Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

Groucho · May 29, 2010

digsbe said:
I'm not a bigot. I have gay friends and ex gay friends and I treat them with no disrespect or any differently then my other friends. You judge my character based off of my beliefs. You are not only wrong, but you are asserting your own bigotry by assuming that I myself am bigoted against homosexuals simply because I view homosexuality as a sin. :respekt:

Heh!

"I'm not a bigot. I just think they're all sinners and don't deserve the rights the rest of us have. Just because my views fit all of the classic definitions of bigotry doesn't mean I'm a bigot!"

Like I said, bigots never think they are prejudiced in any way; their treatment of someone else as second class citizens always makes perfect sense to them.

Thanks for proving my point!

O_Guru · May 29, 2010

The Mark said:
Thank you for proving my point.

You did understand my point, yes?

I guess i didnt

nor do i see how i proved your point.

Based on the OPs criteria every reason to stop it was debunked

but also like the OP stated there were lots of reasons to

THINK its wrong, gross or offensive etc
TEACH its wrong gross or offensive etc
PREACH its wrong gross or offensive etc
BELIEVE its wrong gross or offensive etc
FEEL its wrong gross or offensive etc
etc

but none to stop it in america

The Mark · May 29, 2010

O_Guru said:
I guess i didnt
nor do i see how i proved your point.

Based on the OPs criteria every reason to stop it was debunked

but also like the OP stated there were lots of reasons to

but none to stop it in america

My point was that, for the people making the points you discard, those points were good ones.

And that the debaters realized that they were at a standstill, unable to convince each other to agree.

Each debater believed that their points were good, much as you obviously believe their points were not and the OP's points were.

Such a statement on your part proved my point.

O_Guru · May 29, 2010

The Mark said:
My point was that, for the people making the points you discard, those points were good ones.

not based on the criteria, they were good to believe, teach, preach, think, feel but not to stop based on criteria

The Mark said:
And that the debaters realized that they were at a standstill, unable to convince each other to agree..

Each debater believed that their points were good, much as you obviously believe their points were not and the OP's points were.

Such a statement on your part proved my point.

See i just dont think so at all
Every reason was easily discredited because it fit one or more of the criteria to make it not good, since they fit the criteria in one way or another I dont see how any were good.

The people that still stick with their reasons are just ok with them being unsound, unreasonable, illogical, bias, selfish, arrogant, pompous, hypercritical, anti-american and/or discriminative. They just dont care they are going to have them anyway.

Toothpicvic · May 29, 2010

Yes it is discrimination

against gays, you're right.

,

it's the state saying secular morals are superior to that of religious Christians.

Banning gay marriage is discrimination. It's the state saying that ~~Christian~~ fundamentalist "morals" (if you call them that) are superior to that of seculars and real Christians.

Yawn, next? "Making something legal for others that doesn't affect me is discrimination against me just because I don't like it." Is that really your argument. If so, then you won't be much of a challenge. And you need to lose your Libertarian card while you're at it.

Personally if a state voted by popular majority to accept gay marriage then I would be fine with it. I wouldn't support it personally and I would vote against it, but I would obey the law.

What do you mean "obey the law"? You mean you'd get a gay marriage?

Who is necessarily imposing on others?

You.

In California they voted on gay marriage (proposition 8) and gay marriage was turned down by a popular vote.

Which was a mistake. Since it doesn't affect anyone, there was no reason for a popular vote to begin with. That's called "tyranny of the majority".

Now they are trying to find some way to impose gay marriage upon everyone even though it was voted down.

It won't be imposed on anyone who doesn't willingly choose to get a marriage licence with a person of the same sex.

On the other hand, you said you have no problem imposing your fundamentalist "morals" on the American people. Ah the hypocrisy of the quasi-religious. I'm more religious than you are.

The Mark · May 29, 2010

O_Guru said:
not based on the criteria, they were good to believe, teach, preach, think, feel but not to stop based on criteria

See i just dont think so at all
Every reason was easily discredited because it fit one or more of the criteria to make it not good, since they fit the criteria in one way or another I dont see how any were good.

