And I want to be entitled to the same privileges without having to get married. What makes them more deserving of privileges than I?.
per your own examples you already are except health insurance coverage but they are working on that and already do this also
Also nobody said here they are more deserving, if this is what you want you should fight for that too, please stay on topic
obviously has you have proved this
yes we do agree that you point is meaningless to the debate at hand, doesnt change that its discrimination and that you cant be serious
I don't recall saying that they aren't denied anything. They are denied the same privileges that I am.
You use the word prevented and yes they are clearly prevented so you are wrong again
You are NOT prevented of course unless you want same sex marriage then you are discriminated against also which has nothing to do with this debate
Yes indeed. If blacks are allowed to marry blacks, then they aren't being denied a marriage license because they are black, and if whites are allowed to marry whites, then they aren't being denied a marriage license because they are white. Since both whites and blacks are being denied privilege in equal measure, such a law would not inherently favor one race over another.
again semantics and now you just confirmed you are trolling because if they werent allowed to marry eachother they would be denied based on their races LOL just in a different way but still their race
Let me put it this way, in order for a gay man currently to get these special privileges, he would have to marry someone he doesn't want to. In order for a straight man who wishes to remain single to get these privileges, he would also have to marry someone he doesn't want to. The straight man in this instance is not discriminated against any less than the gay man. They are both being denied the same privileges for choosing not to marry someone they don't want to marry.
wrong per your own examples the only thing he couldnt get was health coverage and even thats debatable because some insurance will allow you to cover anybody in your house hold that shares bills
so yes I agree the straight man would not be discriminated against as he has the SAME access to laws to achieve his goals as ANYBODY
the gay man who wants what YOU want(or what you are TRYING to make the dabate about and its clearly not lol) would not be discriminated against has he has the SAME access to laws to achieve his goals as ANYBODY
but when it comes to marriage ONE has the access and one does NOT have the access, this is discrimination when you stay on topic
Yep I see very clealry how dumb and meaningless your point was and it helps confirm you are trolling and trying to derail the debate
No they aren't. Being gay has nothing to do with it.
only in your fantasy land, of course it does and its been proven
Ok, then if sex doesn't necessarily have anything to do with marriage, then what makes you think sexual orientation has anything to do with marriage? Gay guys are allowed to marry gay girls, but straight guys aren't allowed to marry other straight guys, so it seems to me that the straight guys who want to marry other straight guys are being discriminated against, and the gay guys who want to marry gay girls are not being discriminated against..
again you cant be serious and have to see how dumb this is.
this doesn't change the FACT that gays are being discriminated against because same sex marriage isnt allowed.
like i said if you want to start a DIFFERENT topic and say in general men should be allowed to marry men period do so, you have my support lol but that still changes nothing, this isnt rocket science.
how about this, at a time women couldnt vote, nor could blacks. Per your non-logic I guess neither were discriminated against since both couldnt vote then right? since women wrernt the ONLY one being denied those rights it wasnt discrimination hahahahaha wrong, again your example is clearly dumb and does not apply as women were in fact discriminated against eventhough there were others that couldnt vote either
If straight guys are being prevented from marrying other straight guys, its hard to say that they are being discriminated against for being gay.
actually its very easy, see example above as it was just proved nor does it effect the definition of discrimination
Which is exactly my point. Power of attorney, wills, etc... should be all there is. It shouldn't matter whether you are giving power of attorney to someone you have sex with, someone you share genetic code with, someone you grew up with, etc... The "marriage rights" shouldn't exist. The avenues available to everyone (i.e. Power of attorney, living will, etc...) should be the only avenues recognized by law. The law should not recognize privileges that are not available to everyone.
meaningless since marriage does exists but i l love your last part since you just said something that proves my exact point "The law should not recognize privileges that are not available to everyone." agreed thats what makes it discrimination and what makes it wrong
Right. See? You are starting to understand. AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE (not discrimination) is cool. These avenues are available everyone, even to married people, so if they want their spouse to have power of attorney, they can give power of attorney to their spouse, just like anyone else.
again you cant be serious because marriage is still not available to everyone and thats the problem
Like i said if your argument is to get rid of marriage thats a different topic, different debate and doesnt change that gays are discriminated against, that doesnt change just cause you want to totally get rid of marriage
See? The truth comes out. Marriage IS discrimination. Accordingly, giving gays a license to marry is not going to end discrimination, it is just going to give them a license to be discriminated in favour of, instead of against.
wow this is just beyond dumb and trolling again
not allowing marriage is the discrimination, period no spin can fix it
Aww... you came so close, yet you missed the point.
A long time ago, white males were allowed to own black people as slaves.
If someone tried to pass a law that would allow white women to own black people as slaves as well, would you support it? Would that be progress? Would there be less discrimination?
again with the illogical, you are comparing owning slaves to marriage? nah thats not a stretch at all
also it would be progress if the goal is to make everyone equal and there would be less discrimination as women would have one more equal right no matter your attempt to appeal to emotion, nice try but you fail yet again per the criteria
This is my point. The entire purpose of licensing anything is to discriminate. In the case of a drivers license, the purpose is to discriminate against those who fail their driving test, in favour of those who pass their driving test. In the case of marriage, the purpose of a marriage license is to discriminate against those the state does not want getting married, in favour of those the state does want getting married.
In fact, the entire reason marriage licenses came about to begin with was the interracial marriage issue you brought up. The state wanted a way to regulate marriage, and so the marriage license was formed. Until it is abolished, the marriage license will continue to be used as a means of regulating that which the state has no business regulating.
again your point is meaningless unless you want to start your own topic, you want all marriage gone, fine BUT the fact that it isnt gone and its here to stay the OP still stands and you whole post is again proved meaningless to the debate at hand since gays are still being discriminated against.
that was hilarious by the way, so many funny things you said and meaningless points that played no part in anything being debated here, oh well I hope you and the "no move marriage for anyone" movement success
UPDATE: 6/3/10
Still holding at zero reasons