This_person
Well-Known Member
No, I've been told how you feel it's discriminatory, but I've shown you it's actually not. It's only discrimination based on words like "want" and "love". When you look at the actual requirements for obtaining a marriage license, the discriminatory things you describe are just not there from a non-emotional point of view. :shrug:
That must go along with the discrimination issue, which still doesn't exist.
No, I actually agree it's about men marrying men and women marrying women, without sexual orientation as an issue. It doesn't matter whether you're hetero or homosexual, you can't do it because it doesn't fit the definition. Same with multiple partners, same with incestuous relationships, same with being too young, etc., etc.You've been told that the issue is men being able to marry men and women being able to marry women (NOT gay men marrying women) but if you recognized that then you would be forced to publicly admit you're in favor of discrimination.
You made accusations without proof only to deny ever making an accusation.You gotta show me that one.I never suggested individual same-sex marriages (why do you keep going back to gay? this has nothing to do with sexual orientation, or it'd be a discriminatory action - the law says nothing of sexual orientation) had to prove it either. I provided informational studies that show traditional marriage aids society, and suggest that same-sex marriages should show the same (or similar) benefits to get the same benefits. how is that unreasonable?Because I knew people like you would react the way you did - attack the source instead of the actual data. You did that until you saw the actual data was secular, not religion-based, then you calmed down about it.
And, you're effectively still doing it.If you hadn't noticed by others discussing this, my points are neither the standard conservative views nor talking points. They're rational, reasoned arguments.
Show me where a state law in the 20th or 21st century has a sexual orientation clause, and I'll concede that law is discriminatory. Until then, all you have is emotion of saying people can't do what they want, even if it doesn't fit the definition of what marriage is.I'm not proud of myself that a fellow citizen is so set in her ways that she can't see a reasoned argument through her clouded emotion-based opinion.So...why don't you just keep going, then when you are ready for a response go back and read the thread, then you can respond again. I'm tired of repeating myself only to be ignored. You should be proud though, I'm a very stubborn person and you've managed to bore me
Wirelessly posted
This_person said:No, I've been told how you feel it's discriminatory, but I've shown you it's actually not. It's only discrimination based on words like "want" and "love". When you look at the actual requirements for obtaining a marriage license, the discriminatory things you describe are just not there from a non-emotional point of view. :shrug:That must go along with the discrimination issue, which still doesn't exist.No, I actually agree it's about men marrying men and women marrying women, without sexual orientation as an issue. It doesn't matter whether you're hetero or homosexual, you can't do it because it doesn't fit the definition. Same with multiple partners, same with incestuous relationships, same with being too young, etc., etc.You've been told that the issue is men being able to marry men and women being able to marry women (NOT gay men marrying womenYou made accusations without proof only to deny ever making an accusation.You gotta show me that one.I never suggested individual same-sex marriages (why do you keep going back to gay? this has nothing to do with sexual orientation, or it'd be a discriminatory action - the law says nothing of sexual orientation) had to prove it either. I provided informational studies that show traditional marriage aids society, and suggest that same-sex marriages should show the same (or similar) benefits to get the same benefits. how is that unreasonable?Because I knew people like you would react the way you did - attack the source instead of the actual data. You did that until you saw the actual data was secular, not religion-based, then you calmed down about it.
And, you're effectively still doing it.If you hadn't noticed by others discussing this, my points are neither the standard conservative views nor talking points. They're rational, reasoned arguments.
Show me where a state law in the 20th or 21st century has a sexual orientation clause, and I'll concede that law is discriminatory. Until then, all you have is emotion of saying people can't do what they want, even if it doesn't fit the definition of what marriage is.I'm not proud of myself that a fellow citizen is so set in her ways that she can't see a reasoned argument through her clouded emotion-based opinion.So...why don't you just keep going, then when you are ready for a response go back and read the thread, then you can respond again. I'm tired of repeating myself only to be ignored. You should be proud though, I'm a very stubborn person and you've managed to bore me
That's some stupid shiat right there.
If everyone was allowed to marry, but you could only marry someone they don't want or love, then it might not be discrimination.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Who's suggesting you can only marry someone you don't want or love?
Here's the thing, and there's just no getting around it: there's no sexual orientation requirement to getting married. There's just not. No matter how you phrase it, no matter how many "I know this one couple" you come up with, no matter how much any of you believe it's there, it's just not.
So, John can't marry Phil, and Alice can't marry Mary. That's true regardless of sexual orientation. The reason? It doesn't fit the criteria.
UNA believes the criteria is the problem, but can't give me a reason why it's wrong other than she believes it to be discriminatory. As I said above, it's clearly not, because (no matter how much you or she want it to be there), there's no sexual orientation criteria for marriage.
