Is Gay Marriage Immoral?

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 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.

Sorry I wasn't able to get back to the boards until now. I notice that there are already like 8 responses to your post. Haven't had a chance to read them all, so if I repeat someone else, sorry.Your post seems to be more free association than well thought out doctorine. Maybe it's paragraph structure, maybe not.I want to see if I can tease out your meaning... Here you are restating your feeling that it is "sickening", but I haven't heard a reason why you believe this to be true, or for that matter, a valid arguement. I mean, after all, in the red states most find interracial marriage "sickening", but it's not illegal. Well, I'm going to assume that several people have already pointed out that humans and bonobos are not the only animals expressing "gay" tendencies.But, more importantly, I completely fail to see the logic, if any, in this statement. Why would something be immoral if only two species did it? Or, even if just people did it? What does that have to do with morality at all? Marriage is not done to legitimize sexual practices. There are gay couples who do not have anal sex. There are straight couples that do. It seems to me that anal sex, is a poor indicator for "gay marriage". Further, you have failed to explain how "potential harm" relates to morality.Motorcycles are potentially harmful. Are they immoral?I'm not asking that you answer everything all at once. Pick a particular facet and start from there.Something along the lines of this, maybe,"I believe that homosexual sex is immoral because (x). As opposed to heterosexual sex which doesn't (y)."-or-"Gay marriage is immoral because (x), where as heterosexual marriage is moral because (y)."Maybe that will help firm up your position.

A valid argument. I would suggest that there is a scale. Is it immoral to pick an apple and eat it? Isn't that a form of fruit abortion?I just suggest that attacking a sleeping cow and knocking it off it's feet simply because there's nothing better to do in Nebraska is maybe lower on the moral scale than, say, feeding the hungry.

I think this both the core problem for the people on your side of the argument and the thorn in the side of the people on our side.You are unable to come up with an argument for denying American's their rights, but are hold the goal of denying them rights as the single most important factor in decision making at the voting both.I know that you have said that you don't vote, but the fact of the matter is that Gay Marriage was _the_ issue in the election. (And was no longer an issue by the next day).So, I ask this of you -- if you CAN'T find a reason to be against gay marriage, maybe it's time for you to reconsider your possition on gay marriage.

The whole point of the thread is for you (or any one else making your argument) to present a logical, coherent, relavent case for why gay marriage is immoral _WITHOUT_ simply siting the Bible.The Bible hands down 10 commandments. Homosexuality is absent. Not working on Saturday is mentioned. Therefore, not working on Sat is MORE IMPORTANT to GOD than Gay marriage. Yet, people still mow their lawns, Starbucks is still open, we have flights in and out of airports, the electricity is still running...etc.So, if you can't rationalize your position, and you refuse to accept it, please also adhere to at least the 10 Commandments and take your house off the electric grid Friday night before going to bed.

You've been getting creamed for about 50 posts now, without coming close to making a single point.

I'm going to walk you through this nice and slow.If you call for outlawing all people from using public restrooms because "that's disgusting" -- NOT bigotted.
If you call for outlawing black people from using public restrooms because "that's disgusting" -- bigotted.
If you call for outlawing Jews from using public restrooms because "that's disgusting" -- bigotted.
If you call for outlawing gays from using public restrooms because "that's disgusting" -- bigotted.If you call for an end to all marriage -- not bigotted
If you call for an end to inter-racial marriage -- bigotted
If you call for an end to cross-religious marriage -- bigottedAre you begining to see a pattern?Guess where banning only gays from playing softball would fall?
Now, try and figure out where banning only gays from marriage falls?

I happen to know a few people with IBS, caused by various things including stress, an allergic reaction to a medication, imbalance of GI flora.NONE of the people I know who have IBS got it from anal sex.

Thank you Alien for at least attempting to pose an argument which adheres to the idea on the thread!I think you're wrong, but I commend your efforts.Here are a few problem with your argument.1a) You assume that if people who were practicing homosexual acts were to stop that activity, they would instead turn to heterosexual acts and produce young.1b) You likewise assume that people who are practicing homosexual acts have not, or will not, produce young.Neither of these is correct. Not every sexual act performed by heterosexuals results in child birth. Heck, not every sexual act DESIGNED to result in child birth, results in child birth.Further, even a glance at the gay community shows that there are plenty of gay parents raising their own biological children.2) The second assumption, though more implied, is that it is more morally correct to produce children than not.This would likewise imply that it is more moral to produce hundreds of children than to produce only one, etc.You quickly run up against a morality issue of resources and overpopulation.3) The third assumption, also implied, is that raising your own biological children is more moral than adopting a needy child.The morality conflict there is pretty self aparent.So, I think your argument falls apart pretty quickly, but I applaud you for at least making one!!!

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.

Wow! Long post. Won't try to address it all. The problem is that the people using the Bible as a crutch (No crutch is a bad analogy, since people using crutches tend to have at least one other leg) are not adhereing to the same singular rule - what the Bible says, goes.They aren't actively trying to reinstate slavery, stoning or animal sacrifice.In fact, slavery is a good example --The Bible (and those that support denying others their rights and hating the different) has no problem with slavery.However, the argument - "Bible says it's okay" is not sufficient to make US Law.People pointed out that denying an entire group of people their rights is immoral.Clearly, this is a mirror of that situation.

And if the coloreds didn't get all uppity, we'd never have had a problem there either. I disagree with this on two fronts. Firstly, gay marriage was present in the past. Not just the distant past, either. There are a couple post on this thread about the topic. Secondly, "reactive" would mean that they were trying to prevent laws from passing. Instead they are actively passing laws / attempting to ammend the constitution specicially to deny people the right to enter into a legal contract Firstly, kleptomaniacs ARE allowed to get married. Secondly, compairing homosexuality to a mental illness is a mistake. Thirdly, kleptomaniacs are violating other people when they steal, consentual sex between adults is obviously of a different catagory all together. Here's a common mistake that people are making - it's not about the sex.If two consenting adult males want to enter into a legal contract through the state, pay the $50 and fill out the paperwork. The state has a duty to supply them with a license.If a necrophiliac and a kleptomaniac (both living) fill out the paperwork, etc. They deserve a licence too.Sex has nothing to do with who gets a license. It's not a licence to have sex.

I was going to respond to your entire post, but one sentence struck me as so profoundly ridiculous that I will stick solely to it. So, let me get this right, your position on gay marriage is: "Gays can get married, just not to the person they want to marry. A simple solution would be for every gay person to marry some other random person and still not enjoy any of the rights they seek to get."Here's a little play --
int. hospital
Gary - "Excuse me, I heard the Steve Miller was brought he. He's been in a car accident."
Nurse - "Yes, Mr. Miller was in an accident. He's in very serious condition."
Gary - "What room is he in?"
Nurse - "I'm sorry, only family can visit."
Gary - "But, I'm married to Susan."
Nurse - "Who's Susan?"
Gary - "Oh, just some girl I met at the post office. Can I visit Steve now?"
Nurse - "No."
Gary - "Gee, this doesn't seem like it solves any of the problems with gay marriage."

You're assuming that sex is the only factor in marriage. This is false.Yes, people in a relationship tend to have sex.
But, people who are not in a relationship also have sex.The point is that there are MANY other aspects (legal, emotional, etc) to marriage besides sex, and the Fundies want to deny ALL RIGHTS because they don't like the sex part.Why don't the fundamentalists really speak their mind and demand an ammendment that simply bans Gay Sex?