The people that still stick with their reasons are just ok with them being unsound, unreasonable, illogical, bias, selfish, arrogant, pompous, hypercritical, anti-american and/or discriminative. They just dont care they are going to have them anyway.

The disconnect in our communication can be easily explained.

Quite simply, I was not going by those criteria.

O_Guru · May 29, 2010

The Mark said:
The disconnect in our communication can be easily explained.

Quite simply, I was not going by those criteria.

well to participate in the thread it is pretty meaningless to disregard them, it also makes any argument, especially your current one invalid dont you think?

I think they are all good criteria based on the topic at hand, now some of them are VERY subjective but the bias, hypocritical and discrimination ones are pretty good. Also the others are relevant but not necessarily critical when talking about the topic at hand which is two consenting adults marrying.

Those criteria of course wouldnt apply to other things as well I agree
but at the end of the day it discrimination and i havent seen one reason that didnt fit that description

Evenglischatiest · May 30, 2010

O_Guru said:
well to participate in the thread it is pretty meaningless to disregard them, it also makes any argument, especially your current one invalid dont you think?

I think they are all good criteria based on the topic at hand, now some of them are VERY subjective but the bias, hypocritical and discrimination ones are pretty good. Also the others are relevant but not necessarily critical when talking about the topic at hand which is two consenting adults marrying.

Those criteria of course wouldnt apply to other things as well I agree
but at the end of the day it discrimination and i havent seen one reason that didnt fit that description

And that's exactly the problem. "Logical" and "discriminatory," as you use the term, are concepts so alien to each other as to be incompatible. One is, ideally, entirely fact based. The other is entirely emotional. It's simply not possible to defend emotion with logic, or logic with emotion. By insisting on both at the same time, the whole debate is rigged from the start. On a more fundamental level, emotion isn't even a subject which can be debated. Can anyone think of a time when they were talked out of an emotion?

Because the working definition of the pro-homosexual marriage side basically labels any opinion but it's own as discriminatory, there simply aren't grounds for a debate. Those of us on either side, who are interested in the logical part of the discussion, have chosen to ignore that definition, and substitute the more useful question of whether different treatment is justified. Still subjective, but not fundamentally rigged.

Back to the point at hand. You appear to believe that any difference in treatment constitutes discrimination, and is therefore immoral, hypocritical, or whichever negative term you'd prefer. I would tend to agree with that, in cases where the difference is merely semantic. In this case, as, frankly, in most cases, it's not. There's a specific, biological difference, which can never be overcome. Homosexual couplings simply can not produce offspring.

I'm sure someone will now argue that homosexuals can adopt, be artificially inseminated, clone... The list goes on. But none of those consists of a husband impregnating his husband, or a wife impregnating her wife. All require parties outside the union, and most require medical intervention. These intermediaries greatly alter the meanings of parenthood, and the bonds between parent and child. Whether those things are positive or negative is a subject for a different debate. But they are undeniable. And that makes homosexual relationships substantially different from heterosexual ones.

To treat two identical things differently, is discrimination. To treat two different things differently, is to acknowledge reality. Is it discriminatory to not put urinals in women's bathrooms? How about leaving the tampon dispensers out of men's rooms? Both are completely appropriate where they are, because men and women are different. As are homosexual relationships, and heterosexual relationships.

All of this is why the government should never have stuck their noses into the whole concept of marriage. People can already associate with whomever they choose. But because the government deemed potentially child bearing relationships to be meaningful to it, they've decided to usurp the whole process. But government was never intended to regulate interpersonal relationships, and has no legitimate authority to do so. If it's left to individual churches, the moral argument disappears. And if people could simply say, "this is my husband/wife," without anyone else involved, ALL of the arguments disappear. If the government treated us all as individuals, instead of groups, (pairs, in this case) it wouldn't make any difference whether or not they considered us married. Specific churches would recognize our status, or not. The only one that would matter is the one to which we belong, if any.

