NY: Homosexuals Win but Society Loses

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



I am talking about recgonized legal marriage.

So, all your talk about love and priest and what the priest sees marriage is really had nothingn to do with the conversation except to muddy it up with emotion then, right?

Many many of them are religious ceremonies that result in a legally recognized marriage.

There is not requirement for a religious ceremony for a marriage to be recognized. Some are, some aren't - regardless of sexual orientation.

I not you keep negecting that pesky little fact.

This is exactly like interracial marriage, it's changing slowly just like those laws did, and sadly just like the bigots of yesteryear, the ones of today feel justified in their bigotry.

For all those (non-existent) states that require sexual orientation to be a certain way for a marriage to be legally recognized, you are correct: it's the same as a racial criteria.

For the other 50 states (and DC, and the territories), there's no comparison.

 

[This_person]

you have yet to produce anything that demonstrates that are not equal.

Nor is there any requirement to.

The law exists, I have not yet seen a reason to change it. To change, there needs to be a reason. What is the reason?

It can't be discrimination, because there's no sexual orientation criteria. There's no racial criteria. There's no religious criteria.

That leaves a societal benefit as a reason - that same-sex relationships must demonstrate they provide the same benefit to get the same treatment.

 

[thatguy]

Nor is there any requirement to.

The law exists, I have not yet seen a reason to change it. To change, there needs to be a reason. What is the reason?

It can't be discrimination, because there's no sexual orientation criteria. There's no racial criteria. There's no religious criteria.

That leaves a societal benefit as a reason - that same-sex relationships must demonstrate they provide the same benefit to get the same treatment.

again, thats a whole lot of stupid........

but i guess everybody has to be good at something :keepupthegoodwork:

 

[This_person]

again, thats a whole lot of stupid........

but i guess everybody has to be good at something :keepupthegoodwork:

So, what is the reason I would need to show two unequal things are not equal.

Here's a way to demonstrate it to you - if they were equal, we wouldn't be having the discussion because there'd be no way to differentiate between the two.

But, it's always good to see you resort to the name-calling with no substantive answer. Demonstrates your ability to reason (as non-existent).

 

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

again, thats a whole lot of stupid........

but i guess everybody has to be good at something :keepupthegoodwork:

So, what is the reason I would need to show two unequal things are not equal.

Here's a way to demonstrate it to you - if they were equal, we wouldn't be having the discussion because there'd be no way to differentiate between the two.

But, it's always good to see you resort to the name-calling with no substantive answer. Demonstrates your ability to reason (as non-existent).

Just not going to bang my head against the stupid wall anymore. I guess that means you win

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



Just not going to bang my head against the stupid wall anymore. I guess that means you win

If you stopped banging your head on a stupid wall, you might be able to reason out your position intelligently.

Unfortunately, you haven't.

 

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



Just not going to bang my head against the stupid wall anymore. I guess that means you win

If you stopped banging your head on a stupid wall, you might be able to reason out your position intelligently.

Unfortunately, you haven't.

You are the "stupid" wall

I'm not surprised you didn't get it

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



You are the "stupid" wall

I'm not surprised you didn't get it

I understood your inadequate attempt at insult, and turned it into a critique of your position (or lack thereof).

I'm not surprised you didn't get that.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



Marriage has nothing to do with civil rights at all! But since the govt seems to think it their job to provide benefits for it; the need to so it equally.

Just like we equally provide benefits to Walmart and Good Will!


Oh, wait, that's the OPPOSITE of your point (but reality), isn't it?

Deja vu

 

[McGinn77]

I not you keep negecting that pesky little fact.For all those (non-existent) states that require sexual orientation to be a certain way for a marriage to be legally recognized, you are correct: it's the same as a racial criteria.

...that same-sex relationships must demonstrate they provide the same benefit to get the same treatment.

Are you too dense to realize those arguments contradict each other?

Argument 1: they are treated totally equal so there is not problem.

Argument 2: give me a reason to treat them equal.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



Because they ARE equal! They deserve equality! Why do you say they deserve less? Because YOU find it immoral?! A lot of things can be considered immoral, I bet YOU even do immoral things! but notice I'M not trying to cure you nor treat you unequally!

Please demonstrate the study that supports your claim.