Feeling it's discriminatory is not the same thing as it being discriminatory.
But, why do you folk feel it's discriminatory? Because if John wants to marry Phil, he can't. So, the discrimination (since it's irrefutably not based on sexual orientation) is against people who want to do something they can't do because it doesn't fit the criteria. I say everyone who wants to be president but isn't because they didn't get the votes must, clearly by your criteria, be being discriminated against. Everyone who doesn't earn what a college grad earns simply because they don't have a college education is clearly discriminated against. Everyone who wants to practice law but didn't pass the bar exam, everyone who wants to drink milk but is lactose intolerant, everyone who wants to be considered an American Indian without having documentation of heritage, everyone who wants to pay no taxes but can't because the law says they actually earn money and must pay - all of these people are being discriinated against. And, there's a lot more of them than people who want to have the government recognize their same-sex relationship, so let's fix all those first.
Wirelessly posted
Again, that's a whole lot of stupid.
I got to marry someone I love. In fact, throughout the ceremony the preist spoke vividly about the gift of love and how love was the foundation of marriage. Gay people can't marry who they love. That is discriminatory. In certain states the laws already reflect this truth; gays can marry- the criteria has been changed if you will. Its exactly like interracial marriage
This_person said:
Again, that's a whole lot of stupid.
I got to marry someone I love. In fact, throughout the ceremony the preist spoke vividly about the gift of love and how love was the foundation of marriage. Gay people can't marry who they love. That is discriminatory. In certain states the laws already reflect this truth; gays can marry- the criteria has been changed if you will. Its exactly like interracial marriage
bcp
In My Opinion
Its not exactly like interracial marriage. Interracial marriage was illegal because originally blacks were not considered equal to humans/whites.
interracial marriage is no different that same race marriage.
Homosexual marriage is different, much different.
bcp
In My Opinion
I understand that you want to marry another dude one day, but the simple fact of want does not justify receiving in every case.Wirelessly posted
Yeah I know, it's different because you think their marriage is unequal instead
I want to be rich, big house, yacht, travel etc... but the simple fact is that I did not work hard enough in my life to get these things. I will never be equal to those that did. I think its fair.
bcp
In My Opinion
If you cant see the difference then its possible that you have some serious issues regarding race.
There are no civil rights issues with homosexuals.
Wirelessly posted
You being a slacker and living in a ****hole as a result has nothing to do with equality. :shrug:
bcp said:I understand that you want to marry another dude one day, but the simple fact of want does not justify receiving in every case.Wirelessly posted
Yeah I know, it's different because you think their marriage is unequal instead
I want to be rich, big house, yacht, travel etc... but the simple fact is that I did not work hard enough in my life to get these things. I will never be equal to those that did. I think its fair.
You being a slacker and living in a ****hole as a result has nothing to do with equality. :shrug:
bcp
In My Opinion
Not sure I would go that far with my lifes description,,, but, ok
but, equally two guys deciding they want to go against nature and ream each others one way streets has nothing to do with equality either.
I guess I will suffer for my choices, they will suffer for theirs.
Life is fair after all.
UNA
New Member
Wirelessly posted
The difference is that you can control whether you word hard enough to attain those goals. You have/had similar opportunities as those that attain those goals. You have/had the chance. Being rich and marriage equality are not comparable.
bcp said:I understand that you want to marry another dude one day, but the simple fact of want does not justify receiving in every case.Wirelessly posted
Yeah I know, it's different because you think their marriage is unequal instead
I want to be rich, big house, yacht, travel etc... but the simple fact is that I did not work hard enough in my life to get these things. I will never be equal to those that did. I think its fair.
The difference is that you can control whether you word hard enough to attain those goals. You have/had similar opportunities as those that attain those goals. You have/had the chance. Being rich and marriage equality are not comparable.
Wirelessly posted
Its not the same in a very important way. If you wanted to, you had the opportunity to work hard and get the big house, clean RV, etc.. Gays on the other hand don't have the same opportunity to marry someone they love.
bcp said:
Not sure I would go that far with my lifes description,,, but, ok
but, equally two guys deciding they want to go against nature and ream each others one way streets has nothing to do with equality either.
I guess I will suffer for my choices, they will suffer for theirs.
Life is fair after all.
Its not the same in a very important way. If you wanted to, you had the opportunity to work hard and get the big house, clean RV, etc.. Gays on the other hand don't have the same opportunity to marry someone they love.
bcp
In My Opinion
Then its very much the same. I had a choice to study harder/different subjects but I chose to take a different route
They can marry, they just choose to marry in such a way that is not currently legal. If they would have chosen a different partner, they could have been married no problem.
Prove its not a choice.