Governments have done a truly horrific job in their usurpation of marriage. A majority of children in most western countries are now born to unmarried parents. 2 or 3 divorces are now considered normal for a person. And each of those divorces puts the entire lives of both parties under the unchallengeable authority of the government. If we are ever to be free, we need to (among many other things) take marriage back from the government. When that happens, we can all call ourselves whatever we want, and our peers can decide how to treat us.

O_Guru · May 31, 2010

Evenglischatiest said:
And that's exactly the problem. "Logical" and "discriminatory," as you use the term, are concepts so alien to each other as to be incompatible. One is, ideally, entirely fact based. The other is entirely emotional. It's simply not possible to defend emotion with logic, or logic with emotion. By insisting on both at the same time, the whole debate is rigged from the start. On a more fundamental level, emotion isn't even a subject which can be debated. Can anyone think of a time when they were talked out of an emotion?

nice overall reply now lets see "if" holes can be shot in it and it applies to the original OP.
I agree with one thing for sure, emotion does get in the way of logic, luckily for me, my stand doesnt involve any emotion just common sense.

Evenglischatiest said:
Because the working definition of the pro-homosexual marriage side basically labels any opinion but it's own as discriminatory, there simply aren't grounds for a debate. Those of us on either side, who are interested in the logical part of the discussion, have chosen to ignore that definition, and substitute the more useful question of whether different treatment is justified. Still subjective, but not fundamentally rigged.

Well fact is, it is discrimination has there hasnt been any sound reasoning to prove otherwise. Yes people debate over semantics and other things and thats fine but at the end of the day discrimination cant be thrown aways as it fits. Most, not all but most of the reasons I found dumb as they were or relate to the same reasons people had for not allowing women to vote, minorities equal right, interracial marriage etc. Its discrimination because it denies justifiable equality.

Evenglischatiest said:
Back to the point at hand. You appear to believe that any difference in treatment constitutes discrimination, and is therefore immoral, hypocritical, or whichever negative term you'd prefer. I would tend to agree with that, in cases where the difference is merely semantic. In this case, as, frankly, in most cases, it's not. There's a specific, biological difference, which can never be overcome. Homosexual couplings simply can not produce offspring.

its not so black and white and shallow, no just any difference isnt discrimination but this is because its denies equal and justifiable rights and frankly it actually IS. Also i never used the word immoral, i dont like using the word much because its very subjective, of course i do use it every now and then but many people get their morals from their religion which in certain ways is meaningless to America. Lastly the biological difference is MEANINGLESS as is "producing offspring" example men are biolocally different from women yet they are equal under the law and people get married everyday that cen not have kids or dont want to with no issue LOL

Evenglischatiest said:
I'm sure someone will now argue that homosexuals can adopt, be artificially inseminated, clone... The list goes on. But none of those consists of a husband impregnating his husband, or a wife impregnating her wife. All require parties outside the union, and most require medical intervention. These intermediaries greatly alter the meanings of parenthood, and the bonds between parent and child. Whether those things are positive or negative is a subject for a different debate. But they are undeniable. And that makes homosexual relationships substantially different from heterosexual ones.

while its true they can adopt, inseminate etc I wont argue it because it doesnt mean anything because you are discussing parenthood by your own terms which has nothing to do with marriage. Its a nice straw to hold on to but a meaningless one in the debate since people have kids without marriage the two and not tied together unless the people involve want them to be.

Evenglischatiest said:
To treat two identical things differently, is discrimination. To treat two different things differently, is to acknowledge reality. Is it discriminatory to not put urinals in women's bathrooms? How about leaving the tampon dispensers out of men's rooms? Both are completely appropriate where they are, because men and women are different. As are homosexual relationships, and heterosexual relationships.

