Is Gay Marriage Immoral?

more or less...

I don't think gay sex or marriage is immoral, but I do not understand how you can argue that it can't be such (in an objective way) to someone else?Telling people they cannot quote the bible to construct their argument, is simply telling people they must use your criteria rather than their own. And why should that be? The reason why there are so many different opinions on morality is because people use many different criteria! To be honest blacks were not necessarily barred from all restrooms. Remember that they were often given separate facilities. Notice that we currently force women to use separate bathrooms from men because "that's disgusting"... is that bigotry? It appears to be according to your criteria.In fact, I'd love to see a rational explanation on how use of separate bathrooms based on sex is any different than race. But we do not allow for multiple partner marriages, or between people who are related, or below certain ages, etc etc... are those bigoted? If not, why not?In the end, "immoral" is simply saying you don't like something. As long as we allow laws to be constructed on moral beliefs then people may legitimately outlaw (or prevent from legal support) things they do not like.The underlying problem is not what counts as bigotry, in the form of separating groups based on classes, as we all do it somewhere and it isn't rational. The problem is allowing legal bodies to act as moral instruments.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I agree, but in a realistic sense societies must agree on a moral basis for lawmaking. The key is agreeing on these "morals" based on rational secular thought and not catering to unreasoning fears born of religious belief that have no evidential basis. As already mentioned societal morals must revolve around that which is best for society as a whole not a faction of it, even if that faction is the majority, and these moral imperatives ideally have to be minimal.So we have things I think we'd all agree on:
killing: obvious issue to societal stability
stealing: ditto
assault in a physical or sexual way: obvious issue
reckless endangerments (drunk driving, discharging guns in your backyard, etc.): no goodWe also have things that revolve around a societies agreement of when adulthood begins. Basically eighteen in the US. Any society needs to set a limit on this for its own protection, and the protection of its youth as well.Then you get the class of things some people may find immoral but that you can't (and shouldn't) make punishable by law in an enlightened society. Things that revolve around personal responsibility and autonomy that the government has no business interfering with (neo-cons want as little gov interference as possible right ) such as adultery, divorce, gay marriage, children out of wedlock, sex before marriage, all manner of sexual acts, pornography, anything that involves consenting adults.In a rational society the basis of making anything illegal must be that there is vast evidence that letting the act happen is so extremely detrimental to society that it warrants restricting freedom and with few exceptions this must revolve around loss of life or (almost impossible to prove) crippling emotional damage to large segments of society. None of the above will ever fit that criteria.If we want to continue to live in a free society that offers the most individual autonomy as possible we have to really worry about the implications of anything we restrict. The majority cannot always rule if it means the enactment of irrational laws. Laws should be open enough to allow us all to live up to our "personal morals" so long as they fall within a few bounds set by law. Then one's morals can be as stringent as one sees fit and defined by any cultural or religious influences one likes. Gay marriage won't interfere with a Christian being a Christian, but banning gay marriage is one step closer to Christians forcing non-Christians to live in a Christian "moral" based society. Its one step closer to losing the autonomy of true religious freedom the US espouses. That type of morality is irrational because its not based on evidence or outright facts, it's based on dogma and dogma can't be the basis of law.

quote:

---

In fact, I'd love to see a rational explanation on how use of separate bathrooms based on sex is any different than race...

---

fundamentally different machinery. i'd like to see a woman use a urinal. Plus we're disgusting, i doubt woman would want to inhabit the same... conditions that we leave our restrooms in. of course, nothing really restricts woman from using male restrooms, and some do, in times of "crisis" ^_^. The difference in race is that, though racists can claim that they are "superior" there is no real physical difference between the races. If a race crapped out of their heads we'd have a separate bathroom for them too.edit: right now, the signs are really to help us find the machines more suited to our... needs. They male/female division is not enforced.Edited by AlienInvader, : addendum

Actually, I've seen this done (too many late nights in Manhattan) and it takes two girls actually (and lots of booze)... one for support... to kinda balance the other... anyway, you get the picture. Lines for the ladies room can get real long.

