Is Gay Marriage Immoral?

Hello der Nuggin Yeah, I could have done better with my argument, but I put the best I had at the time. I had only a few seconds to conjure up one, just to keep things a little interesting. But There where so many on the anti attacking and poking holes in the argument per see that I couldn't respond to them all, even if I wanted to. So much to answer, so little brain juice that could be better served researching things on Animals and such. If it was just me and you and a few others, I might have done better in the replies.I will Definitely not respond to everyone here. But I really dont know how to create an argument on something in this category and op. If i had more time, I could make it better (i have something that might help a bit)but we will see...

---

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

Quite true...I had LOGO (when I had cable *sniff*) and it seemed quite tame in comparison to other cable stations. Mostly it showed documentaries, queer wedding shows and Priscilla: Queen of the Desert 10 times a day LOL Well, there goes the argument that the punishment for Eve's transgression with the tree included a painful childbirth. Yes, it's still painful, but the sin couldn't have been so bad that God left her and all women with the G-spot to ease it (and to make orgasms oh-so-good. Pretty sweet trade-off, if you ask me). I've thought of that before but it's still damn funny I'll second that!! Ahhh, the joys of Skinemax Seriously tho, seeing hetero-male fantasies of lesbians makes me just as sick as gay men seem to make fundies. First of all, it's horseshit. Second of all, they're usually not my type (IOW stupid and WAYYYY too glossy). Third of all, it's really big horseshit.Irrational? Probably so, but you don't see me writing my congressman to promote accurate depictions of lesbian sex on cable and in porn, nor do you see me picketing outside the studios or calling for boycotts or even mentioning it at all (I do believe this is my first time discussing it). And I would have to say that those fantasy depictions actually do affect my life because it puts into men's heads crazy notions about lesbians and I am occasionally harassed by men who think that they can get into my pants or "just watch" because that is what they see in porn. Not to say that I look like those women (*ugh* who wants to anyway), but I feel that I am sufficiently attractive and am often hit on by men who find me even more attractive once they find out I like women. Kinda silly, eh? You'd think that would be enough to make them get the point and go away. *shrug*Whatever, I'm not saying that it affects my life in any major way, but in comparison to the non-existent bo-GAY-man and their "agenda" that fundies are so afraid of, it definitely trumps.

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.

not all women can even reach orgasm through stimulation of the g-spot. personally, it's usually the grotesque fake breasts that turn me off, more than anything. but i think the male mind subconciously works as follows:1 woman = good.
2 women = better.but, uh, one of my close friends in high school was a lesbian. so i'm moderately familiar with what what real lesbians are like, and i've never once met a real lipstick-lesbian. the closest i knew turned out to be bi, or rather, eventually started dating guys. well, people don't watch porn for reality. some people pretend they do, but by definition it is a fantasy. the reality of the situation is often somewhat depressing, and even when it's not, it's not all that fun to watch. i've heard some fun interviews with porn stars about how they do it at home. one in particular said "in the bed, with the lights out, in the missionary position."and if you think about it, porn is all illusion anyway. it's always strange positions (accounting for camera angles, etc), lots of different shots, lighting, and a room full of a few dozen people. it looks like sex, but it's about as far from normal sex as you can get, on top of the fantasy aspect.of course, i guess we don't think about it, do we? lol. really? people are really that dumb? i'm not sure why this suprises me. especially with guys. we're all pretty dumb about women in general -- but i bet these are the same special people that hit on and creep out all the straight girls too.i'm reminded of what kevin smith said regarding "chasing amy," that he was worried that people would take it to mean that all any lesbian really needs is "a good deep-dicking." in "an evening with kevin smith" someone got up and took objection to that very implication. i thought it was kind of ridiculous, because i know that sort of thing actually happens occasionally (see above). heh, i know a few girls that want to look like that. people want what they can't have. it's in our nature.

---

Bad memory. But you'll notice that both 450 and 1000 are much, much larger than 1 - which was your assertion. Morality. What else? That's hardly relevant. There is no such argument, because all arguments that denying people their just rights is the right thing to do is fallacious. You misunderstand. It's not your disgust that is irrational. What is irrational is that you allow that disgust to determine who gets justice and who does not. That, by definition, is bigotry. It wasn't relevant. You framed your analogy from the basis of a misunderstanding of my argument. I expect that when you correct that misunderstanding, you'll see that your analogy doesn't fit the situation.

