!!!!!!
It seems the only reason why male homosexual sex is immoral according to you is because they might cause harm to one another. But why is this? If heterosexuals openly engaged in BDSM should their marriage be anulled?
Personally, I think race car driving is immoral due to the amount of needless fuel expenditure. Should we ban people from marrying who we personally consider engage in immoral acts? Lest we promote something that might be immoral.
Should we allow the government to decide what is immoral? Why would allowing gays to marry be promoting homosexuality? Why is it OK to condemn homosexuality (by not allowing them to marry) but it is not OK to promote it (by allowing it).
Are you supporting the way things are now just because you agree that homosexuality is immoral, or have some objective reasoning behind preventing homosexual marriage?
I bet that GBS costs less tax dollars than other legal activities to deal with, such as driving, smoking, and drinking. And I bet that it costs a lot less than many illegal acts....
SERIAL KILLERS ARE LEGALLY ENTITLED TO GET MARRIED!!
but tax paying, law abiding citizens cannot marry someone of the same gender!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by LudoRephaim, posted 07-15-2006 1:17 PM LudoRephaim has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 9 of 134 (331995)
07-15-2006 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by LudoRephaim
07-15-2006 1:17 PM


Re: Here we goooooo!!!!!!!
i know that there are a LOT of straight people that participate in anal and oral sex. A LOT. should these people be forbidden from marriage because they might get "straight bowel syndrome"?
the only potential reason for increased risk of syphilis is the lack of condom use. but then while syphilis was very scary historically, it's now less serious than a uti. it's a simple bacterial infection very easily cured.
and i too love how even fundies think lesbians are less disgusting. it should quickly be clear that this anti-gay is symptomatic more of the fear that some man will be made like a woman than that anyone is having sex with his own gender. even paul thought that. it was worse that a man be feminine than anything else.
*edit*
also. is it illegal for people with aids to get married? how about people with other communicative diseases?
what does the potential for causing harm have to do with marriage? men tend to get angry and beat their wives. should they be forbidden also? how about abusive women?
besides. you do know that normal ordinary sex can and does injure women, right? especially with inattentive husbands... like the kind who believe in only vaginal intercourse for the purpose of children. they tend to not understand foreplay.
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by LudoRephaim, posted 07-15-2006 1:17 PM LudoRephaim has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by ringo, posted 07-15-2006 3:03 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 10 of 134 (331996)
07-15-2006 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by LudoRephaim
07-15-2006 1:17 PM


What's in and what's out and why?
I read a book once which purported to be a Christian "sex manual". (Yes, it was as boring as it sounds. )
It claimed that anal sex between heterosexual, married-in-church couples is "wrong" because "gays do it". On the other hand, it claimed that oral sex between heterosexual, married-in-church couples is "okay" because it's an "intimate expression of love".
I never understood the dichotomy. I wonder if you have any insight on that?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by LudoRephaim, posted 07-15-2006 1:17 PM LudoRephaim has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6353 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 11 of 134 (331997)
07-15-2006 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by crashfrog
07-15-2006 1:28 PM


