Is Gay Marriage Immoral?

If you call for it being outlawed simply because you find it disgusting then yes it does make you bigoted. You're trying to mask the fact that it is outlawed because it is harmful to public health by claiming that it is disgusting.Personally I find bananas to be disgusting, especially the eating of bananas. Would I be justified in calling for the banning of the eating of bananas? If not, why not?One other point, even if your disgust at anal sex were a reason to ban anal sex, what does that have to do with gay marriage? Gay marriage has nothing to do with anal sex. If gay people want to have anal sex then they can do so with or without gay marriage. Now what gay marriage does promote is stability and security, it removes the situations where one partner in a gay couple dies and the other loses the house and the money and is left destitute. This is no different to heterosexual marriages.Now you certainly don't have to like gay marriage (just like I don't like bananas), you have the right to be disgusted by it (just like i'm disgusted by bananas), but that isn't any reason at all to outlaw it.

My neighbour is a lesbian and is in a long term relationship with another woman (they live together). She has children from a previous relationship. Does that now make her lesbianism moral?Also does that make heterosexual relationships where there is a conscious choice not to have children immoral? My partners aunt had herself sterilised at a young age to guarentee that there was no longer any possibility for her to have children. Is her marriage immoral?Anyway, even apart from the two objections I made above I don't think that anyone has an obligation or a responsibility to reproduce. I certainly don't think people are born on condition that they reproduce (or even attempt to reproduce) at a later date. Peoples lives are there own to live as they will. Edited by happy_atheist, : Cleaned up first sentence, it wasn't grammatically correct.

I'm not sure I understand why you think her partner is moral but not her. I agree, it's all largely opinion based. I do my best to form my opinions based on the consequences. If no one else is harmed (very general meaning of harm, not just physical) then I don't see a reason to consider it immoral. I can see where you're coming from, but as you say there's a difference of opinion. To me it seems very similar to the parent who wants their child to be a doctor, but the child grows up and is a musician instead. The parent doesn't value music as a profession and is upset. Is the child being immoral?

I'm not sure what you're refering to here. Was it my comment about a parent wanting their child to be a doctor but the child instead becoming a musician?

I've heard tell of urinals specifically designed for women. It sounded very undignified, and less than hygenic!

I can think of one (possibly weak) reason to have the segregation. Women could be pretty vulnerable to rape in a restroom if it was isolated and they were alone. But i'm not sure this is enough of a reason to have the segregation. Men are still vulnerable from other men, women are vulnerable from other women, so I guess it doesn't really achieve all that much.I guess the biggest reason it's kept that way is that no one really feels discriminated against. No one I know actively wants people around them when they use the restroom, in fact i'm sure most of us would rather be alone. If there were groups actively wanting coed restrooms things may change...But I see your point overall about morality. Morality is probably the wrong word to be using in this situation, but it is the closest word I can think of to encompass "reason to allow/disallow someones right to do something".

I think the point Holmes was trying to make was, using different methods of urination does not necessarily justify housing the facilities in seperate rooms. In fact I'd be very surprised if that was the reason they were originally put in seperate rooms. There's nothing stopping urinals and regular toilets being in the same room (as in fact they always are anyway).

Added by edit:
Note, I typed this response before Mod submitted his response above . I seem to remember reading Mod making an argument similar to this on a seperate thread. I may be completely wrong (and I'm sure he'll correct me on this if I am), but I don't think his argument is strictly to do with exploitation of the tax system. I think it's more to do with the added complications that would arrise with tax issues (and other things such as inheritance and pensions after death etc) if there were more than two people in the marriage.That certainly isn't a reason to disallow it though (assuming that the complications would even exist, I have no idea if they would), unless the complications were so great that it became impossible to administrate in a reasonable way.Personally I see no reason not to allow polygamous marriages. I see little reason in asking for a legal recognition of a union involving something that itself is not legal. That's a clear case of running before you can walk. I think Mod was trying to make this point too. Before incestuous marriage and marriages of minors could even be considered you first have to make incestuous relationships and relationships with minors legal. One step at a time... (N.B I'm not arguing for or against either of these things being made legal, that would be something for a seperate thread). Of course it shouldn't, well at least not until it was made legal to be homosexual. It is a contradiction for homosexuals to be legally able to marry other homosexuals, but not allowed to actually be homosexual. Again, one step at a time. Edited by happy_atheist, : Just pointing out I typed this before seeing Mod's response above