No, I read about the book on the page you posted. It said over 450, not over 1000. What morality? Yours? To many Christians, Jews and Muslims it is immoral to partake of homosexual acts. Defending them is also immoral. What is your basis for morality? We are talking about moral and immoral when it comes to homosexual marraige. Pretty relevant i'd think. Unless you are dodging my question. HUH!? Being disgusted at gay sex and marraige is rational?!! That's going to win yah some browny points in the gay community! Pot callin kettle la black.person 1; People having sex with critters and marrying them is sickening and immoral. Bestial marraige should be outlawed!Person 2: BIGOT!!Person 1; People having sex with underage kids and marrying them is sickening, perverted and immoral. Neither that kind of sex or marraige should be allowed.person 2: Youre intolerant of Pedophiles! BIGOTRY!!!!BIGOT!!!!!!Person 1; Polygamy is disgusting and immoral, and should be banned.Person 2: BIGOT!!Person 1; People having sex with trees and marrying them is just not right! If they want to have sex, then let 'em. But dont make it to that "they: can get married.Person 2: TREE BIGOT!!!!!Check what you are intolerant of before you accuse others of it. After all, that is the definition.
Webster's universal college dictionary, page 76; this is the definition of BIGOT."A person who is extremely intolerant of another's creed, belief or opinion."def of bigotry,"Extreme intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. 2. The actions, prejudices, etc., of a bigot."Judging from youre posts, it seems YOU have an "extreme intolerance" for my views and beliefs and opinions on gay marraige. That would make YOU a BIGOT.So without further interference;BIGITBIGOTBIGOTBIGOTBIGOTBIGOTBIGOTBIGOTBIGOT!!!!!!!!

---

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

If i was creamed by a really good argument, i'd say that too

---

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

ok lets step back and consider taking the easy word first .. sickening ... well thats a personal subjective view .. i personally find the idea of shooting wild animals for sport very sickening .. but it is popular in many nations , bull fighting i find sickening , the act of sex by two men .. no not sickening .. i would not chosse to watch it but there are many more comman human acts that i would make greater effoert to avoid ..
so sickening is to personal a call to be a label to stick om the gay act .immoral .. now even in the vast forums i think no one has a set in stone set of morals that everyone can agree on ....eg thou shall not kill ....nice easy moral standpoint..... well ,unless they are the enermy ,or an invader , or a convicted murderer , or a heritic , or they do not agree with your religion at all ....given the problems with such a simple moral question , how can the love between two people be immoral because they are the same sex , and in private have sex .??~?now to the question of marriage .. here there is the problem of the religious usage of the word .. to hjave religious gay marriage is a matter for a church to deside , ALL religions impose limits on the freedom of its members ..so its up to the church .marriage as a civil union is the right of all citizens , IF all are equal ... and that is a test of a nations freedom and equality ...you cannot bans something that you do not like , without allow someone else to ban what they dislikeif you ban gay marriage , the let me ban what i dislike , private gun ownership , cars that can exced the speed limit , all forms of organised religion , being impolite to others , celery , horse racing ...i could go on .......

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?

Hey mody. So if I call for outlawing crapping in a public place because it is disgusting, that makes me a bigot? But whose reason? To the Soviets it was "reasonable" to throw people that didn;t agree with communism into gulags. It was within their "reason" to decide so. What reason is better than another, and how do you determine that? But what about Polygamy? I know you mentioned it in your post, but remember that They can give informed consent. What rights? all their rights or the right to do what is considered disgusting? And if I try to deny people who like to take a crap on the street the right to take a crap on the street, that makes me a bigot?

---

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

LudoRephaim and Crashfrog:This topic is not about putting a name to someone's position, but debating it.This topic is not about what is bigoted and what isn't. It is about whether Gay Mariage is Immoral.Stick to the topic please.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.
Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Thank you Edited by AdminPD, : Remove Closure Notice

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.

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.

Ahhh, so that time when I was 10 and was pretending that a fallen tree was a horse and I noticed that something felt strangely pleasurable, I was on my way to Arborphilia? Damn I'm glad my mom called me in for dinner and the lust for trees did not overtake me Really, since when did the tree argument come in? I've heard the polygamy, bestiality and pedophilia "slippery slope" arguments before, but trees is a new one. Maybe someone watched "Evil Dead" one too many times and got some crazy ideas, no?

Um, yeah. Like I told you, bad memory. Mine, I mean. Not sure how that wasn't clear, I guess. I don't think any of the "gay community" would care. Why would they? They're certainly disgusted by the kind of sex I have with my wife.But you know what? They're not trying to prevent me from being married. More on that in a bit. Ok, see, here's what I'm talking about. I understand that you find gay sex abhorrent. And that's fine. You don't have to have any gay sex. Nobody's gonna make you (I hope.)But how does that translate to being opposed to gay marriage? Even if you can't possibly countenance the sexual activities, what does that have to do with your position on gay marriage?Can you honestly not imagine a person who finds gay sex disgusting, but isn't opposed to gay marriage? That actually supports the rights of homosexuals, even though he doesn't personally want to do what they do? Is that really so hard to understand?Or is it that, if you don't like what someone does, you have to find any way possible to harm them and their children? That's kind of vindictive, isn't it? You'll have to point to the exact place where I said that people like you shouldn't be allowed to marry, or have other rights. How am I being intolerant by disagreeing with you?