Is Gay Marriage Immoral?

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!

In all your examples you use 'immoral'. Using morality to dictate law is not bigoted. Using 'disgust' to dictate rights is bigoted. Morality in law should be decided in terms of reason. Beastility is immoral because it harms animals or they cannot give informed consent. Child abuse is immoral because it harms children. Marrying a tree presents legal issues with inheritance and tax etc. Also, the tree would be unable to give consent, which would make it immoral (indeed it would be impossible).I do not object to polygamy morally or because it is disgusting. There are probably valid legal reasons for its ban as above.What is bigoted is denying people rights because they engage in something that you find disgusting. I find murder, child abuse and rape disgusting, but I wouldn't deny the murderers etc their rights including their right to marry.If you have a valid reasoned piece of morality that says homosexual marriage should be forbidden then bigot would be a poor word to describe you. Religious morality cannot count because it doesn't count in law. What harm does it cause to society that means it should be prevented?

The difference is that crapping in a public place is unhygienic and spreads disease. There is a case to be built to protect society against unhygienic practice like this since it affects non-consensual parties in a highly negative manner. Giving it a rational basis based on the opinion of learned folk (some of whom are elected) on what laws would protect society the best. Others are based on the fundamental constitutions and any human rights documents drawn up either nationally or agreed upon internationally.It starts with having a reasonable argument to present, then debate ensues over the pros and cons. So far you have provided no reasonable argument other than your subjective dislike of the practice of some individuals and a legal/morality system produced thousands of years ago based on a certain religion. You have so far not come up with a good reason why gay marriage should be banned.You'd have something of a case if homosexuality was illegal. But given that homosexuality is legal (more of a 'promotion' of a disgusting lifestyle than marriage surely(?)), your case doesn't seem to go anywhere.What reasoned argumentation do you have to bring to the table for banning gay marriage? 'Disgusting' is subjective and doesn't count. 'My religion says so' is subjective and doesn't count (what about people whose religion says the contrary?). Which is why neither polygamy nor homosexuality is immoral. The difference comes when we look at the marriage side of things, since there are tax laws and inheritance issues for married couples and there might be a good case to be made for forbidding this to polygamous relationships. The rights associated with marriage, the topic of this thread.

---

I noticed you quoted me several times with typos/spelling errors that I did not make. You quoted me saying: When I actually typed

quote:

---

Using 'disgust' to dictate rights is bigoted.

---

and you also quoted: When I actually typed:

quote:

---

What is bigoted is denying people rights because they engage in something that you find disgusting.

---

Is there a reason for these alterations?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Whilt that may be true - to make US law based solely on Biblical morality would surely be making a law in respect of an establishment of religion, neh? To avoid the potential constitutional issue, a non-religious reason should be advanced for the ban.

Perhaps. However, such laws have very weak footing. It is the equivalent justification of 'dunno, its just the way it is'. It is rare, once questioned, for such a law to remain in place. It was cultural that women couldn't vote. Slaves became part of culture as well as a general racism.Culture/tradition has never been a reason that has stood up to progression. Reformists will almost inevitably change such unanchored justifications through erosion.That's why I ask for a reason, ie a thought out explanation which could justify no gay marriage. Maybe there is one, but if it is just 'because that's the way it is/has been', then the Right should prepare itself to lose a grip on things. Probably take a while, maybe even a couple of decades, but with no solid defense against rhetoric it can't stand forever.

polygamous marriage has been brought up here, I said that there is no direct moral reason for banning polygamous marriage, but there might be good tax related reasons. The other two involve illegal acts. If they were legal, I'd see no reason to ban marriages surrounding them.Regardless of the justification for them being illegal, that sets them apart one step from homosexual and polygamaous marriage rights. Which is all fine, but what we are looking for is some reason for denying hedonism or why marriage should be 'productive' (I assume you mean 'baring children'. Naturally, those same groups should be seeking a ban on infertile couple marriages - yet they do not. So clearly that is not really an issue. Of course not. However, when asked if infertile couples should be able to marry they say 'yes'. For this group of people the ability for a marriage to produce children is not their justification, so another reason is sought. If there was a group of people that stated that infertile couples should not marry then we'd at least have a genuine answer as to why a marriage should be between man and woman.For the majority of the other groups we still seek an answer.Tradition and culture are not reasons in themselves to keep a law or enact a law.Child production isn't an issue to those against gay marriage.So what's the real reason?That's when terms like 'unnatural' and 'disgusting' often get thrown around, which are clearly not reasons. I'm happy to learn a good reason for gay marriage ban, I've just yet to see one in this thread or anywhere else. Answers on a postcard to...