Different based on what your made up opinions and your emotions? LOL homosexual relationships, and heterosexual relationships are NOT different, They are loving relationships between two human consenting adults, not different unless you involve semantics and emotion LMAO

Evenglischatiest said:
All of this is why the government should never have stuck their noses into the whole concept of marriage. People can already associate with whomever they choose. But because the government deemed potentially child bearing relationships to be meaningful to it, they've decided to usurp the whole process. But government was never intended to regulate interpersonal relationships, and has no legitimate authority to do so. If it's left to individual churches, the moral argument disappears. And if people could simply say, "this is my husband/wife," without anyone else involved, ALL of the arguments disappear. If the government treated us all as individuals, instead of groups, (pairs, in this case) it wouldn't make any difference whether or not they considered us married. Specific churches would recognize our status, or not. The only one that would matter is the one to which we belong, if any. .

the "moral" argument doesn't disappear its CREATED by the church LMAO
Also government needed involved because spouses should be protected and need protected and granted certain rights, so there goes that. If government wasn't involved that would be worse IMO Widows and offspring left behind would/could get screwed. Government NEEDS involved you could argue how much in a different debate but they are needed.

Evenglischatiest said:
Governments have done a truly horrific job in their usurpation of marriage. A majority of children in most western countries are now born to unmarried parents. 2 or 3 divorces are now considered normal for a person. And each of those divorces puts the entire lives of both parties under the unchallengeable authority of the government. If we are ever to be free, we need to (among many other things) take marriage back from the government. When that happens, we can all call ourselves whatever we want, and our peers can decide how to treat us.

only based on the abandon idea that its about kids LOL. Read slow, KIDS are not about MARRIAGE, only in theory not in reality sice you dont have to have kids to get married and people get married that cant have kids

Now I do agree government isnt good at making sure the kids get looked after but Im all for it. Also more proof that you example is DIFFERENT from marriage i could get some one pregnant right now and government steps in whether we are married or not LMAO

Now "alimony" is up for debate but again thats a different debate not this one

Well while I liked your post unfortunately for you it still falls directly in line with the op

The Mark · May 31, 2010

O_Guru said:
well to participate in the thread it is pretty meaningless to disregard them, it also makes any argument, especially your current one invalid don’t you think?

I think they are all good criteria based on the topic at hand, now some of them are VERY subjective but the bias, hypocritical and discrimination ones are pretty good. Also the others are relevant but not necessarily critical when talking about the topic at hand which is two consenting adults marrying.

Those criteria of course wouldn’t apply to other things as well I agree
but at the end of the day it discrimination and I haven’t seen one reason that didn’t fit that description

The discussion had changed from the original one to a discussion about why the original discussion ended.

My explanation of why I thought that was the case did not, in my mind, fall under the parameters of the OP (which, indeed, I had completely forgotten).

Thus any guidelines set down by the OP were not factored in.

Mell · May 31, 2010

If gay couples are responsible for bringing up children, and/or are sharing property and other material goods in a sexual relationship etc, they should have the same legislative protection as non gay couples. ie, they should be allowed to marry.

O_Guru · May 31, 2010

The Mark said:
The discussion had changed from the original one to a discussion about why the original discussion ended.

My explanation of why I thought that was the case did not, in my mind, fall under the parameters of the OP (which, indeed, I had completely forgotten).

Thus any guidelines set down by the OP were not factored in.

thats fine by me that if you didnt factor them in but they need factored in to make the proper decision, IMO theres no other way. With that said currently has it stands so far every argument has met its demise with the premise and criteria of the OP.

The Mark · May 31, 2010

O_Guru said:
that’s fine by me that if you didn’t factor them in but they need factored in to make the proper decision, IMO there’s no other way.

Why?

How do they bear on the question of why people stopped debating?

O_Guru said:
With that said currently has it stands so far every argument has met its demise with the premise and criteria of the OP.

Which either means no argument is an acceptable one OR that no argument can pass the test.

O_Guru · May 31, 2010

The Mark said:
Why?

How do they bear on the question of why people stopped debating?

thats simple because I said why i thought the debating stopped or slowed and it was based on no good answers with the criteria set, you responded by telling me "no" my answer was based on them so they have a very clear bearring

The Mark said:
Which either means no argument is an acceptable one OR that no argument can pass the test.

I say its probably both, with the criteria given I cant think of an acceptable one or pass the test but thats way the question was asked, looks like people are running out of guesses and tries and or realizing this is none.

The Mark · May 31, 2010

O_Guru said:
that’s simple because I said why I thought the debating stopped or slowed and it was based on no good answers with the criteria set, you responded by telling me "no" my answer was based on them so they have a very clear bearing.

