Revenge of the Return of *Homosexuals are Gay* Reloaded

So might a vote to keep discrimination against blacks legal in 1905, or a vote to keep women inferior to men legal in 1855, or a vote to keep slavery legal in 1805.

 

"No, your private business offends my Judeo-Christian sensibilities, you do not deserve to be accorded the same rights as those who don't."

What rights? You have the right to enter the contract, but you must be able to adhere to the rules of that contract. The governemtn offers many contracts to farmers, does that mean those who do not own land that they use to cultivate and harvest crops are being descriminated against? No they just can not enter into that cantract. Does this mean that I can not buy land and farm on my own, of course not. We are not talking about makeing homosexuality illegal.

1) His speciality is in...gynocology, and thus does not have the training for what you need. He's doing you a favor by getting you to someone who can help with what you need.
What I needed is a PAP Smear, if he is not goign to do his job then I am being discriminated against. This is your logic at work here. If he has a license (contract) to practice only on one gender and he refuses to perform on the other, that is discrimination. Just like a contract that stipulates two different genders refusing to operate on two of the same.

Times, they are a-changing.
Not according to public opinion

You're saying it's only discrimination if there is this, and this couldn't be discrimination unless this has always been the same.

No I am saying that discrimination is just a word that everyone is hung up on. No one wants to be accused of it so peopel throw that word around whenever they want to get something they want. There is discrimination in life that is unfair, and ther is discrimination that happens because it follows the rules. A blind man can not get a drivers license, a mute can not get a job as a radio announcer, a woman can not be a sperm doner. Contracts whose basis has to do with performance and gender qualifications are not inherantly discrimination.

DISCRIMINATION IS ANYTIME YOU EXCLUDE SOMBODY BASED ON AN ASPECT THAT CAUSES NO HARM TO ANYBODY. That bathroom analogy is retarded. I don't even need to adress that.

Retarded, what a wonderful way of refuting an argument that you have no defense to, resort to name calling. First of all I can assure you my IQ is not below 60 thus not retarded. And if you reread exactly what you wrote just before your claim of low intelligence, you seem to have argued your own argument. Exclusing me from the womens room is DISCRIMINATION IS ANYTIME YOU EXCLUDE SOMBODY BASED ON AN ASPECT THAT CAUSES NO HARM TO ANYBODY.

I wouldnt want anyone telling me who I can and Cant Marry.
if they do thats just wrong.
That just takes away everything a free contry(sp) stands for.

No one is telling anyone what they can and can not do. I applied for a scholarship through the NAACP and was denied because of the fact that I was not of African-American decent, and that is one of the stipulations fo the award(contract). Does that mean I should sue the NAACP for discrimination against em because i am white? Does that mean that the NAACP is making the choice for me not to go to college? Is the NAACP taking away my choices?

Yes, but you're not a woman, nor do you claim to be. If you were an m-to-f transsexual who identified as a woman but were kicked out of a woman's bathroom, then you might have the right to claim discrimination, but not as it currently stands.
And if you were a male who underwent surgery and is now a female you could get married to another man. You only support my point. You are saying that in the case of gender it is ok to have seperate but equal?

 

Look, you cant use discrimination towards gay marriage, and not use it towards something else. Again, no matter what the changes, marriage has ALWAYS been about 1 MAN and 1 WOMAN... That has NEVER changed.

That, in itself, is not an argument against change. 'This is the way it has always been' is no kind of reasoned defence of any policy, unless you believe any kind of change is inherently bad - which would be remarkably silly.

Consider: prior to 1967, sixteen states prevented mixed-race marriage. In those states, the way it had ALWAYS been was between a white man and a white woman, or a black woman and a black man. What's the substantive difference between gender and race that means one can change in defining marriage, and the other can't? Furthermore, what people would vote on is neither here nor there as to the merits of the issue at hand, wouldn't you agree?

I think rather than concentrating on tradition, it would be worthwhile for opponents of gay marriage to come up with concrete practical arguments: how it might lead to social upheavel, how it might weaken the institution of marriage, the legal implications. I don't believe there's a valid argument to be made for any of them, but if there were, it would be far more convincing than just talking about 'the way things have always been.'