That's exactly why it makes sense to coeducationalize the bathrooms - urinals for the men, toilets for the women (and for the men only when needed). The status quo provides inadequate facilities for the women and often-unused facilities for the men. That's a misconception. In fact, women are much messier in the bathroom than men.Which points us back toward the topic: It isn't a real physical difference between whites and blacks that causes bigotry - it's a perceived difference. Bigots perceive blacks as "dirty" and "disgusting" and don't want to share a bathroom with them.Similarly, bigots perceive gay sex as "disgusting", even though it has absolutely no effect on them.

---

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

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".

You've missed the point entirely. I WANT people to use their criteria, but I want it to be logical criteria. I don't care if their opinion coincides with the Bible, but their logical arguement can not simply be -"Homosexuality is immoral because the Bible sez so. QED."The Bible says that working on the Sabbath is immoral (MORE immoral than gay sex), yet the people proposing an anti-gay marriage ammendment are collecting signatures on a Saturday.If someone on the forums wants to claim that they adhere to EVERY rule in the Bible, then I'll let them off the hook for having to pose a logical argument.In the meantime, the challenge still stands. This is clearly wrong. I don't like cheese. Cheese is not immoral.Morality can be determined by a philisophical stand. We can differ on our standings, but our morality should be predictable based on our thought process.If you tell me you are a utilitarian (most good for the most people)and that your morality derives from that, then I know that it is moral for you to kill a mass murderer because his one death prevents the death of twenty other people.I could also predict how you would behave in other situations. Say, trying to decide who gets food and water when there isnt enough to go around. Or whether or not a starving man should be punished for stealing bread.However, as I said in the openning post, if you moral standing is simply "I believe in what's said in the Bible" then you are unable to deal with new situations.The Bible says NOTHING about gay marriage. It just says that gay people shouldn't lay down near each other.So, as long as gay's agree to sleep standing up, gay marriage is A-Ok with people who support the Bible as rote.

I don't see why not. You generally cannot derive moral principles using logic. A person might just say "homosexuality is immoral" and not even give a reason.Generally speaking there are social pressures that seem to expect that people give a reason. And if you pressure people for a reason, most will give one. But if their particular moral position is not based on reason, then the reason they will give you may be entirely bogus. It is simply the rationalizing of a decision that was not made on rational grounds. This presumes people have thought through things enough to have developed a philosophical stand. And why can't a philosophical stand be an eclectic mixture that includes such basic principles as "homosexuality is immoral"?

I've been attending rock concerts since the mid 60s. Any rockgurl worth her salt waltzes right into the Men's Room and uses a booth. I've never heard any complaints from either side.

I highly disagree with that statement. Morality without application of logic is non-existant. What matters is what information set the logic is being derived from, evidenced by the history of atrocities perpetuated in cultural settings that didn't at their time define them as immoral (though other cultures not directly involved but existant at the time may have). What's important is deriving this logic from the largest set of information available. I would argue that the Bible is not sufficiently rich in factual information to derive morals that could suit a large multi-cultural society such as the US in our information age.

quote:

---

That's exactly why it makes sense to coeducationalize the bathrooms - urinals for the men, toilets for the women (and for the men only when needed). The status quo provides inadequate facilities for the women and often-unused facilities for the men.

---

as it is now, it's not really segregated as nobody is enforcing it, as people have pointed out, and yes i know they have female urinals in asia, and yes, i can imagine it would be possible to use an american urinal.

quote:

---

That's a misconception. In fact, women are much messier in the bathroom than men.

---

you're right, women piss all over the floor too

quote:

---

Which points us back toward the topic: It isn't a real physical difference between whites and blacks that causes bigotry - it's a perceived difference. Bigots perceive blacks as "dirty" and "disgusting" and don't want to share a bathroom with them.

---

you're the one who brought up a really crappy analogy.

No I'm not. I only responded to an existing discussion about "bathroom bigotry".And my point still stands. It is bigotry to deny blacks the use of "our" bathrooms because we perceive them to be "dirty" or "disgusting". It is also bigotry to deny gays the use of anything that is "ours" (e.g. marriage) because we perceive them to be "dirty" or "disgusting".

---

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

quote:

---

No I'm not. I only responded to an existing discussion about "bathroom bigotry".

---

well then i'm wrong, but it's still a crappy analogy because division by sex really isn't bigotry, as much as saying... guys should get tampons.