The reason I responded with “no” is because the debate stopped not because of no good points being made, but because the debaters realized that what each thought were good points were not in agreement and never would be, thus further debate was pointless.

Weather those points fit within the criteria laid out in the OP (which I glanced at recently and found confusing) is beside the point.

O_Guru · May 31, 2010

The Mark said:
The reason I responded with “no” is because the debate stopped not because of no good points being made, but because the debaters realized that what each thought were good points were not in agreement and never would be, thus further debate was pointless.

Weather those points fit within the criteria laid out in the OP (which I glanced at recently and found confusing) is beside the point.

and your welcome to the opinion but my opinion is they are running out of ideas because all have currently been dismissed and either saw it wasnt good, decided it was good enough for them or realized there arent any per the premise of the OP and criteria. I didnt see one that fell out side the criteria thats for sure nor was one argued to be outside. But hey to each his own

Alfons · Jun 2, 2010

A clearly NO because a marriage is a through God blessed Union between man and woman for producing of children, but not of two "mans" for aberrant "sex" only.

The Mark · Jun 2, 2010

Was that a troll I just saw?

AGENT J · Jun 2, 2010

Alfons said:
A clearly NO because a marriage is a through God blessed Union between man and woman for producing of children, but not of two "mans" for aberrant "sex" only.

Hmmm I think you are confused, you said clearly no but then go on to say what you did? I'm "guessing" you meant yes but either way Ill address your post.

"marriage is through a God blessed Union"

Wrong, marriage has absolutely nothing to do with God.
Example: I can get married by a magistrate or go to Vegas and have an Elvis impersonator marry me right now, religion and god will not be involved unless I want them too.

Union between man and woman

Wrong again has same sex marriage has been around for 2000+ years

(Marriage is)for producing of children

Also wrong marriage has nothing to do with children unless the people involved want it to just like religion and god
Example: When that magistrate or Elvis etc marries me he wont ask about children nor is it required to have them.
Also people get married everyday that have no intention of children and some cant even have children

All this has already been covered but i guess it needed repeated for you.

Lastly

aberrant "sex"

this is only your opinion AND I might add what is your definition of this "aberrant sex"
heck all tese things could be "aberrant sex"

Oral
Hand job
Pulling out
sex on birth control
anal
"grinding"
boob job
etc?

so again "aberrant sex" also has NOTHING to do with marriage

AGENT J · Jun 2, 2010

O_Guru said:
all have currently been dismissed per the premise of the OP and criteria.

yes this is true

Panache · Jun 2, 2010

No one is stopping gays from getting married. They can hold their ceremony, exchange their vows before their respective deities, live happy, fulfilling lives together and its all perfectly legal. None of this really has anything to do with the issue.

The issue here is who gets the legal goodies? A gay man and gay woman who want legal goodies, can get "married" according to the state and be entitled to legal goodies. They aren't being prevented from getting goodies on the grounds that they are both gay. The argument here is always that a gay man and a lesbian wouldn't want to marry each other because they aren't sexually attracted to each other.

So my question is why sex is a prerequisite to getting equal treatment under the law. How is my relationship with my best friend, or with my sister, or with my grandpa, or my business partner, or my flight instructor, or anyone else I have a relationship with less deserving of privilege simply because it is not a sexual relationship?

Things like power of attorney, and living wills, and inheritance rights, and everything else on the list of rights that gay marriage folk are fighting for should have nothing to do with sex at all. I should be able to get all those privileges with my brother if I so choose. They should have nothing to do with marriage at all.

Legalizing "gay marriage" won't get rid of oppression. It will just move gay married couples from the oppressed class to the oppressing class. That isn't progress of any kind.

