Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Republicans really do hate gay people

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by regexcellent View Post


    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?

    Comment


    • 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.

      Comment


      • 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?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by regexcellent View Post
          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.

          Comment


          • 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).

            Comment


            • Originally posted by gribbler View Post
              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.

              Comment


              • Kodak is a person!
                John Brown did nothing wrong.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Kuciwalker View Post
                  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...
                  “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
                  "Capitalism ho!"

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Felch View Post
                    Kodak is a person!
                    Oh snap.

                    Comment


                    • Was a person.

                      Comment


                      • AT&T should have justified its buying of T-mobile as a marriage instead of an acquisition.
                        “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
                        "Capitalism ho!"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by regexcellent View Post
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Kuciwalker View Post
                            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 bull**** and demand that they either openly admit to being bigots or stop being bigots.

                            Comment


                            • 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
                              Jon Miller-
                              I AM.CANADIAN
                              GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

                              Comment


                              • What social benefits are you referring to?
                                “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
                                "Capitalism ho!"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X