Hi Holmes. Before I reply I'd like to say that largely I agree with everything you've stated. There's just a few things I'd like to comment on. I'm not sure that the legalisation process was biased by homosexuals. I don't think all sexual minorities should be lumped together as one and legalised in one go. They are all different practically, and they will all have different subtleties that need to be ironed out. This couldn't be done very easily if they were all lumped in together.Firstly it's possible that there may be some hidden reason not to legalise a particular practice. In most of the cases you've listed I think it's unlikely there is, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be explored equally.Secondly each of the cases presents their own procedural problems for legalisation. For example polygamy brings up very complicated tax/inheritance issues that need to be ironed out. If it was lumped in with homosexuality and all the others the case could get so long and drawn out when each case was examined in depth it would take forever.(Note that I'm not stating that any other the other cases shouldn't be legalised, just that they should be argued seperately and indepently so as not to confuse matters). I agree. If incestuous relationships are banned because of a higher risk of deformities then I don't see why relationships for people with known risks of genetic disorders (possibly a 50% risk) shouldn't be banned either. (And no, I don't think they should be banned). Just a subtle point here. I don't think it's the job of the pro-gay side to argue for the rights of all sexual minorites. They're understandably being selfish and arguing for their own rights. However, if a gay person where to argue for his/her rights but claim that other peoples rights should be denied even though the situations are logically equivalent then yes that would be horribly inconsistent (and would weaken their own case). I think it's more than just consent, the issue is about informed consent. For example, I'm pretty sure that I could get a child who has just learnt to say "yes" and "no" to consent to pretty much anything. Problem is that child would have no idea what he/she had consented to or the consequences. It wouldn't be informed consent.Now it's pretty obvious that a newly born baby can't give informed consent. A 16 year old probably can give informed consent. Somewhere in the middle there will be a transition between the two. The problem is, that this will likely occur at different times for different individuals. This leaves two choices...evaluate each case on a "case by case" basis (which would need to be done before the event or risk being found guilty of statutory rape), or have an arbitrary line for consent that makes it likely that all children that age would be able to give informed consent (which is what is done now). However I agree that the age 16 is a completely arbitrary age.And there is a subtle logical difference between minor-marriage (for want of a better term) and homosexual marriage. The former is simply a "not yet" situation, whereas the latter is a "never" situation. Is this enough of a difference to mean they can be treated differently? I'm not sure. The "homosexuality is statistically less healthy" argument doesn't ring true in my opinion (and you touched on this yourself so we're probably in agreement). I haven't looked at the papers myself so my argument may not be applicable (but I suspect it is), but it seems to be very similar to saying: Not good statistical analysis at all My response is a little longer than I expected! lol. Anyway, again I agree with the main point of your argument. I too see little reason why a lot of other sexual minorities cannot be made legal using similar rationale to legalising homosexuality. But I'm still open to being shown a reason I'm not aware of (which is why I think all cases should be considered seperately, even if the end conclusion is they are in fact all logically the same).

This brings to mind something I heard about laws in England in Victorian times. If I remember correctly male homosexual sex was illegal, but lesbianism was not. I think this was because people didn't even consider the notion that women could ever do such a thing! lol