AGENT J · Jun 2, 2010

Panache said:
No one is stopping gays from getting married. They can hold their ceremony, exchange their vows before their respective deities, live happy, fulfilling lives together and its all perfectly legal. None of this really has anything to do with the issue..

they want to be legally married, next

Panache said:
The issue here is who gets the legal goodies? A gay man and gay woman who want legal goodies, can get "married" according to the state and be entitled to legal goodies. They aren't being prevented from getting goodies on the grounds that they are both gay. The argument here is always that a gay man and a lesbian wouldn't want to marry each other because they aren't sexually attracted to each other.

you cant be serious? this is pure fantasy semantics, of course a gay women and gay man can get married to EACH OTHER and you say for that reason they arent denied anything LMAO

so if whites weren't allowed to marry blacks would your argument be the same? "they can marry each other but just not interracially" see how dumb that is

yes they are prevented by being GAY

Panache said:
So my question is why sex is a prerequisite to getting equal treatment under the law. How is my relationship with my best friend, or with my sister, or with my grandpa, or my business partner, or my flight instructor, or anyone else I have a relationship with less deserving of privilege simply because it is not a sexual relationship?

Things like power of attorney, and living wills, and inheritance rights, and everything else on the list of rights that gay marriage folk are fighting for should have nothing to do with sex at all. I should be able to get all those privileges with my brother if I so choose. They should have nothing to do with marriage at all.

Sex technically isnt, some couples get married without it has some are incapable

also currently under the law without marriage your relationship of sister, grandpa and business partner isnt less deserving in many cases its been found of HIGHER deserving because gay partners have loss houses, properties, money, belongs to those very groups because under the law without marriage they are not entitled to "the goodies" and yes these things have even been overturned with power of attorney, wills etc

So the answer is if you want it for you brother, flight instructor etc to have those rights thats the route you can go, you can take those legal avenues you listed that are available to EVERYONE(not discrimination) but if you want it for your spouse/partner you need marriage has that is the most concrete and currently only offered between a man and a women which IS discrimination .

Panache said:
Legalizing "gay marriage" won't get rid of oppression. It will just move gay married couples from the oppressed class to the oppressing class. That isn't progress of any kind.

this is where you argument fails the worse, there would be nothing oppressing about it LOL

it would be progress because we would have less discrimination

Panache · Jun 3, 2010

they want to be legally married, next

And I want to be entitled to the same priviliges without having to get married. What makes them more deserving of privileges than I?

you cant be serious?

I rarely am.

this is pure fantasy semantics, of course a gay women and gay man can get married to EACH OTHER

I am glad we agree.

and you say for that reason they arent denied anything LMAO

I don't recall saying that they aren't denied anything. They are denied the same privileges that I am.

so if whites weren't allowed to marry blacks would your argument be the same? "they can marry each other but just not interracially"

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.

The issue is the same whether we are talking about orientation or race, and it isn't that any one group is being "denied rights." The issue is that the law is arbitrarily giving special privileges to some at the expense of others.

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.

see how dumb that is

I do indeed. Do you?

yes they are prevented by being GAY

No they aren't. Being gay has nothing to do with it.

Sex technically isnt, some couples get married without it has some are incapable

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.

If straight guys are being prevented from marrying other straight guys, its hard to say that they are being discriminated against for being gay.

also currently under the law without marriage your relationship of sister, grandpa and business partner isnt less deserving in many cases its been found of HIGHER deserving because gay partners have loss houses, properties, money, belongs to those very groups because under the law without marriage they are not entitled to "the goodies" and yes these things have even been overturned with power of attorney, wills etc

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.

So the answer is if you want it for you brother, flight instructor etc to have those rights thats the route you can go, you can take those legal avenues you listed that are available to EVERYONE(not discrimination)

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.

but if you want it for your spouse/partner you need marriage has that is the most concrete and currently only offered between a man and a women which IS discrimination .

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.

this is where you argument fails the worse, there would be nothing oppressing about it LOL

it would be progress because we would have less discrimination

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?

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.

AGENT J · Jun 3, 2010

Panache said:
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

Panache said:
I rarely am..

obviously has you have proved this

Panache said:
I am glad we agree.

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

Panache said:
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

Panache said:
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

Panache said:
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

Panache said:
I do indeed. Do you?

