Republicans really do hate gay people

[kentonio]

You wouldn't, but the point is that you can. You have the right to marry a woman; it's your choice to exercise it.

You have the right to punch yourself repeatedly in the balls until you pass out. Does it enrich your life having such freedom?

[regexcellent]

That's not the point.

The point is that under the traditional definition of marriage, there is not discrimination against gay people. They have the right to do the same things that straight people can. They just can't do something else entirely and call it marriage, then get a marriage license from the State to that effect.

Whether it enriches their lives or not is simply not germane.

[kentonio]

If you start from the position of believing all people are equal, the idea that its 'something else entirely' seems utterly illogical. The part that really burns so many people though is that this is so damn unimportant to anyone but homosexuals. It's such a completely free thing to do, that would hurt no-one, cost nothing, and have literally no ill effects yet would make society more equal and have a positive effect on the happiness and sense of social belonging of millions of people. Seriously, why the **** not?

[gribbler]

That's not the point.

The point is that under the traditional definition of marriage, there is not discrimination against gay people. They have the right to do the same things that straight people can. They just can't do something else entirely and call it marriage, then get a marriage license from the State to that effect.

Whether it enriches their lives or not is simply not germane.

The legal definition under which they can't marry their actual partners but can marry people who will never be their partners isn't discriminatory? That doesn't really make sense.

[regexcellent]

Whether or not we should have gay marriage as a matter of public policy is also not germane. The point Kuciwalker has been trying to make is that the argument that we shouldn't is at a minimum logically consistent and not inherently steeped in discrimination and bigotry (though I have no doubt that many supporters of that policy are in fact bigots).

[regexcellent]

The legal definition under which they can't marry their actual partners but can marry people who will never be their partners isn't discriminatory? That doesn't really make sense.

Yes it does. The notion is that they can't marry their partners because that is actually not possible because that is not what marriage is, and that "marrying" their partners would be like having a funeral for Kodak.

[Felch]

Kodak is a person!

[DaShi]

No, they aren't. A huge proportion of the population believes the hypothetical is true. If you are unable to put yourself in your opponents' shoes and reason from their own premises, you are intellectually stunted and should have little faith in your own beliefs.

Another huge proportion believes that it is not true...

[kentonio]

Kodak is a person!

Oh snap.

[regexcellent]

Was a person.

[DaShi]

AT&T should have justified its buying of T-mobile as a marriage instead of an acquisition.

[gribbler]

Yes it does. The notion is that they can't marry their partners because that is actually not possible because that is not what marriage is, and that "marrying" their partners would be like having a funeral for Kodak.

You're saying "they can't legally marry because marriage is not defined that way" which is basically a tautology. I've informed you that the legal definition is discriminatory. Defending discrimination by claiming that to not discriminate would be like getting a man pregnant or holding a funeral for a corporation is totally bizarre. It is legal discrimination for the law to claim that there is no such thing as homosexual marriage in this country.

[gribbler]

No, they aren't. A huge proportion of the population believes the hypothetical is true. If you are unable to put yourself in your opponents' shoes and reason from their own premises, you are intellectually stunted and should have little faith in your own beliefs.

This is a false equivalency that assumes both sides must be making rational arguments that can make sense to a reasonable person. In reality people want to discriminate against homosexual "deviants" without admitting to being involved in discrimination. The only way to respond is to call them out on their bullshit and demand that they either openly admit to being bigots or stop being bigots.

[Jon Miller]

It's nice to be able to demonize your opponents.

If this were the case, then why does there exist people like myself who believes the hypothetical is true, does not support gay marriage based on it somehow being discriminatory not to allow a man to marry another man, and yet still be in favor due to the social benefits.

I wonder what % of the those who are in favor of gay marriage are in favor for reasons other than thinking that it would be discriminatory not to allow a man to marry another man...

jM

[DaShi]

What social benefits are you referring to?

[gribbler]

It's nice to be able to demonize your opponents.

If this were the case, then why does there exist people like myself who believes the hypothetical is true, does not support gay marriage based on it somehow being discriminatory not to allow a man to marry another man, and yet still be in favor due to the social benefits.

I wonder what % of the those who are in favor of gay marriage are in favor for reasons other than thinking that it would be discriminatory not to allow a man to marry another man...

jM

If you think not allowing homosexuals to get the same benefits heterosexuals receive isn't discriminatory, you are holding an irrational position. "It isn't discrimination to discriminate on the basis of gender or sexual orientation" is a contradictory statement.

[Jon Miller]

How are homosexuals not allowed to get the same benefits as heterosexuals?