Lastly, I wonder what you mean by "you cant use discrimination towards gay marriage, and not use it towards something else"? Do you mean that my arguments for allowing gay marriage would translate towards allowing people to marry animals, or inanimate objects - a point Sen. Santorum has made in the past? Well, that's an easily countered argument: neither animals nor inanimate objects can enter into a legal contract, which is precisely what a marriage is. It would be a case of fundamentally changing every human law (i.e., recognising the equal worth in a criminal trial of a wooden spoon and a man), not just those governing marriage as in the case of same-sex weddings.

EDIT: A blind man can not get a drivers license, a mute can not get a job as a radio announcer, a woman can not be a sperm doner. Contracts whose basis has to do with performance and gender qualifications are not inherantly discrimination.

That's because a blind man driving a car would be dangerous to himself and others (which part of the role of the government is to prevent); a mute could not actually announce on a radio - not that they're being prevented; and a woman is unable to produce sperm. These are inherent and obvious. What's your criticism against gay marriage? That they're physically unable to marry, in which case you'd be wrong? Or simply that you don't want them to?

JFM.

 

What rights? You have the right to enter the contract, but you must be able to adhere to the rules of that contract.

And we want to change the contract, because gender is not a necessary part of it, anyways.


A blind man can not get a drivers license, a mute can not get a job as a radio announcer, a woman can not be a sperm doner. Contracts whose basis has to do with performance and gender qualifications are not inherantly discrimination.

Those things are physically impossible (or could cause harm to others with the blind driver example), we're talking about man-made rules with marriage.


No one is telling anyone what they can and can not do.

You say homosexual couples can get civil unions, but not marriages. And others say they shouldn't get civil unions or marriages.


And as for men and women having to have different bathrooms in public. Yes, it is discrimination. But it's not nearly as important as marriage. And it's not like all men's bathrooms are out-houses, and all women's bathrooms are luxurious rooms indoors. And it's only like that for most public bathrooms, not your private bathrooms in your house. And I don't think there's a law for it or anything.



What if the Bible mentioned, say a dozen times, that if woman was infertile or miscarried a baby that she must be put to death. And everyone followed this rule, even into modern times. But lately, people started arguing against it. But some people thought it must be kept because it had always been like that, and it is important because if a woman can't have kids then there is no reason for her to live, since having and raising kids is so important in marriage, etc.

What side would you be on?

 

"Always"?

You sure?

There's never been an instance where multiple people were involved?

Damn, I guess you can't trust the Bible these days, sinced it says that Solomon had tons of wives and concubines.

*shrug*



Squ33k!

 

I got this far, double checked your profile and decided to skip the rest of your post.

My god man, you can't use such rediculas logic and expect to be taken seriously? That's like me howling 'discrimination' for being refused a prostate exam...

 

No I am saying that discrimination is just a word that everyone is hung up on. No one wants to be accused of it so peopel throw that word around whenever they want to get something they want. There is discrimination in life that is unfair, and ther is discrimination that happens because it follows the rules. A blind man can not get a drivers license, a mute can not get a job as a radio announcer, a woman can not be a sperm doner. Contracts whose basis has to do with performance and gender qualifications are not inherantly discrimination.

Bruno, you are so ill-informed. Tell me this how are gay people like a blind man. Blind men can't drive because they couldn't see where they were going. That is something that could cause harm to people. Tell me this: HOW WOULD GAYS HARM PEOPLE IF THEY GOT MARRIED? Huh? How are gays like the blind man who can't drive, huh? What would stop them form being married? See as you're comparing driving to marriage. What would prevent these gays from being married properly, like these blind men? That ananlogy is not only imature, but illogical, and you know it, you just don't like gays.

Retarded, what a wonderful way of refuting an argument that you have no defense to, resort to name calling. First of all I can assure you my IQ is not below 60 thus not retarded. And if you reread exactly what you wrote just before your claim of low intelligence, you seem to have argued your own argument. Exclusing me from the womens room is DISCRIMINATION IS ANYTIME YOU EXCLUDE SOMBODY BASED ON AN ASPECT THAT CAUSES NO HARM TO ANYBODY.

No it's not. You have your own bathroom. Not only that, you have the same bathroom. If gays got married they would metaphorically have their "own bathroom." If you didn't have a public bathroom, and the bathroom was just for women, that would discrimination. But you and women have access to the same bathroom, essentially, their bathroom is not any better.

