Gay's do not have to answer to any other group disrimination

I was in a good debate on homosexuality the past week on facebook in which I asked a question. If homosexuals were allowed to marry than would it not also be discrimination if we do not allow three people to marry or four? Couldnt they file discrimination as well? What would stop them?

One gay friend said that three and four are not marriage by definition and therefore would not be discrimmination :eek:

Another poster said something I wasn’t sure how to respond to. Here is is response…

Because what I hear you saying is that gays shouldn’t marry because that means that a third (or fourth…) group might then feel discriminated against. Any gay person’s answer should logically and lawfully be “that’s not a problem I’m required to solve”.

Neither is the question of parenthood and intact marriages the responsibility of gays to answer any more than it is for divorced parents (or negligent parents, alcoholic parents, etc.)

How would you have responded? If no one is required to solve anything than to me that is an answer to my point. If no one solves anything than the snow ball will keep rolling with no one to stop it.


There are a million ways you could respond charitably. One would be something like this:
For the majority of civil and religious history, the normative marital arrangement is 1) permanent, 2) between a man and woman, 3) between 2 people only. This coincides with the natural law, in the complementarity of the genders, and the biological and emotional drive to have one faithful partner in accord with the natural law. Marriage’s opponents have worked in history to eliminate #1 and #2. Thus, they have paved the way to eliminate #3. Laws have a character to them known as “precedent.” This comes up in court frequently. In your participation in eliminating the criteria, you have culpability in the game. You can’t drop a bomb and shrug “not my concern” when someone tells you you killed people you hadn’t originally intended to. If you don’t know how to answer, you can just say so. But if you don’t think you belong in the conversation regarding #3, then neither would you belong in the conversation regarding #2.

Another, perhaps better, response would be:
The argument you made for gay “marriage” can be made for polygamy, temporary marriages, incestual marriages, etc… without changing the premise. i.e. “Love is love,” “same love,” etc… Can you refute that?

Same sex marriage is not marriage by definition either, but they have no problem redefining it to fit their agenda.

You could break into a song singing “What’s Love got to do with It”. :smiley:

The problem really comes down to people thinking marriage is mainly about two people who love each other.

It isn’t. It’s about one man and one woman taking vows to be with one another to rear a family.

Love is expected, but just because two people love each other doesn’t mean they should marry.

One version of the Catholic vows mentions love (towards the end) while the one used the most in the USA doesn’t even mention love.

The church also believes that in order for a marriage, a couple must be able to consummate the marriage. Same sex couples cannot do that because they cannot have true sex. They can only engage in foreplay and/or anal sex.

I’m sorry but you make it sound, to me, like a married couple are just baby makers, which can happen in other ways. I marriage is two people willing to support, be there through anything, love and accept until the end of their lives, and willing to die for each other whether they have children or not.

What group of people would you be discriminating against…polygamists?
But, polygamy is against the law, is it not?
And it’s not an orientation.

Homosexuality is an orientation.
And it’s not against the law.
And in most states, same sex marriage is not against the law.


Well, maybe that’s what marriage is to you…but it’s not like this for a lot of people.
I’m sure glad I married a man I loved from the start!
What you describe here are the arranged marriages of our grandparents in the Old Country.
If this is what you want and how you view marriage, you can surely do it this way.
But for those who think loving each other is a “main” component from the start, it’s wise you do not interfere with how they want to do it.


That’s obviously just asking for a question “So, what is the definition and how do you know that?”.

Well, if that is not his problem, why would anything he cares about be our problem? If he is saying it is perfectly OK to ignore claims about discrimination from others, why does he act as if it wasn’t perfectly OK to ignore such claims from him?

Also, he is (presumably) a citizen of a democratic state. Does he understand that such reasoning effectively forfeits his citizenship? If governing the state is not his business in any way, why should he have a right to vote etc.?

(from Merriam-Webster)

noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\

: the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife
: a similar relationship between people of the same sex
: a ceremony in which two people are married to each other

Apparently, same-sex marriage is indeed marriage by definition.
And this definition suits the heterosexual agenda for many as well.


When changes of law that are being discussed, “X is against the law.” and “X is not against the law.” are not very good responses. So, one thing is against the law, another is not. That can be changed. It is not as if homosexuality was never illegal and it is not as if polygamy was never legal.

