The term civil union should replace the term marriage for legal purposes
Both terms, civil union (for gay couples)and marriage (for straight), should be used
The term marriage should be use equally for gay and straight couples
Gay couples should not be able to have the rights of marriage at all.
In that dinner thingy, nobody is being denied anything.
Result? Analogy Failed.
After I put the "rights" issue as bluntly as I did... you still think that the "rights" are the same?
What I was saying is that no matter what it's called, if the rights are exactly the same, then it's not discrimination.
Check your PM box.
No matter how much the cats fight, there always seems to be plenty of kittens.
~ Abraham Lincoln
I understand what you are saying, but since same sex marriage deals with same gender issues, it is gender discrimination. That is the difference...if he "discriminates" against people of all races including his own then it's meaningless to call him racist or to imply that his hatred is based on race at all.
if smoking becomes illegal for men and also for women, the government is not discriminating based on gender, though both genders are affected.
if two genders are being discriminated against instead of one, it does not necessarily negate all discrimination but it negates the idea of gender discrimination.
Perhaps I should use a different term then, like... Sexual Orientation Discrimination.
Just got to this part and it looks like we agree...abuse is not Discrimination unless it is based on a characteristic shared by those being mistreated, such as gender, age or skin color. for example, it can be argued that females are discriminated against in the workplace and males are discriminated against in custody battles, because in both cases one gender is given deferential treatment. if in the case of gay marriage neither males nor females are receiving worse treatment than the other as a gender group, gender is not the common characteristic you are looking for.
it is more likely to be orientation: that is, a person's preference for either his own gender or the opposite. I think before we were having issues with the definition of orientation. you were using it to mean "the gender a person is attracted to" and I was using it to mean "a person's preference for his own gender or the opposite," so that practically our definitions would translate, respectively, to "his orientation is for males" or "his orientation is homosexual."
I don't know why I switched to gender when I have always argued orientation.
Yeah... sorry I did miss this, what with all the pookie/BH stuff going on. Now, dealing with orientation, it adds perfectly to the bigotry, IMO. Not for any that disagree with me, but certainly for those that argue against homsexuals for the fact that they are homosexuals. I am not including you, my dear, for you are debating a "devils advocate" on terminology...in this way I could very well say that everyone affected by gay marriage laws has the same orientation (homosexual), but you would disagree, saying that half of them are attracted to men (gay) and half to women (lesbians).
with my definition, you could argue that orientation discrimination is taking place, in that the government is abusing homosexuals (and only homosexuals), while heterosexuals are shown deferential treatment.
I would then rebut, any adult may enter into a marriage contract if he meets the terms, and his orientation is never asked for or even taken into consideration. that would leave us right back where we started, arguing about the government's role and purpose in marriage, but blissfully free of all rhetoric like "discrimination," "bigotry," etc., which are distracting and unhelpful.
As for your rebut, I would counter with... marriage contracts and the specifications required to get one must change so that orientation does not matter, and it must state so, for as it is now... it is a clever way to hide State Sponsored Discrimination