You misunderstand me. Sorry.I didn't mean 'tax fraud could be committed therefore we shouldn't let it happen'. I meant 'somebody may be able to generate some reason for banning polygamy and it might be legit...tax reasons spring to mind'. Though in hindsight it needn't be tax reasons but some other legal reasons.I'm not building a case against polygamy here. If there are no legal reasons like tax etc then I have no problem with polygamous marriage. One possible issue that jumps into my brain is this:abe: If you had eight wives and you were critically ill and not conscious. The spouse must be consulted before a high risk operation is attempted. Four of the wives say yes, four say no. What now? Sticky situations regarding status of each wife need to be addressed, does it go in order of marriage (first being most important), how much power to does each wife wield? Does one get a veto?Certainly, these can be tailored to each individual marriage, which is fine for executing wills (and possibly fine for divorce procedings - though child custody could be a nightmare) where time can be taken to pour through the legal details - but medical staff might be unable to establish which wife has primacy in emergency situations. Sticky wickets indeed./abe Yes homosexuality was illegal, and so was marriage. Once it was established to the courts content that homosexuality was no a 'bad thing', then it became legal. I see no reason why marriage is still banned. For the other relationships, where they are legal, I see no reason to ban marriage. Exactly! Should they be illegal? That's a matter to be decided before the question of marriage should even crop up. If they are legal, I contend, then so should the associated marriage contract. Though there might be further issues with contracts and minors depending on local laws. Of course not. Though 'feelings' and 'logic' are unusual bedfellows. It doesn't make the concept of homosexuality as immoral being illogical. However, we can tell that the reason that it is immoral is nothing to do with child bearing. Hence the reason they get asked for their actual reason.I suppose a society could deem what feels right and wrong to be the sole compass for law building and morality. But who decides what feels right etc? Hence we use rhetoric and logic and reason to decide if a law should be enacted or a practice banned. There was a time when we used to do what 'felt right' as part of law - but those times are past and the laws built then are being challenged now.It felt right to keep slaves, persecute black people and ban evolution teaching in many places around the world. That kind of lawmaking has been abandoned and laws based on reason and the universality of laws to all is the way its done now because we know that the former method leads to bad places.We could just say gay marriage is both moral and immoral - depending on your point of view. It wouldn't make for much of a debate. Usually, in discussions on ethics and morality a list of pros and cons for each decision is put forward and weighted depending on morale system.Obviously from certain religious systems when God says something is immoral it is, and is given an infinte weight. However, the OP clearly says 'God says so' is out...is there is a non 'God says so' reason why gay marriage is immoral? They should reflect morality of a certain kind, not just any morality. That morality should be based on reasoned argumentation, the rights established as part of a constitution and consistency with other laws etc. As I said, there are pragmatic reasons that could be put forward for all of them. Incestual relationships increase the chances of severely disabled children, minors that can physically have children are not necessarily well built for the task and under certain ages sexual activities can harm them physically. Also there is the emotional considerations which is partially or maybe even wholly related to culture. I never said we should ignore culture entirely.I'm not going to build a case against polygamy because I don't care for the topic. I am keeping an open mind that there might be a valid tax etc related reason, but I don't care if there isn't. If there isn't I believe that there should also be legalized polygamous marriage. I have no disgust for the sexual minorities you mention. There are good reasons for incest laws, good reasons against sexual relationships with the young - especially those that are able to get pregnant/get their partner pregnant or would be physically or emotionally harmed by the affair given the society it occurs in.This isn't the thread for such discussions. The point is that we agree on the fundamentals here: If there is a valid reason for banning it -that's fine. If not, then the ban should not be there. 'Disgusting' is not a valid reason, nor is 'God says so'. This is irrelevant to gay marriage though. This is just about homosexuality. There are increased health risks with being homosexual not with marrying one (as far as I am aware).If those health risks are too much of a burden to society then a case could be made to make homosexuality illegal (or at least homosexual practices). However, as it stands, society has for whatever reason, decided homosexual activities are not too great a risk to society to make them legal. So why no marriage?One reason I thought of for banning gay marriages that is based in reasoned argument is the massive increase in potential marital fraud and the strain it could place on the system (immigration for one). If that was the reason for wanting the ban I'd be happy with the explanation - we could argue whether it was a good reason, put different sides up for examination etc. I hope I cleared that up. I have no problem with the legality of other sexual minorities. If they can be shown to be on a par with homosexuality for the number of problems that come with them, then legalize away! If not, then consideration should be made and a decision will be more difficult. However, if sexual minorities are legal they should be able to marry.Polygamy stands as an interesting example since it involves more than two parties in the marriage. This may, or may not, mean there are valid tax or other legal reasons for limiting or banning polygamous marriages. I'm sure some guidelines could be brought up that would help prevent the issues that polygamous marriages could bring, and if they covered all the bases I'm happy for it to be made legal.Edited by Modulous, : added a random thought about polygamy that occured to me.