Definition and use of GBS
I found the original definition of GBS from 1976 in Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science.
If it's not:
1) A refereed medical journal article
2) A physicians diagnostic reference with citations
don't bother.
Very strictly speaking I don't think it satisfies either of your criteria, but it is still a valid source IMO (see here for a full description of the publication).
If you put GBS into the search facility of PubMed you get 25 results, 20 of which are from the 80s, 3 from the 90s and 2 from the 2000s - which possibly suggests the term is falling out of fashion.
I found an article in The Washington Blade (Washington D.C. magazine for gays) which states that the CDC used to use the term but doesn't anymore.
An official with the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention said LGV is not “gay bowel syndrome.” The rare chlamydia strain has been around since the 1970s, and may have once been considered among the various diseases doctors loosely referred to as “gay bowel syndrome,” according to Jessica Frickey, a spokesperson for the federal health agency.
But it’s difficult for the CDC to know ”let alone track ” which diseases used to be included in “gay bowel syndrome” because the term was so informal and has since gone out of use at the CDC, Frickey said.
One of the articles listed in PubMed is from the Journal Of Homosexuality (which is a peer-reviewed publication) has this abstract:
Ohio State University, USA.
In 1976, a group of physicians in private proctologic practice in New York City coined the illness "Gay Bowel Syndrome" in reference to a constellation of gay male anorectal disorders. Through analysis of biomedical discourse and popular media, it is apparent that Gay Bowel Syndrome is an essentialized category of difference that is neither gay-specific, confined to the bowel, nor a syndrome. The use and diagnosis of Gay Bowel Syndrome must be abandoned before it further lends itself to the formation of social policies and governing practices that seek to force gay male bodies into positions of social, cultural, and political subordination.
So in summary I'd say Gay Bowel Syndrome was once in relatively common use in the medical profession but is on the way out.

Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 07-15-2006 1:28 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by nwr, posted 07-15-2006 2:57 PM MangyTiger has replied
 Message 20 by ReverendDG, posted 07-16-2006 12:59 AM MangyTiger has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 12 of 134 (331999)
07-15-2006 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by MangyTiger
07-15-2006 2:54 PM


Re: Definition and use of GBS
You have to feel a bit sorry for George Bernard Shaw (GBS), having a disease named after him

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by MangyTiger, posted 07-15-2006 2:54 PM MangyTiger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by MangyTiger, posted 07-15-2006 3:07 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 13 of 134 (332002)
07-15-2006 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by macaroniandcheese
07-15-2006 2:51 PM


Re: Here we goooooo!!!!!!!
brennakini writes:
it was worse that a man be feminine than anything else.
I wonder where sex changes fall into the whole anti-gay thing. Is it immoral to have a sex change? Is it immoral to marry somebody of the same gender you used to be?
(Is it a hardware issue or a software issue? )

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-15-2006 2:51 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-15-2006 3:13 PM ringo has replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6353 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 14 of 134 (332003)
07-15-2006 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by nwr
07-15-2006 2:57 PM


Re: Definition and use of GBS
You have to feel a bit sorry for George Bernard Shaw (GBS), having a disease named after him
Yeah, but not as sorry as for Lou Gehrig. I mean, what are the odds of getting a disease that's got the same name as you? Biological version of 'somewhere there's a bullet with your name on' perhaps

Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by nwr, posted 07-15-2006 2:57 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by MUTTY6969, posted 07-16-2006 3:05 AM MangyTiger has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 15 of 134 (332005)
07-15-2006 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by ringo
07-15-2006 3:03 PM


Re: Here we goooooo!!!!!!!
it's probably a sin to have a sex change since god made you exactly how he wanted you or something, but according to faith, as long as someone looks lke they are part of a normal heterosexual relationship, her sensibilities aren't offended and it's thus not a sin. but, being that faith is not the person who defines sin (despite her behavior if not claims to the contrary), i'd have to say it's more of a software problem. though clearly, if the act of anal sex is the problem, then it is a hardware problem. specifically, it appears that the problem is the lack of a vagina that must be tamed.
of course, certain people have also stated concerns related to the ability or inability to have children. people who have had sex changes cannot have children.
i'd have to say. since god made a specific command for the jews to number as the stars, it might be a sin for a jew to have a sex change. but it would probably not be a sin for a jew (who is not a priest) to be gay as long as he or she also has children. however, god has made no such numbering command to the gentiles.
but there is still the whole body is a temple thing. but then also all plastic surgery wold have to be a sin. also, piercings, tattoos, hair dye, perms, makeup, and so forth.
but that is just my opinion based on literal understanding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ringo, posted 07-15-2006 3:03 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by ringo, posted 07-15-2006 4:24 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024