Hi Holmes, thanks for the well thought out reply.Firstly I'd just like to say that I'm not from the US so I don't know anything at all about US law or legal processes etc. I can understand gay people being biased in as much as they're looking out for themself and trying to secure their own rights. I guess that's more being selfish rather than biased. But I agree it isn't fair that other minorities get overlooked. That is unfortunate and certainly doesn't help their case. I guess they're not less bigotted than anyone else. I don't think I was quite as clear as I meant to be. With regards to sexual practices I think they're all equivalent. When I was talking about subtleties I meant the legal issues concerned with marriage, not the right for people to engage in whatever sexual practices they want. And note I'm not using the subtleties as a reason for anything not to be legalised, just as a reason why it might make more sense for them to be discussed seperately. It can be said about gays. I don't think they should get preferential treatment over other minorities. Whoahhh, just a minute. I never said that polygamy should not be allowed. I do think it should be allowed. In the section you quoted that from I was talking about treating the legal implications seperately, not about disallowing anything. There is already a legal structure in place for monogamous marriages. Polygamous marriages can't go ahead until that is adapted for polygamous marriages.I don't know how US law works (heck I don't even know how UK law works and I live here), so I don't know whether adapting the law for polygamous marriage is simple or not. I imagine the most complicated parts would be the legal status of the children (what rights does one non-blood related parent have over one of the other spouses children). Well the issues with gay marriage would obviously need to be ironed out. Now I wasn't implying that the complexities with polygamous marriage were a reason that it shouldn't go ahead. Just that it was a reason to seperate it from other marriages that didn't have those complexities. Here I'm working from a (possibly false) assumption that since a framework for monogamous marriage exists then gay marriage issues will likely be the same as hetero marriage issues. Polygamy will put a whole new level of complexity on top of that with issues that probably haven't been discussed before, and so will take longer. I fail to see how that can't already be done with hetero marriages. Something would need putting in place to try and limit it, but I assume that there are already attempts to do this with hetero marriage? Why would child custody arrangements be any more complex? Well if the precedents are already there then it won't be as complicated as it could have been, but again I wasn't bringing up the complications as a reason not to go ahead with polygamous marriage. Just as reasons why they might be best discussed seperately. I have no idea what minors are or are not allowed to do in the US. I'm pretty sure that in the UK the parent has to do most things on their childs behalf. For example a parent or guardian would have legal control over any financial contracts the child entered into until the child became legally old enough control it for themself.But I certainly have no problem with allowing the marriages with the parents consent. In fact that is allowed here in the UK. Under the ages of 18 you need your parents consent to get married. Of course it works equally well with those people. And if a person is metally handicapped to the point that they can't legally enter into a contract then they surely can't marry someone. Can a person in a permanent vegative state marry? I know that's the most extreme end possible on the mentaly handicapped scale (except for people in a coma maybe?), but there has to be a cut-off point when a person is deemed unable to enter into a contract. With children that point is when they are deemed no longer the legal responsibility of their parents, but as you mentioned there is still the possibility of having parental consent etc.As to the issue of sex that's obviously not a legal or contractual issue in the same way as marriage. I imagine there is still the issue of consent in there. Having sex with a coma patient would probably constitute rape I imagine. At what level of mental capacity does it stop being rape? I have no idea. Yes I agree it's arbitrary. Legal age for sex could be moved from 16 to 15, 14 etc with little reason not to do it. But there has to be some point when children are deemed capable of making descisions on their own. Babies clearly can't do it. Toddler can't do it either I imagine. Wherever the line is placed it will still be arbitrary. This argument is more applicable to the marrige argument because legal issues need to be well defined. As for the sex issue that's a lot more complicated. I don't see how parental consent can be used because that doesn't mean much outside of a legal framework. You seem to be largely agreeing with me here. I have the feeling our views aren't all that different even on the points we're arguing over. And I agree that any such argument would be no reason to deny any of the other practices either. I would argue that if a sexual practices between two people harmed an independant (ie non-consenting) third person then that may be a reason to disallow it, but I don't see that being the case here. And even then it may not be clear cut as it would have to be the case that the harm to the third person was an intrinsic part of the act, and not just coming from that person not liking the act taking place. Not at all. Although I do think we're misundering each other on some of the points. This being one of those points. That wasn't the conclusion I intended to give. It's largely my fault, I wasn't clear enough. When I was talking about the legal issues being treated independantly that was simply because different issues may have different and unrelated implications that were best discussed seperately.I think the problem we're having is interchanging issues such as homosexuality (which are not really legal issues as such), with issues such as marriage (which have a legal aspect to them).The only place where I think a real difference is to be found is with minors. In this case the issue is with consent. That is not the case with homosexuality, incest, polygamy or any other number of sexual minorities. That's not to say that the issue shouldn't be discussed or is off limits, just that it would be of a different nature to say legalising incest. Hmm, after re-reading the context of that I see I was making the very mistake I talked about above (mixing up the issue of the sexual act with the issue of legal things such as marriage). With the exception of things such as consent (which is a legal issue), I don't think sexual acts are things that should be made illegal. When I said there may be reasons not to legalise something I was talking about the things that were actually legal issues (such as marriage), where there may be something making it impractical. Note I'm not exempting homosexual marriage from this either. If there is a reason I'm not aware of it's something that should be considered.I don't see how there could be any legal issues, but then I don't know anything about law and legal processes so I'm not in a position to claim there aren't any.Anyway, I'm running out of time. I agree with most of the things you've said, and I see no reason why sexual acts should be supressed other than over issues of consent. We could probably start a new thread on the consent issue. When are people able to consent? Should consent matter? etc...Edited by happy_atheist, : No reason given.