The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

  • Thread starter Duke
  • 9,138 comments
  • 448,515 views

I think homosexuality is:

  • a problem that needs to be cured.

    Votes: 88 6.0%
  • a sin against God/Nature.

    Votes: 145 9.8%
  • OK as long as they don't talk about it.

    Votes: 62 4.2%
  • OK for anybody.

    Votes: 416 28.2%
  • nobody's business but the people involved.

    Votes: 765 51.8%

  • Total voters
    1,476
I don't think you have to morally accept homosexuality or gay marriage, but I do think you should accept it from a legal standpoint. Letting people of the same sex to marry in the eyes of the law does nothing to change how people marry in the eyes of religion.

And I hear many people comment (not necessarily in this thread) that if we allow people to marry those of the same sex that we will need to allow people to marry dogs, horses, children, etc. The simple way around that is to make the definition of marriage a contract between two consenting adults. By going with that definition you still make it so people can't marry their pet dog or a 6 year old.
 
I don't think you have to morally accept homosexuality or gay marriage, but I do think you should accept it from a legal standpoint. Letting people of the same sex to marry in the eyes of the law does nothing to change how people marry in the eyes of religion.

And I hear many people comment (not necessarily in this thread) that if we allow people to marry those of the same sex that we will need to allow people to marry dogs, horses, children, etc. The simple way around that is to make the definition of marriage a contract between two consenting adults. By going with that definition you still make it so people can't marry their pet dog or a 6 year old.

I agree with the first part, personal morals and opinions on it shouldn't affect the law. Of course, religions shouldn't be forced to marry gays either.

As for the second bit, there's also that there's other countries where gay marriage has been legal for 10 years with no other changes. Polygamy, incest, and marrying your dog/laptop aren't legal in Canada.

Disclaimer: polygamy's not an issue to me but i included it just for argument's sake it's usually included in the slippery slope.
 
As for the second bit, there's also that there's other countries where gay marriage has been legal for 10 years with no other changes. Polygamy, incest, and marrying your dog/laptop aren't legal in Canada.

It's just that I hear that logic used fairly frequently when someone is against same sex marriage. It seems like defining marriage as a contract between two consenting adults would make that whole point moot.
 
To those saying that gay marriage will lead to polygamy, you could say the same about heterosexual marriage right now.
 
DK
To those saying that gay marriage will lead to polygamy, you could say the same about heterosexual marriage right now.

Depends on the argument. If it's the argument that any number of consenting adults should be allowed to marry, sure. If it's the argument that it would mean changing the definition of marriage (from one man and woman, to two consenting adults), then the gay marriage leading to polygamy makes sense.

That said, polygamy is fine by me so long as all involved are consenting (and adults).
 
Depends on the argument. If it's the argument that any number of consenting adults should be allowed to marry, sure. If it's the argument that it would mean changing the definition of marriage (from one man and woman, to two consenting adults), then the gay marriage leading to polygamy makes sense.

That said, polygamy is fine by me so long as all involved are consenting (and adults).

No its doesn't. Hetrosexual or gay it would still be 'two' consenting adults and no more, to expand it beyond those two would be a further step and as such heterosexual marriage is as much of a potential cause as gay marriage. Particularly given that the 'traditional' use of polygamy involves multiple heterosexual sexual relationships, not a mixture of hetro and homosexual relationships (check out those crazy Mormons).
 
It's just that I hear that logic used fairly frequently when someone is against same sex marriage. It seems like defining marriage as a contract between two consenting adults would make that whole point moot.

Yeah, the Canadian government defines marriage as "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others."

So no dog incest marriages :(
 
You can't take people serious who think that gay marriage leads to people marrying animals...
 
They don't really think it will lead to sweet, sweet animal loving. They are just trying to drum up some disturbing images in people's minds to keep them against same sex marriage. It is sensationalism at its best (worst.)
 
They don't really think it will lead to sweet, sweet animal loving. They are just trying to drum up some disturbing images in people's minds to keep them against same sex marriage. It is sensationalism at its best (worst.)

I actually know people who don't see a huge difference between two men having sex and having sex with an animal. No sensationalism, just ignorance. They also think two men marrying each other makes their own marriage mean less somehow.
 
The logic is that if marriage becomes defined as "a legal union between two consenting adults," then how can you legally prevent a father from marrying his son? They don't have to even love each other - it could be purely financial. A spouse doesn't incur a Federal Estate tax in the US, so a father could leave his wealth to his son or daughter without paying the taxes for it. All they'd have to do is sign the paperwork that says they're married.

