- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 20,688
- Reaction score
- 7,320
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
What do you think? Is there any plausible reason to favor this discriminatory marriage policy, other than bigotry/racism?
Nice attempt at a straw man to link interracial marriage with SSM.
Whatever could you possibly be talking about? :roll:
If it's not motivated by bigotry, then why should it matter which group is being discriminated against?
Discrimination isn't inherently wrong, I'm sure you are trying to link banning interracial marriage with SSM as if they are equivalent. The two are not equal, and discriminating based on someone's race is not the same as discrimination based on sexual orientation or defined gender roles. I'm sure you are trying to indirectly say that those who don't support SSM are akin to those that would ban interracial marriage. We also ban polygamous marriage relationships. We discriminate against a person who thinks that he/she can have more than one wife/husband. Is that bigotry?
Discrimination isn't inherently wrong, I'm sure you are trying to link banning interracial marriage with SSM as if they are equivalent. The two are not equal, and discriminating based on someone's race is not the same as discrimination based on sexual orientation or defined gender roles. I'm sure you are trying to indirectly say that those who don't support SSM are akin to those that would ban interracial marriage. We also ban polygamous marriage relationships. We discriminate against a person who thinks that he/she can have more than one wife/husband. Is that bigotry?
Nope, everyone is allowed the same rights (or lack thereof) to polygamy. And if a married person finds someone they want to marry, that avenue is still open to them (provided they first get a divorce); bans on interracial marriage or same-sex marriage close that door entirely. Furthermore, polygamous relationships have negative consequences to society that are wholly absent in interracial marriages and/or same-sex marriages.
Not legally, a man or woman cannot legally have 2+ wives/husbands. Your argument is identical to many who are against SSM when they say "homosexuals do have the right to marry, they can legally marry someone of the opposite gender and marriage has not been denied to them."
Not legally, a man or woman cannot legally have 2+ wives/husbands. Your argument is identical to many who are against SSM when they say "homosexuals do have the right to marry, they can legally marry someone of the opposite gender and marriage has not been denied to them."
No they are not equivalent. John does not have the right to marry Bill, but Sue does. That is discrimination. This is simply not the case with laws against polygamy...the person still can marry whomever they want, they just have to get a divorce first. Furthermore, getting married is something that you DID of your own volition, which can be undone relatively easily. Being born a certain race or certain gender is something you ARE, not something you DID.
But nice try making this about polygamy. Didn't *you* just attack *me* for "making a straw man"? Why don't you explain the distinction between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage, if one exists?
I am for ssm just fyi. I do think there is a difference here in the sense that a man of any color is essentially the same as a man of any other color. A man and a women are different in many ways. You can't make rules regarding 2 of the same thing where one is treated differently due to nothing but skin pigmentation. You can make different rules for different sexes. We do it all the time.
As for ssm, I am all for it. I love being married, most of the time. I say good luck to you and whoever you want to try to make a life with.
Whatever could you possibly be talking about? :roll:
If it's not motivated by bigotry, then why should it matter which group is being discriminated against?
Nice attempt at a straw man to link interracial marriage with SSM.
From my point of view it is very simple. Marriage, Marriage Law and benefits derived from being Married revolve and were created around the position that Marriage between a man and a woman would lead to procreation. Not only should SSM not be allowed because it is clearly a push to extend those benefits and tax cuts where no procreation can exist, I would support no tax deductions or extended benefits packages for non-reproductive marriages between male and female. However, at least sexual relations between a man and a woman are indeed a natural act, I guess some would not agree to my full belief. Since homosexuality does not lead to children, there is absolutely no reason why they should be given tax deductions or not go out and earn their own benefits and homosexual acts are not, as some want to claim, natural acts.
Homosexuality is an aberration of normal species instincts to reproduce, possibly because sexual urges and gratification are also closely linked in the pleasure center of the brain. Yes, it exists in other species, notably in other mammals during times of overpopulation or as a means of expressing dominance.
Homosexuality is natural, and we have children, so all your points are not based in reality, nor fact.
Nope, everyone is allowed the same rights (or lack thereof) to polygamy. And if a married person finds someone they want to marry, that avenue is still open to them (provided they first get a divorce); bans on interracial marriage or same-sex marriage close that door entirely, because people are denied that right on account of who they ARE rather than what they previously DID. Furthermore, polygamous relationships have negative consequences to society that are wholly absent in interracial marriages and/or same-sex marriages.
Homosexuality is natural, and we have children, so all your points are not based in reality, nor fact.
Destroying one's heritage,bloodline, culture and distinct identity is ''progress'' ?I can remember when inter-racial DATING was just as "horrifying" as SSM is today. Humans in general and Americans in particular are slow to adapt.
It's called progress.
Destroying one's heritage,bloodline, culture and distinct identity is ''progress'' ?
Destroying one's heritage,bloodline, culture and distinct identity is ''progress'' ?
I do NOT hate our founding father's. Here let me give you an example, if i bring you a wild man from the bush's of papua new guini, who run's around naked dancing around a fire, and never bath's, and then i bring him and introduce him to your refined, civilized, intelligent, and modern adult daughter, and they get together and create a child, you don't think something got dilliuted and destroyed?It destroys it how? Doesn't that actually make it deeper? You must really hate our founding fathers then.