Hmmm...a study to prove that gay people are equal to hetero people...yeah...that's not a ridiculously prejudiced request at all now, if you want equality in this country, the burdon of proof is on you to prove you deserve it.

 

[Merlin99]

You hear that Merlin, you're a liberal

I've got to admit on some issues I am extremely liberal, it's just on the fiscal issues that I'm extremely conservative.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

You hear that Merlin, you're a liberal

I've got to admit on some issues I am extremely liberal, it's just on the fiscal issues that I'm extremely conservative.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



Deja vu

Come up with an argument I haven't already demonstrated is inaccurate, I'll give you a new answer.

 

[This_person]

Are you too dense to realize those arguments contradict each other?

Argument 1: they are treated totally equal so there is not problem.

Argument 2: give me a reason to treat them equal.

No, you're too dense to see they're different arguments.

Argument 1: There is no discrimination, so you can't claim discrimination.

Argument 2: They're not equal, they're similar but different. Give me a reason to treat two similar things as equivalent.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



Hmmm...a study to prove that gay people are equal to hetero people...

No, that's not what I asked.

I asked for a study to show same-sex relationships provide the same benefit to society that opposite sex relationships do in terms of "marriage".

We're not talking about sexual orientation - that's not a part of a legal requirement for marriage to be recognized by the state.

Please try and stick to the subject.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



Deja vu

Come up with an argument I haven't already demonstrated is inaccurate, I'll give you a new answer.

It doesn't count as a demonstration of inaccuracy if only you and a small minority see it. The general idea is to get a majority of people to verify the assertion in question. Then, and ONLY then; is the 'demonstration' considered accurate. The only 'peer-reviewed' studies you've used in your 'argument' show that marriage is beneficial to society and NOT that same-sex marriages (happy?) aren't. So I suppose it's obvious that you wouldn't understand how things like this work. IMO of course.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Are you too dense to realize those arguments contradict each other?

Argument 1: they are treated totally equal so there is not problem.

Argument 2: give me a reason to treat them equal.

No, you're too dense to see they're different arguments.

Argument 1: There is no discrimination, so you can't claim discrimination.

Argument 2: They're not equal, they're similar but different. Give me a reason to treat two similar things as equivalent.

Idk, women are similar but different from men. Give me a reason to treat two similar things as equivalent. :shrug:

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



Hmmm...a study to prove that gay people are equal to hetero people...

No, that's not what I asked.

I asked for a study to show same-sex relationships provide the same benefit to society that opposite sex relationships do in terms of "marriage".

We're not talking about sexual orientation - that's not a part of a legal requirement for marriage to be recognized by the state.

Please try and stick to the subject.

Show me a study that shows interracial marriages, inter-religious marriages, women getting to choose marriages...are beneficial to society. Otherwise, we need to go back to THOSE definitions of marriage, since they're old and have a long tradition. Again: :shrug:

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



It doesn't count as a demonstration of inaccuracy if only you and a small minority see it. The general idea is to get a majority of people to verify the assertion in question.

No, truth is truth regardless of how many people see it.

The only 'peer-reviewed' studies you've used in your 'argument' show that marriage is beneficial to society and NOT that same-sex marriages (happy?) aren't.

I still have never once claimed same-sex marriages are a detriment to society.

It's good to see you recognize traditional marriage is a benefit. So, now we are on the same page: the thing that gets benefits now is demonstratably a benefit to society. The similar but different thing does not show that same benefit, and therefore does not get that same benefit as a result.

See how easy facts are?

So I suppose it's obvious that you wouldn't understand how things like this work. IMO of course.

Again, I'm suggesting how an intelligent, reasoned, responsible manner it should work. If there is something that benefits society (say, a charitable organization, or the institution of marriage) it gets treated appropriately. If something has not shown that benefit, it doesn't not get treated as if it does. If something is actually a detriment to society, it should be regulated and/or outlawed.

Now, I've never once suggested outlawing same-sex relationships. In fact, I've said they do and should exist!

So, since they exist, and other nations and some states have already modified the dictionary to include that which is not a part of the definition of marriage into becoming marriage, there should be studies out there that show there's a benefit, detriment, or neutral effect on society. Show me a reasonable study that demonstrates the result is beneficial, not detrimental nor neutral, and we're on the same side of the discussion.

This is what I've been saying from my first post.