I personally don't think that will become an issue because I simply don't see how our society would let that happen. I also don't think that the proponents of polyamorous or polygamous (not the same thing) marriages could get the legal momentum or support which could make that kind of change.

Perhaps I'm being naive or dismissive of that argument, but I just don't think it's fair to block legitimazation for same-sex marriages on the grounds of a slippery slope argument.
 
With that logic, how can you legally prevent a father form marrying his daughter if marriage is defined as "a legal union between one man and one woman"? :P
 
Of course, religions shouldn't be forced to marry gays either.

Right now you can have christian denominations refuse to marry folks who are members of the other denomination. Nobody is asking religions to do anything. Religions will remain free to restrict who they offer marriage ceremonies to on all kinds of bases, like whether or not they belong to that church for example.

No its doesn't. Hetrosexual or gay it would still be 'two' consenting adults and no more

Expanding the marriage contract to three consenting adults changes it pretty drastically. Now you have an order of guardianship if something happens to each person, and that order could be different depending on who gets incapacitated. For example:

If Joe gets incapacitated, Mary makes decisions unless she's incapacitated, then Jane makes decisions.

If Mary gets incapacitated, Jane makes decisions unless she's incapacitated, then Joe makes decisions.

If Jane gets incapacitated, Joe makes decisions unless he's incapacitated, then Mary makes decisions.

It gets much more complex as you expand beyond 3 as well, and you have to do this for all sorts of things. It is absolutely NON TRIVIAL to expand these legal structures past 2 people. Perhaps those structures could exist, but there's no reason that contract should be standard or simple.
 
Expanding the marriage contract to three consenting adults changes it pretty drastically. Now you have an order of guardianship if something happens to each person, and that order could be different depending on who gets incapacitated. For example:

If Joe gets incapacitated, Mary makes decisions unless she's incapacitated, then Jane makes decisions.

If Mary gets incapacitated, Jane makes decisions unless she's incapacitated, then Joe makes decisions.

If Jane gets incapacitated, Joe makes decisions unless he's incapacitated, then Mary makes decisions.

It gets much more complex as you expand beyond 3 as well, and you have to do this for all sorts of things. It is absolutely NON TRIVIAL to expand these legal structures past 2 people. Perhaps those structures could exist, but there's no reason that contract should be standard or simple.

Very well put. It has nothing at all to do with the point I was making however.

Which was that gay marriage is no more likely to be a catalyst for polygamy than heterosexual marriage is, as both gay and heterosexual marriage is between 'two' consenting adults.
 
Right now you can have christian denominations refuse to marry folks who are members of the other denomination. Nobody is asking religions to do anything. Religions will remain free to restrict who they offer marriage ceremonies to on all kinds of bases, like whether or not they belong to that church for example.
What about renting their facilities? Or pastors who perform weddings/funerals as a side gig?

There has already been a lawsuit over renting facilities.
http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=91486340
 
The logic is that if marriage becomes defined as "a legal union between two consenting adults," then how can you legally prevent a father from marrying his son? They don't have to even love each other - it could be purely financial. A spouse doesn't incur a Federal Estate tax in the US, so a father could leave his wealth to his son or daughter without paying the taxes for it. All they'd have to do is sign the paperwork that says they're married.

With that logic, how can you legally prevent a father form marrying his daughter if marriage is defined as "a legal union between one man and one woman"? :P

Why is that a problem? Should we ban all marriages that are primarily for financial reasons?
 
I say let them be who they are... As for "gay marriage," I still do not agree with it. I don't view it as marriage, and basically what I'm seeing as the position of those who support it, is that I should be forced to accept it as marriage.

Maybe a better idea is to reduce all government involvement to a civil union and let "marriage" be a religious thing, not supported or prohibited by any law (like the First Amendment says we're supposed to be doing).
 
So private institutions get to control and define (wrongly) a word?

That's not very First Amendmenty.
 
So private institutions get to control and define (wrongly) a word?

That's not very First Amendmenty.

If everybody is granted a civil union, why is that not good enough? Wouldn't that be "equal protection under the law" like people want?

Why does it have to be "marriage?"

Either way, I believe the United States Supreme Court will overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, legalizing same-sex marriage, so my opinion should really not be of concern.