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

Panache said:
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

Panache said:
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

Panache said:
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

Panache said:
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

Panache said:
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

Panache said:
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

Panache said:
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

Panache said:
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

Panache · Jun 4, 2010

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

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here, even after getting past the lack of punctuation or sentence structure. If I am already entitled to the same privileges except for health care, and they are working on that, then it stands to reason that gay men are entitled to the same. Name one thing that that I, as a straight male, am allowed to do that a gay male is not allowed to do.

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 am pretty sure that isn't what we agreed on. We agree that a gay man and a gay woman are allowed to marry each other.

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

You seem confused. I said that they were not prevented from getting married, and they are not. I did not say they were not denied anything, as they are.

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

You seem to have reading comprehension issues. If you believe I am wrong that such a law does not favour one race over the other, then tell me which race is being favoured and which race is being discriminated against.

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

Ok, so if these benefits are already accessible to everyone, then what is the problem? Why are you acting like they aren't accessible to gays?

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

What do you mean? They both have the same access. The gay guy can marry a woman just like the straight guy can. In fact, more than one gay man has done just that.

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

I fail to see how such an ad hominem helps either your argument for gay marriage or your warrantless accusations of trolling.

only in your fantasy land, of course it does and its been proven

Ok, lets review here:

I said:

Things like power of attorney, and living wills, and inheritance rights, and everything else on the list of rights that gay marriage folk are fighting for should have nothing to do with sex at all.

to which, you said:

Sex technically isnt, some couples get married without it has some are incapable

So, if sex isn't necessarily related to marriage, then it stands to reason that sexual orientation is not necessarily related to marriage either. In order to prove that people are being denied privileges because of their sexual orientation, you need to demonstrate that marriage is somehow related to sex. I am happy to concede this fact.

Gay men can marry women just like straight men can, but this is more advantageous to straight men because straight men like having sex with women. What I am asking you to demonstrate is why inheritance rights and tax benefits should have anything to do with sex whatsoever.

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.

Only if marriage is related to sex. In which case, there needs to be some reason behind giving special privileges for sexual relationship above all others.

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

Your analogy is flawed, because voting is not an inherently discriminatory practice, whereas marriage is.

Suppose that women and blacks were allowed to vote, but had to wait their turn at the voting booths, while white males were allowed to cut in front blacks, so that they didn't have to wait. If a group lobbied for women to be allowed to take cuts in front of blacks as well, would they be justified?

actually its very easy, see example above as it was just proved nor does it effect the definition of discrimination

Please do try to make some sense. What example are you referring to? How can I be discriminated against for being gay when I am not gay?

meaningless since marriage does exists

To return to the example of slavery. I say slavery shouldn't exist, and you say that is meaningless because slavery does exist.

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

You seem so close to understanding, then shy away from enlightenment at the last second. It boggles the mind. "The law should not recognize privileges that are not available to everyone." This is the statement that you just agreed with, and yet your entire purpose here is to facilitate the opposite.

A marriage license is a piece of paper that says "these people are entitled to special privileges that aren't available to everyone." That is its sole function. Without special privileges that aren't available to everyone, marriage licenses cannot exist. They would serve no function, and would therefore be completely irrelevant.

again you cant be serious because marriage is still not available to everyone and thats the problem

Marriage is available to everyone. There are plenty of gay people who are also married. The real issue is that the privileges of marriage are not available to everyone unless they engage in some state sanctioned relationship that they may or may not wish for themselves.

wow this is just beyond dumb and trolling again

Unlike that statement which was clearly so germane to the conversation.

again with the illogical, you are comparing owning slaves to marriage? nah thats not a stretch at all

Apparently you've never been married. ;-)

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

So you would have supported women's right to own slaves? If the opposition claimed that women owning slaves was just as bad as men owning slaves, would you have called them a dumb troll?

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

No

Yes, explain

Well-known member

Sporadic insanity normal.

Well-known member

Sporadic insanity normal.

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Sporadic insanity normal.

Well-known member

Well-known member

Sporadic insanity normal.

Well-known member

Sporadic insanity normal.

Well-known member

Sporadic insanity normal.

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Irrelevant Pissant

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Irrelevant Pissant

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Irrelevant Pissant