Heh - not a bad reply given you're out of time I didn't miss your point, honest. That gay marriage was an issue before gay sex was legalized everywhere is not relevant to the situation now. If you asked me then I would have said the same thing I am saying now. I think both the sex and the marriage should be legal. I will happily accept that the pressure was inconsistently applied (ie just for homosexuals), without any problem.It should be applied consistently, so any other minorities who are deemed to be equivalent to homosexuals should also be legalized (I don't know of any minorities which are equivalent which are not already legal). Yes - and I've been agreeing with this point all along. My last post I tried to clear that up for you:

quote:

---

If they can be shown to be on a par with homosexuality for the number of problems that come with them, then legalize away! If not, then consideration should be made and a decision will be more difficult. However, if sexual minorities are legal they should be able to marry

---

I'm not defending nor attacking it. I have no inherent problem with incest - though you made an error here. Yes, many non-related heteros have badly deformed children, but the statement was that incestuous relationships produce more (because rare recessive allele's are likely to be paired and thus expressed). Indeed. As I said, I'm not here to provide detailed reasons to you for prevention of certain sexual practices. I'm here to argue that if a sexual practice is legal, then marriage should be allowed (assuming all parties can enter a contract as legal entities). Hopefully it is clear now that I was not trying to justify banning marriage I was just trying to assure you that I am happy to accept there may be some valid reason associated with such issues or other ones for the ban - but if there are no such issues then I have no problems with it being legal. This is not a pro-sexual minorities thread its about marriage of sexual partners engaged in legal relationships...as such only polygamy really counts for comparison. If you haven't got my opinion on polygamous marriage by the time you've done reading, let me know. Holmes you do have a habit of assuming the other person is directly opposing everything you say which leads to rather odd scenarios where you are arguing against someone who is largely agreeing with your points. I have a problem with child abuse, but I don't think that all sexual contact with minors is abusive. However, I also appreciate the pragmatic nature law has to take which includes arbitrary lines such as age. Age is a continuum, so either sex with any age is legal or sex below some age is illegal, and the line is basically arbitrary. The same applies to relatedness.I wasn't arguing for or against the morality of having sex with a twelve year old (As an aside I always wondered what would (and should) happen if a person was convicted of statutary rape and their 'victim' grows up and says that they give retrospective permission for the entanglement), I was always arguing that marriage shouldn't be barred from couples that engage in legal sexual relations.I entered this discussion to say that we can't really use Biblical justification to ban a marriage between people that can legally engage in sexual activities, and we need to have some reason for the ban.The reason incestuous or paedo marriages are banned is because the sexual practices are (validly or invalidly). I don't care to investigate the arguments, if any, for or against polygamous marriage. In principle I have no qualms with it, but I am open minded enough to appreciate that there might be some valid reason for the ban.Hopefully - I'll hear from you on Monday. Take care!Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.