EDIT: The fact that people continuously argue with me over this - even though my opinion isn't going to change the law or the outcome of the court ruling - really makes me think this isn't about equality, and more or less it seems like it's about forcing acceptance.
 
The important question is why it cannot be marriage, to justify having private institutions control of our language...
 
The important question is why it cannot be marriage, to justify having private institutions control of our language...

I'm more concerned about the government getting involved with the religious institutions, and the problems that it will bring.

People who say marriage has nothing to do with religion is like saying America isn't a Christian country. It's usually all the same people who say the Constitution is an outdated piece of paper.
 
EDIT: The fact that people continuously argue with me over this - even though my opinion isn't going to change the law or the outcome of the court ruling - really makes me think this isn't about equality, and more or less it seems like it's about forcing acceptance.
There is an aspect of forcing acceptance - but it's not that you're being forced to accept homosexuals or their weddings.

It's that you're being forced to accept that if you think you should be permitted to do it, you have no business saying you think someone else must be prevented from it. Which is pretty much the basis of equality - at least from the perspective of how the state treats its citizens. Government must not treat its citizens with prejudice.
I'm more concerned about the government getting involved with the religious institutions, and the problems that it will bring.
You should be - and that's because folk keep allowing government to overstep its bounds.

It shouldn't be involved in marriage. It shouldn't be involved in defining language. It shouldn't be involved in forcing private institutions - like churches - to admit people they don't want to admit. It should be involved in making sure people's rights aren't breached and stepping in to prevent or punish when they are.

So long as government is given the power, by its people, to say shops may not refuse white folk on the basis of being white, it'll retain the power to say churches must conduct gay marriages. That's not equality.
People who say marriage has nothing to do with religion is like saying America isn't a Christian country. It's usually all the same people who say the Constitution is an outdated piece of paper.
The concept of marriage predates every active religion today. Hell, I'm married and I'm an atheist. Married to an atheist.

And I'm a big fan of the Constitution of the USA.
 
Last edited:
People who say marriage has nothing to do with religion

If I were to get married, it would have nothing to do with religion, rather it would be about the financial benefits and I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks that way (then again, I have no intention of getting married because I don't want the government in my personal life). So your implied marriage is only a religious thing is not true, sadly.

Not only that, but let's just bring up arranged marriages and the fact that marriage used to be paying the woman's father with whatever was valuable at that time (pigs and things?). Both of those don't seem very religious to me.

Here is the kicker though, even if it is religious, are you telling me that two gay Christians can't marry? It's religious, so where is the problem to you then?

is like saying America isn't a Christian country.

I just hope by that you just mean that a large amount of the US population is Christian (a number, btw, that is slowly dropping), and not that is was founded as a Christian country (because that would be wrong).
 
People who say marriage has nothing to do with religion is like saying America isn't a Christian country.

I'm another atheist married to another atheist. I can assure you that my marriage has nothing to do with religion. I can also assure you that many marriages do have something to do with religion. In short, emotionally marriage is different to different couples - and that has nothing to do with how the government recognizes marriage as a legal structure.
 
If I were to get married, it would have nothing to do with religion, rather it would be about the financial benefits and I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks that way (then again, I have no intention of getting married because I don't want the government in my personal life). So your implied marriage is only a religious thing is not true, sadly.

Not only that, but let's just bring up arranged marriages and the fact that marriage used to be paying the woman's father with whatever was valuable at that time (pigs and things?). Both of those don't seem very religious to me.

Here is the kicker though, even if it is religious, are you telling me that two gay Christians can't marry? It's religious, so where is the problem to you then?

I just hope by that you just mean that a large amount of the US population is Christian (a number, btw, that is slowly dropping), and not that is was founded as a Christian country (because that would be wrong).

Don't want to get married because you don't want the government in your life? Then don't live with anyone either. After 6 months in Ontario you are considered married under "common law" and in the absence of a co-habitation agreement, you are subject to nearly the same property division as a married couple.
 
Don't want to get married because you don't want the government in your life? Then don't live with anyone either. After 6 months in Ontario you are considered married under "common law" and in the absence of a co-habitation agreement, you are subject to nearly the same property division as a married couple.

Forgot about that.. What if I live with multiple people? :D
 
If I were to get married, it would have nothing to do with religion, rather it would be about the financial benefits and I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks that way

Ding ding ding ding we have a winner :sly:

Also worth mentioning, homosexuals are not subject to common law marriage yet :lol:
 
Back