Invite Friends

Topic: LGBT

Do you think it's homophobic to be against same-sex marriage?

  • Comments: 169 |
  • Votes: 75
  • Share
Picture?type=square
Discussion started by Tok Staff:
A teacher won her free speech case after being accused of cutting short a discussion on same-sex marriage. Is disagreeing with the issue homophobic?
Background article: ... Read more
Results in this view: Yes-basic Right 43% - Convince Me 4% - Not Necessarily 52%
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 2
Picture?type=square
  • 35
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Anonymous-user
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 2
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey There is a distilnton between being anti-gay and wanting to maintain precision in our language. The Eskimo’s have over one hundred words to represent snow in all its possible permutations. The term marriage has been used for centuries to designated a social and legal union between a man and a woman. Seperate terms for marriage between two males and a separate term for the marriage of two females would provide for more accurate representations of the nature of the qualities of each structurally unique relationships. Gays deserve their own correct independent word for their relationship.
Picture?type=square
  • 18
Picture?type=square
  • 5
Picture?type=square
  • 6
Picture?type=square
  • 7
Picture?type=square
Anonymous-user
  • 6
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 6
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Picture?type=square
  • 2
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 2
Picture?type=square
  • 6
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Picture?type=square
By Matt Bowyer Separate but equal?
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey Your words
The three types of marriage are fundamentally different, a man to a women capable of producing children. A man to a man, and a women to a women, neither of which can produce children, one indicating the male gender and one indicating the female gender. The three types are not equal in outcome regarding the perpetuation of our species.
Picture?type=square
By Donald Rodgers What exactly, in your opinion. prevents two women or two men from producing a child? Any woman is capable of having a child, and any man is also capable of reproducing. If you are basing you definition of what a marriage in based on the couples ability to reproduce, how would you define a marriage in which the woman is incapable of bearing any children. Would that invalidate their marriage? Also; you would take the time to research how "marriages" have changed over the centuries, you would discover that for many centuries a father chose his daughter's husband based on the man's social standing, his wealth, and his ability to provide for his daughter. The would "love" was never involved in these marriages. They were arranged and the daughter had no say so whatsoever.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey Two women cannot produce sperm, two men cannot produce an egg. They would have to go outside the marrige to acquire what would be necessary, and then it still wouldn’t be their genetic child, one partner would not be represented with their DNA. That is significantly different in a biological sense, different enough to warrant a separate name for the pairing.
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Mark - Why must it be "a man to a woman capable of producing children"? Are you going to claim that two senior citizens should not be able to marry because they cannot reproduce? What about a woman with a tilted uterus or a man with an extremely low sperm count? Should they not be allowed to marry?

Where does the law state anything about the necessity of being able to reproduce regarding marriage? With more than seven billion people on this earth, do you think that the human population still needs to "grow humanity"?
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey First, I was referring to our culture, or other cultures in the world, although the majority have historically held the same belief of what marriage consists of. Also, you point out all the exceptions and outliers which will be present in any situation. The basic biological fact remains that a man and a woman are the only pairing that can produce a child , and that pairing has been called marrige for centuries. It is also true that the relationship evolved because of the very long development time for a human child to become self sufficient and grow to adulthood. The two parent model guaranteed a much higher survival rate then the female alone raising the child. This biological/ anthropological relationship is the basis for marrige. It is also fundamentally different the the relational and sexual pairin of two men or two women, and because of this is better described by using a different name. This in no way minimizes or shuns the commitment or love in the homosexual relationship, but more clearly defines the nature of each type of pairing.
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Mark - you did not clarify what you meant about "our culture".

What specific examples do you have against marriage among the homosexuals? Is it only because your religious leaders say it is a sin? It isn't even addressed in the Bible.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey I have no objections to legally sanctioned relationships between either gay males or females, including all the legal rights provided in a heterosexual marriage. My objection is to the use of the term marriage for reasons of precision and accuracy of our language. The fundamental difference in the biological and anthropological nature of each of these types of relationships requires a different word or term to discrbe that relationship . That has been the argument I have presented in all my posts in this thread.
Picture?type=square
By Daniel Spain They can't produce there own children but I know several couples who have adopted plenty of kids that the so called man and women made and did not want. I have never read where you must be able to procreate to be considered married.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey It is wonderful that people adopt and raise orphaned and abandoned children, but the inability to reproduce creates an evolutionary dead end. The cultural basis for marrige has always been an institution to provide long term protection and care of children during the long road to their maturity.
Picture?type=square
By Daniel Spain Gotta disagree here. The term marriage only was used for male and female because there was no equality. None the less the male and female loved each other. So now that eqality is legal why sjouldn't marriage be used since they too are just a couple that loves each other. This thinking just puts stigma on the gay community.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey This is not about love or commitment but about structure and function in the marrige. The three types of marriage are fundamentally different, a man to a women capable of producing children. A man to a man, and a women to a women, neither of which can produce children, one indicating the male gender and one indicating the female gender. The three types are not equal in outcome regarding the perpetuation of our species.
Picture?type=square
By Donald Rodgers After reading your post, it seems fair to make the conclusion that you either definition of marriage is based on the couples ability to reproduce. In my first response to you misguided opinion, is posed that question regarding the validity of a couple's marriage in the woman is incapable of reproducing. Does this invalidate the marriage? When my mother married her second and third husbands, she was incapable of bearing anymore more children. Were these marriages invalid because of that? I have known several couples, some of them in the 20's, who were incapable of reproducing. If, as you posit, reproduction is the only thing that make a marriage valid, then none of these couples were ever legally married. What a sad world you must live in when you believe that the ability to reproduce is a prerequisite of being allowed to marry the person you love.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey You leave out the biological differences in the nature of the relationshirp. Language is used to describe and define the world, by denying Gays the right to the unique nature of their relationship, through language, it becomes just another way to discriminate against homosexuals.
Picture?type=square
By Kevis Basnair What is a distilnton? Are you on drugs Mark?
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson The term "marriage" is not a sole used term for Christians. Look at the Bible. How many different forms of marriage are in there? Certainly more than just one man and one woman!