I suspect that Mormons and Muslims might be willing to “volunteer”… :slight_smile:

It depends on who gets to do the defining of marriage. If it is left to the people to vote and the majority vote for gay marriage but deny other forms of marriage then it is not discriminatory. Remember marriage is a privilege not a right, so those who were not granted marriage in a vote are not being discriminated against. However, and this is a big however, if the definition of marriage is left to a small group of judges and they choose to allow one group to marry, but not another then it becomes discrimination. The reason for the difference is that in a vote no explanation is needed by the majority. When judges have to make the decision they need a valid reason to allow one group to marry and not another. And there will be no compelling reason to allow homosexuals to marry and not other groups of consenting adults. Most people like to use the polygamy example of what will happen to marriage, but I would be more concerned about incestuous marriages. If two men or two women are allowed to get married, why not siblings or parent and adult child? Half the states still do not allow first cousin marriage, is that not discrimination? One might argue that is would lead to birth defeats, but research shows that birth defeats from incestuous relationships are minimal and one could say that that argument is discriminatory towards persons with special needs (as if it is burdensome to have such children).

In any event, however, isn’t it true that culturally and historically, polygamous marriages are far more common (Islam, Africa, China, Biblical Israel at the least) and at least biologically much more consistent with the understanding of “marriage” than same-sex unions? In the wake of the legislative and judicial tidal wave of “gay marriage” approval, it’s hard to believe that much of a legal case can be made against polygamy - purely from a cultural, not moral or religious, perspective.

But a person could have this kind of relationship with a friend or a relative - but we still wouldn’t call it marriage.

The major aspect that separates marital relationships from all other relationships is the conjugal (sexual) aspect. What is sex for?

(Also, note that the Church doesn’t bar permanently sterile/infertile people from marrying. It does, however, bar the incurably impotent. Marriage is set apart from other relationships by the conjugal act. It has always been understood that that connection is different than any other kind, and that connection is impossible between two people of the same sex.)

(Also, while couples experiencing the hardship of infertility - or even if not - can embrace fostering or adoption to grow their families, the use of methods that purposefully prevent a child from being created in the marital embrace are forbidden. It is a great good to restore a mother and father to a child who has lost theirs, but it is not fair to a child to treat them as a commodity to be obtained, rather than the gift given through conjugal union.)

Because what I hear you saying is that gays shouldn’t marry because that means that a third (or fourth…) group might then feel discriminated against.

That is exactly right.

Any gay person’s answer should logically and lawfully be “that’s not a problem I’m required to solve”.

Why not? Aren’t you for “equal rights” for everyone, or just people who want to be with one person?

That is the fundamental arguments those who support so-called gay “marriage” use. Does it only apply to them? I keep hearing about how gay rights activists insist that they are not looking for special rights…

Neither is the question of parenthood and intact marriages the responsibility of gays to answer any more than it is for divorced parents (or negligent parents, alcoholic parents, etc.)

If you can’t even answer questions, why should we be inclined to recognize and subsidize your sexual preferences? Should laws be made blindly and money should go to whomever wants it? Should there not be any accountability at all?

Excellent point. If you will not define what marriage is and is not how is it you know you have a right to it?? If you are not required to solve marriage between three men or three women why is it that you feel required to say something of same sex marriage!

Really, neither of you are inherently right. You both just assumed it was/wasn’t the obligation of the monogamous gays.

Regardless, ask this:

If marriage is a civil right for people who love each other, doesn’t that impose a certain standard (“love-marriage”) on everyone? Historically, most cultures did not marry for love.

It is society’s responsibility to make sure we’re doing what’s best and right for ourselves and others. By entering into a marriage, we are responsible for what we are saying about marriage. A gay marriage is a statement about what a marriage is, just like our Catholic lives are a statement about the truth of life and God.

There is no argument in favor of homosexual marriage that does apply equally to incestuous or polygamous marriages. If they want to change the definition of marriage they need to justify ALL the consequences of the change-not just the ones that effect them.

In addition if he believes he has the right to casually dismiss the concerns of the incestuous and polygamous then he has to accept the concerns of those who oppose homosexual marriage as valid.

BTW-for those who would say there are genetic reasons to oppose incestuous marriages obviously that would not apply to incestuous homosexual marriages

It may not be a problem to solve, but since gays are attempting to promote the “normalcy” or their acquired sexual attraction and “marriage”, the burden of establishing this “normalcy” as well as being necessary and beneficial to the common good, as heterosexual marriage, is necessarily on them.

What you describe is true in a manner of speaking.

However, your definition fits same-sex couples, parent & child permanently living together, siblings permanently living together. Your definition fits my parents and grandparents, my mom is taking care of both of her elderly parents.

The church also teaches that its wrong for a man & woman to marry if they are NOT open to having children. Not, meaning that they cannot, but that they can but choose that they will never have children. A priest/deacon cannot marry a couple who purposely plan to never have children, when they naturally can.

Love is important, but it can’t be the SOLE or MAJOR reason. Otherwise, if times get tough in the marriage, it leads them to divorce because the MAIN reason they are together is gone. But if the main reason is FAMILY, then they have a much better chance of sticking it out and regaining that love down the road.

My parents are a good example: many people are surprised that my parents never divorced. But they both believed in their vows, no matter how selfish my dad became. Today, their marriage is stronger, even though my dad can still be selfish.

God Bless.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit