NY: Homosexuals Win but Society Loses

[McGinn77]

I think you are confusing privileges with "Privileged Class privileges" ie French Revolution which was a mess and was a failure - second we are a Republic, not a true democracy.

Driving is a privilege. Marriage is a privilege. You need a lic. for both.

1) my quote was from your article directly.

2) Which French Revolution are you talking about? 1832 (the one Les Misérables is about) or 1889, you know the one where they overthrew King Louis and created Democracy (admittedly it didn't stick the first time).

3) We are a Democratic Republic. Republic just means elected leaders, our specific form of Republic is a Democracy. China and Iran are also Republics. Civics 101.

4) A legal privilege is taken when one breaks the law. Discrimination is when you aren't allowed to do something because you don't fit in someone's nice little box.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



Target isn't something to encourage? Not a capitalist? By my estimation; govt's indeed encourage businesses to thrive (whether directly or indirectly) as well as charitable organizations. IDK, bailouts generally send a pretty supportive message :shrug:

Target wasn't bailed out. However, Target and Good Will are not treated the same in tax status. Would you support Target and Good Will being treated equally? If so, would you tax Good Will, or remove the taxes from Target?

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



You didn't answer my question:

I did. I said if someone, some where, some day, some how, came up with a reason for it to be supported, I would. Until that day, I would be against it and for such a law being repealed.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



It would be if a state govt was keeping us from legally getting guns and newspapers...

No, the state would simply be in violation of the Constitution. State government keeping us from getting guns does not make it a requirement for the federal government to supply us with guns.

 

[Toxick]

I did. I said if someone, some where, some day, some how, came up with a reason for it to be supported, I would. Until that day, I would be against it and for such a law being repealed.

Status quo for status quo's sake.

 

[This_person]

Status quo for status quo's sake.

If it were suddenly legal, would you suddenly think it should be illegal, or would you still have the same opinion you do now?

I would still have the same opinion I do now, for the same reason. I guess that's status quo

 

[Toxick]

If it were suddenly legal, would you suddenly think it should be illegal, or would you still have the same opinion you do now?

Being against the status quo, for the sake of being against it, is every bit as lame as being for it for the sake of being for it.


I formed my opinion on the matter without regard to status quo, and regardless of whether the gov't recognizes it or not, my opinion won't change - unless someone presents good arguments that prove me wrong. Thus far, I remain content with my opinion.


IOW: I need neither society nor the government to do my thinking for me.

 

[This_person]

Being against the status quo, for the sake of being against it, is every bit as lame as being for it for the sake of being for it.


I formed my opinion on the matter without regard to status quo, and regardless of whether the gov't recognizes it or not, my opinion won't change - unless someone presents good arguments that prove me wrong. Thus far, I remain content with my opinion.


IOW: I need neither society nor the government to do my thinking for me.

Hey, that's exactly what I said, in different words.

 

[Toxick]

Hey, that's exactly what I said, in different words.

Partly... but you also hold fast to the opinion that: "Hey, the law is there. Leave it alone unless you offer me a carefully researched thesis on why it should change. I want a feasability study and societal stability trends. Etc."


My opinion is: This law should never have been there in the first place. It's discriminatory and limits (or at least "actively discourages") freedom of choice - Get rid of this useless garbage.

 

[This_person]

Partly... but you also hold fast to the opinion that: "Hey, the law is there. Leave it alone unless you offer me a carefully researched thesis on why it should change. I want a feasability study and societal stability trends. Etc."


My opinion is: This law should never have been there in the first place. It's discriminatory and limits (or at least "actively discourages") freedom of choice - Get rid of this useless garbage.

Whose "choice" is "actively discouraged"? Is it your opinion that people won't be involved in committed same-sex relationships simply because the government doesn't call that relationship a certain name?

 

[Toxick]

Whose "choice" is "actively discouraged"? Is it your opinion that people won't be involved in committed same-sex relationships simply because the government doesn't call that relationship a certain name?

BEH

NEH

FITS


One group has them (encourage)... the other doesn't (discourage) = DIS CRIM IN A TION



I cannot see how to make that point any simpler.

 

[This_person]

BEH

NEH

FITS


One group has them (encourage)... the other doesn't (discourage) = DIS CRIM IN A TION

BEH

NEH

FITS

TO

SO

SIE

ET

TEA.


When they exist, they will be treated the same.

But, you didn't answer the question - do you believe anyone is actively discouraged from being in a long-term committed same-sex relationship because the government doesn't call that relationship by a certain name?

If so, please explain why, and help me understand.


Otherwise, the problem isn't "active discouragement" of a relationship, it goes back to your baseline argument of discrimination. Which, do you really believe that a legal definition which does not include sexual orientation is discriminatory to a certain sexual orientation (without entering into an emotional argument)?

 

[Toxick]

BEH

NEH

FITS

TO

SO

SIE

ET

TEA.

I value personal freedom way more than I value conforming to societal norms or providing benefits to society.

Perhaps this is the unbreakable and uncompromisable core of our disagreement.

But, you didn't answer the question - do you believe anyone is actively discouraged from being in a long-term committed same-sex relationship because the government doesn't call that relationship by a certain name?

Yes.

I thought my statement: "One group has them (encourage)... the other doesn't (discourage) = DIS CRIM IN A TION" summed that up explicitly.

 

[This_person]

I value personal freedom way more than I value conforming to societal norms or providing benefits to society.

Perhaps this is the unbreakable and uncompromisable core of our disagreement.

So, what is the point of any tax break of any kind?

For example, should companies benefit from providing benefits to their employees by taking tax breaks? Or, from buying new equipment? Should a person be given a tax break for a charitable donation?

These are the realities of virtually all tax breaks - they're for things that benefit society as a whole in some fashion. You'd do away with all of that?

Yes.

I thought my statement: "One group has them (encourage)... the other doesn't (discourage) = DIS CRIM IN A TION" summed that up explicitly.

Does this also discriminate against multiple partnered relationships? Incestuous relationships? Pedophile relationships?

Or, are only some lines okay to draw, but not all the ones that have been a part of American society since there was a United States?

 

[Toxick]

So, what is the point of any tax break of any kind?

Ok.

While we're on that subject, who the #### said the government was entitled to my hard earned money anyway. I never signed up to be robbed every week.

The concept of a tax breaks makes me sick, because it's that arrogant mindset that if I conform to certain behaviors, I get to be allowed to keep the goddam money I worked for in the first place. Pffff - that very concept disgusts me.

Does this also discriminate against multiple partnered relationships?

Yup.

Incestuous relationships?

Yup.

Pedophile relationships?

BING! And there it is!


Personally, I am talking about consenting human adults.


Or should we bring bestiality and necrophiliacs into the mix as well to reinforce your point? How about raping the developmentally disabled! That's the same thing as being gay too, right!

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



Target isn't something to encourage? Not a capitalist? By my estimation; govt's indeed encourage businesses to thrive (whether directly or indirectly) as well as charitable organizations. IDK, bailouts generally send a pretty supportive message :shrug:

Target wasn't bailed out. However, Target and Good Will are not treated the same in tax status. Would you support Target and Good Will being treated equally? If so, would you tax Good Will, or remove the taxes from Target?

Never said target was bailed out. But I seem to recall other big businesses being bailed out...

You cannot equate Target and Good Will to marriage; I don't really know how on earth you arrived at that comparison. One is a for profit business, the other is a charitable organization. They're apples and oranges and no, I don't think the govt should be in the business of supporting either; they're private enterprises.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



You didn't answer my question:

I did. I said if someone, some where, some day, some how, came up with a reason for it to be supported, I would. Until that day, I would be against it and for such a law being repealed.

I didn't ask whether or not you support gay marriage. I asked why it should be treated differently. You can't repeal our hypothetical gay marriage recognition laws just because YOU see no reason for it. If I can't say "there should be a gay marriage law just because I see no reason not to" then you certainly don't get to say the opposite.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



It would be if a state govt was keeping us from legally getting guns and newspapers...

No, the state would simply be in violation of the Constitution. State government keeping us from getting guns does not make it a requirement for the federal government to supply us with guns.

Using that argument against recognition of gay marriage is like saying I'm arguing fir the govt should issue single people spouses...

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

BEH

NEH

FITS


One group has them (encourage)... the other doesn't (discourage) = DIS CRIM IN A TION

BEH

NEH

FITS

TO

SO

SIE

ET

TEA.


When they exist, they will be treated the same.

But, you didn't answer the question - do you believe anyone is actively discouraged from being in a long-term committed same-sex relationship because the government doesn't call that relationship by a certain name?

If so, please explain why, and help me understand.


Otherwise, the problem isn't "active discouragement" of a relationship, it goes back to your baseline argument of discrimination. Which, do you really believe that a legal definition which does not include sexual orientation is discriminatory to a certain sexual orientation (without entering into an emotional argument)?

And what benifit to society does MY heterosexual marriage serve again? I know I would remember if I would have had to prove one :shrug:

 

[McGinn77]

BEH

NEH

FITS

TO

SO

SIE

ET

TEA.


When they exist, they will be treated the same.

you asked for one example...done.

If a Married Lesbian Couple Saves 40 Teens from the Norway Massacre and No One Writes About it, Did it Really Happen? « Talk About Equality