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

Why the fvck would I want to marry a woman?

So you do admit that you can marry a woman, just that you choose not to marry one? Hey, life sucks, it ain't fair. We can't all marry the person we want to marry.

[gribbler]

How are homosexuals not allowed to get the same benefits as heterosexuals?

JM

They are not allowed to have their relationships recognized as marriages.

[gribbler]

So you do admit that you can marry a woman, just that you choose not to marry one? Hey, life sucks, it ain't fair. We can't all marry the person we want to marry.

Yes. Sometimes because of legal discrimination. Why you think the government should make life suck more I will never understand.

[Jon Miller]

Lot's of relationships don't get recognized as marriage.

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, you are making my point for me. Compare this to anti-same-sex marriage laws. They didn't even exist because "same-sex marriage" was already a contradiction in terms. There was no need to ban something that was logically impossible.

This is an actual example of the exception proving the rule.

Considering Leviticus appears to be against same sex relationships in general, I'm guessing marriage would be right out as well. It appears to me that "traditional marriage" means no miscegenation if we are defining it in your terms. Or, rather that whole call back for "traditional marriage" really makes no logical sense whatsoever, considering there is no such thing (well, I guess unless your tradition doesn't actually go back as far as you would like people to believe it does).

[Ben Kenobi]

Gribbler:

You have said earlier, that homophobes are not arguing that marriage is not a right. So, given that marriage is a right, and that gay people are citizens of the United States, it's irrational to deny American citizens the right that other citizens enjoy, on the grounds that marriage is traditionally conceived/understood as between two people of opposite genders.

As Mr. Fun has admitted - no one is stopping him from marrying a woman, save himself. Ergo, he is declining to exercise a 'right', not having a 'right' taken away from him.

What instead, he is asking for - is for the state to recognise the right to marry someone of the same sex as him. He is also assuming that 'sex doesn't matter', wrt marriage.

So, in order for him to succeed in his case - he needs to explain why sex shouldn't matter in marriage, not that his is being 'discriminated against'. The state discriminates against those who want to get married to more than one person at the same time, it discriminates against those who want to marry a 14 year old. It legally discrminates against those who want to get married to someone who is a blood relative.

Ergo - there is no such 'right' to get married to whomever you want. Never has been. The state is under no obligation to recognize any relationship as marriage, unless it meets the present legal definition of marriage, (and a few other conditions, residency, etc).

Oh, and one other thing, marriage isn't private - you don't have the right to marry someone without letting other people know. You can be with them - but you won't be legally married. This is different from freedom of association, etc.

[DaShi]

Please ignore Ben's post, Grib. It's not worth the effort.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why you think the government should make life suck more I will never understand

Why liberals believe that government ever does anything that doesn't make life suck more, I will never understand. Yes, the government makes stuff suck. This is a guarantee.

[gribbler]

Gribbler:



As Mr. Fun has admitted - no one is stopping him from marrying a woman, save himself. Ergo, he is declining to exercise a 'right', not having a 'right' taken away from him.

That is completely, utterly wrong. If miscegenation is banned, a white person who declines to marry a white person because they are in love with a black person is being denied their rights. Likewise with same-sex marriage.

[gribbler]

Why liberals believe that government ever does anything that doesn't make life suck more, I will never understand. Yes, the government makes stuff suck. This is a guarantee.

Please explain how laws against the malicious, premeditated killing of another human being make life suck more. Or, admit that some of what the government does makes life suck less.

[Ben Kenobi]

That is completely, utterly wrong. If miscegenation is banned, a white person who declines to marry a white person because they are in love with a black person is being denied their rights. Likewise with same-sex marriage.

Do you believe that the color of a persons skin is as relevant as their sexuality wrt marriage? Do you believe that it is just as hard for a white man to love a black woman as it is for a gay man to truly love a woman?

[Ben Kenobi]

Please explain how laws against the malicious, premeditated killing of another human being make life suck more. Or, admit that some of what the government does makes life suck less.

Plenty of honest men and women have gotten themselves into trouble by defending themselves and their families against home invaders through the use of deadly force. Why? Because government doesn't protect the honest.

How exactly does the state protect me from getting murdered or killed? Someone seeing me and calling 911 and hopefully getting to the hospital before I expire?

[gribbler]

Do you believe that the color of a persons skin is as relevant as their sexuality wrt marriage? Do you believe that it is just as hard for a white person to love a black person as it is for a gay man to truly love a woman?

It's not hard to love someone of a different race. It is rather difficult for a homosexual to love a woman. A homosexual loves a man the way a woman loves a man, why should the government discriminate on account of their genitalia?