Your ananlogies are so flawed. Bruno, married couples have 1000 rights that gays don't have, for what reason, huh? Because you think it's immoral. Becuase the rest of society doesn't want it. No, I'm sticking by my definition of discrimination: discrimination is anytime you exclude somebody based on an aspect that causes no harm to anybody. If you don't give someboyd a job becuase they're black, that's discrimination. If you don't give somebody a job becuase they didn't finish high school, then that's not discrimination.

Now I've shoot down your bathroom analogy, I have one thing to say. what now? Now try to tell me that marraige to straights only isn't discrimination. Let's hope you don't use another ridiculous ananolgy that everybody can kill.

 

Shredder, if you can't pwn someone'a argument on facts and logic, rather than childish insults, I'm going to be most upset, mmmkay?

E_S

 

How are my posts "childish insults?"

Your ananlogies are so flawed. Bruno, married couples have 1000 rights that gays don't have, for what reason, huh? Because you think it's immoral. Becuase the rest of society doesn't want it. No, I'm sticking by my definition of discrimination: discrimination is anytime you exclude somebody based on an aspect that causes no harm to anybody. If you don't give someboyd a job becuase they're black, that's discrimination. If you don't give somebody a job becuase they didn't finish high school, then that's not discrimination.

Oh yeah, I'm not using any facts at all. I'm conpletely aimed at the user!!! Where is the logic in that post!

 

No it's not. You have your own bathroom. Not only that, you have the same bathroom. If gays got married they would metaphorically have their "own bathroom." If you didn't have a public bathroom, and the bathroom was just for women, that would discrimination. But you and women have access to the same bathroom, essentially, their bathroom is not any better.

More stupid insults that use no facts whatsoever! I mean come on, where is the logic in that post! I'm not basing that on facts at all!

 

Sorry, I must have imagined the bits where you called Bruno immature, illogical and telling him he didn't like gays. At least you have time to think about how you can offer something of substance here.

E_S

 

NO
Marriage has alway been about two PEOPLE proclaiming(sp) their love for each other.
It would be a mighty sad day if it did happen.
It needs to change.

 

Sorry, I must have imagined the bits where you called Bruno immature, illogical and telling him he didn't like gays. At least you have time to think about how you can offer something of substance here.

I was doing just fine handling it myself...

NO
Marriage has alway been about two PEOPLE proclaiming(sp) their love for each other.

Really? Then how come the government doesnt give these 1000 rights to all thos ein love? I mean that is the big b1thc among those for gay marriage. Of course only when they are not tellign the government to keep out of your business.

Shredder your harping on the same thing over and over and I have yet to hear one single reason why the contract of marriage should be altered to allow two of the same sex to enter it. All I keep getting from you is "why not?, you must hate gays!" It is as ridiculous to allow same sex marriage as it is the examples I have stated above, unless of course you use your warped definition of discrimination. How is it that not hiring the kid with no high school diploma is NOT discrimination. By your own definition he is not causeing harm to anyone? Of course maybe its just my homophobic way of seeing things.

 

Well I am not sure.
Most likly because they're bringing their own personal/religious belife into the matter instead of leaving it open, as it should be, to anyone.
How is it a free country when you cant even marry who you want?

 

Marriage happens in the heart. Homosexuals have the right to get married. Socity can't stop that even if they make it illegal.

 

How is it a free country when you cant even marry who you want?

Marriage is not a right guaranteed by the constitution. It is a contract between a man and a woman. If your in love with a man and you yourself are a man, you can pursue that relationship as you see fit, that is your freedom. You can not enter into a contract with that person when the contract stipulates gender. If you do not own any land you can not enter into a contract to lease out land, the contract requires that you own land. Does this impose on your freedom? No. If you are excluded from being mentioned in someones will because you were adopted is that infringing on your freedom? No it is a simple matter of the contract at hand.

 

That's an inevitable result when human sensibilities become involved in any debate. The US has a principle of free speech, but one can't yell fire in a crowded theater and cause a panic.

Australia, for example, passed a national referendum that prohibited same sex marriages, but Australia doesn't prevent anyone from forming specific relationships. I'd consider Australia a free country.