How about these little gems:

Rules for taking a second wife.

If he take him another wife.... -- Exodus 21:10

Another form:

One man, one woman and one's son after he killed his brother

How about Abraham marrying his sister? Is that okay? Genesis 16:3 Don't forget that it is also okay to have sex with the maid (Hagar ring a bell?)

Then there is the marriage commanded when a rapist rapes a woman: Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Remember, it is okay, according to the Bible, to take a woman from another community, after killing all of the men to marry her. Judges 21:7-23

Remember King David with his EIGHT wives and who knows how many concubines? 1Chronicles 3:1-9 Remember to look up 2 Samuel 16:21, too! That has to do with marrying your father's concubines.

Next, we have King Solomon. 700 wives for him! 1 Kings 11:1 (Don't forget his 300 concubines!)

Paul was against men getting married at all. 1 Cor 7:1

Now, if you are talking about bishops, they can only have ONE wife. 1 Timothy 3:2

So, how is a marriage between two people of the same gender be seen as immoral?

Marriage has been around much longer than your Christian faith.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey Yes, marrige has been around longer then the Christian faith, so what? I am not making a religious or moral argument.
All your Biblical gems are still examples of marrige between men and women., regardless of circumstance or number, the biological/ anthropological argument still holds.
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Mark - Where in your Bible does it condemn marriage of two people of the same gender? Citation, please.
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Mark - So then, why are you against people of the same gender getting married? It does not address the issue of homosexuality, let alone homosexual marriage. So why do YOU think it should not be called "marriage"?
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey That’s like sayin where is the Bible does it say not to use nuclear energy It won’t be in the Bible because it was never considered as a possibility.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey Go back and read all my comments, my position is explained in detail.
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Because heterosexual people call it marriage, homosexuals should have something different? That is the only excuse I have seen that you posted.

So again, why do you think homosexuals should not celebrate their commitment to each other in a marriage?
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey Yes, for the reasons given, the underlaying biological and anthropological differences cannot be accurately described with the same word.
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Mark - What specifically makes it an anthropological difference or how is it lacking definition? You have not given anything on this yet. To just claim that it can't be "accurately described with the same word" does not answer it. Show HOW it "cannot be accurately described."
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey My very first response to you, on this thread contians the answer to your question.
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Mark - in that first response to me, you mentioned it was culture. HOW is it cultural? Do you mean traditional, as it was traditional to think that owning another person was okay, like the Bible teaches?
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey Do I need to define culture for you? Ok, “the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another.”
You bring up slavery as a past cultural example, which is accurate, yet you fail to acknowledge the distinction between imprisoning and enslaviving an individual for the purpose of exploting his/her labor, essentially stealing it from maintaining the traditional, cultural and scientific difference in the meaning of a word , marrige, and deny Gays, the use of new word or term to uniquely and more accurately discribe the nature of their relationships. Gays have, as well as others of none standard sexual descriptions and preferences, have welcomed new words, pronouns, describing the distinct nature of their sexuality and being, such as zie, zim, zir, zir, zieself and over twenty more. Why is it objectionable to you to deny them their own descriptive word for their legal and committed relationships? That could, by current popular standards cause you to be labeled homophobic.
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Mark - Not me. I have no "fear" or "disgust" for ANYONE becoming married, whether hetero- or homosexual. I just do not understand why it is such a big issue with you, afraid of allowing them to have equal rights as heterosexual people.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey Again, if you had read and understood my posts you might find that I have no problem with equal rights, my problem is with the language used to discribe the relationship, in which the term marrige is fundamentally different then a homosexual legal/ relational equivalent . Homosexuals have the right to a unique term that differentiates their mutually consensual union from that of the common heterosexual marrige.
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Mark - No, you have NOT explained why you have a problem with the term "marriage" having to do with a cultural thing which would exclude homosexuals.

Obviously, you are going nowhere with this issue and have no real answer, or else you would have already answered it.

Thank you, again, Mark, for attempting to clarify, but until you can actually do it with citation, I think we have nothing more to discuss.
Picture?type=square
By Mark Tracey The biological aspect alone is enough to carry my argument alone. Citations are nothing more the others opinion on whatever subject is being discussed and can be cherry-picked to suit ones position. What you have here is my view unblemished by the others opinion.
Picture?type=square
By Dan Anderson Mark - Unblemished? Really?

You seem to think that biology demands ONLY heterosexuality, when in reality, throughout mammalian biology, there are homosexual populations. In the world, there are even asexual beings who can reproduce on their own. What about hermaphrodites? Are you saying they are not biological?

You are taking your own spin on the issue, and yes, it is unblemished by bigotry, and with a great paucity of facts.

Good luck, Mark.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman Times change so do the meaning of words
you know that