It's a tough situation because so many opinions are trying to be heard.

 

Look, you cant use discrimination towards gay marriage, and not use it towards something else. Again, no matter what the changes, marriage has ALWAYS been about 1 MAN and 1 WOMAN... That has NEVER changed. And i think (personally) if we were to vote on an amendment keeping marriage as it was meant to be, it would win.



"Always"?

You sure?

There's never been an instance where multiple people were involved?

Damn, I guess you can't trust the Bible these days, sinced it says that Solomon had tons of wives and concubines.
-------------------------------------------------

Yep, he did, but if you'll notice in Ecclesiastes he considers his life practically wasted, and was sinning against God when he did that. Just because an earthly King (or President for that matter)_ does something, doesnt mean its right

 

And just because you don't think homosexual marriage is right doesn't men we do, or that your opinion or a religious book should be law.

 

And just because you think homosexual marriage should be allowed, doesnt mean that we do, or that your opinion should be law.

 

ClonedEmperor:




You're right: I can't change anybody's opinion but my own, but I can help others change their opinion if they let me.

You're right: opinion shouldn't be law.


And that is why homosexual marriage should be legal.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Some of you are like little kids with their toys. You play with them, and break them. But you won't share. Like it loses its value if it doesn't all belong to you.

------------------------------------------------------------------

If everybody had diamonds, would that mean diamonds are no longer beautiful?

------------------------------------------------------------------

What if the Bible said a dozen times, that if a woman was infertile or miscarried a baby that she must be put to death. And everyone followed this rule, even into modern times. But lately, people started arguing against it. But some people thought it must be kept because it had always been like that, and it is important because if a woman can't have kids then there is no reason for her to live, since having and raising kids is so important in marriage, etc.

------------------------------------------------------------------

The question should not be "Why should homosexuals marry?" but " Why shouldn't homosexuals marry?"

The most common response is that it's not the classical family. But neither are single-parent homes, homes including an uncle or aunt or grandparent, or just a kid and a grandparent/aunt/uncle. There are many different types of families now, and they're not uncommon, but nobody is attacking any of those kind of families. Raising kids doesn't depend on the number or gender or age of their parent-figures/guardians, but on who they are, on what they are like, which is different for every person. But children aren't the main reason for marriage for everyone, or even a reason for some couples, if they even want to or can have children in the first place! Many couples don't even want kids, or they can't. Of course, if a couple has kids then that would be a top priority of the marriage. But many heterosexual couples don't have kids, but nobody is attacking them. Having and raising children isn't a recquired part of marriage. The type of family your neighbors have can not harm you in any way. All it does it give people more options to choose from, nobody is forcing you to do anything, it's the opposite, they're giving you more choices if they legalize homosexual marriage. You can still have a "classical family" if you choose to.
Others at this point say that according to their religion, children are a recquirement of marriage, or homosexuality is a sin (and even those things can be disputed). Well guess what, not everyone in your religion agrees with the same beliefs, not everyone is even in your religion, and religion is supposed to have no influence over the government's laws or vice-versa. What if someone is in a religion where homosexual marriage is accepted equally with heterosexual marriage? The government should be able to hand out marriage certificates to any consenting couple, regardless of their sex. Whether their religion recoginizes their union or not is something entirely different, which the government should have no say in anyways.
People, especially in America, should have the right to choose their own lifestyle, for the governemnt to legally recognize whatever type of family you choose to form. Some say it should be decided by a majority vote of the people or congress of the state/country. But the majority vote is not always the best thing. The government is not only around to follow the will of the people and protect the people form outsiders, but also defend the freedoms and rights of the people from themselves. A minority of the population should not be treated differently just because they are the minority, it is the government's job to protect minorities from the majority.

 

The question should not be "Why should homosexuals marry?" but " Why shouldn't homosexuals marry?"


I am still waiting for an answer to the first question, so far have heard none! And "because it is discrimination" is not an answer.

 

I believe the government needs to get out of the business of acknowledging marriage between anyone. Its none of their dang business what kind of commitments a person makes; we don't need their permission to be married, only to have the protected status of marriage. Instead of giving these benefits to more people, we need to take them away from those who already have them.

 

My answer is this: because marriage is an outdated rotting institution that we need to let die and replace with something better.