The problem with most of the people who down play discrimination and seem to be so adamantly supporting the immorality of gay marriage/sexual preference is that the majority of them are probably the “norm” and have never had to deal with discrimination themselves. So, they basically cannot, or at least have not ever identified with those who do.
…
BostonBarrister wrote:
What’s your definition of discrimination? Providing a set of benefits from the government for which you need to take certain actions to qualify?
Sentoguy wrote:
Denying certain members of the population benefits that the rest of the population enjoys, based purely on skin color, gender, sex, class, etc… That could be (but is not limited to) the right to vote, the right to go to certain schools, medical benefits, etc…
There is a big difference here. Anyone in society can marry - no one is denied the right to marry. It’s the right to marry a person of the gender you desire to marry that is denied currently.
[/quote]
But, the difference there is that heterosexuals can marry anyone of the opposite sex (outside of their immediate family, which yes brings up more debate) whom they choose. In other words, you’re denying homosexuals the right to marry the person of their choice. Which once again, is discrimination.
Haha, yeah. I know. I was just playing with semantics. The term “sodomy” can be referenced from the bible. The actual act of anal sex isn’t necessarily.
That said, though, I don’t think anyone has made a good counter argument to my examples of Ancient Greece or Rome as embracing the concept/reality of homosexuality. Those were two of the most successful and influential societies in human history. If homosexuality truly was so damaging to society, than those two societies would never have thrived like they did.
There is a big difference here. Anyone in society can marry - no one is denied the right to marry. It’s the right to marry a person of the gender you desire to marry that is denied currently.
And thats exactly the problem. Denying marriage to people based on gender is just as wrong as denying marriage based on race or religion. Try these out:
“No one is denied the right to marry. If a black man wants to get married, he just has to marry a black woman.”
“No one is denied the right to marry. If a jew wants to get married, he or she just has to marry another jew.”
Do either of those seem fair or legitimate?
No one is being denied the right to marry based on gender.
Race has noting to do with it. Any man of any race can mary any woman that would have him of any race.[/quote]
You’re right Zap. But gender and race were simply two other examples of characteristics that might be used as a basis for discrimination.
Not allowing a person to marry the individual of their choice based on their sexual orientation is just another form of discrimination. It doesn’t matter that people are NO LONGER denied the right to marry the person of their choice based on their race. It’s simply an example of a group that previously was discriminated against in that area.
Once again, if you think that sexual preference is simply a choice, how would you feel about my hypothetical scenario where only homosexual activity was permitted? And let’s say that they didn’t put other limiting/discriminatory factors on your choice either. You could marry any male of any race, age, gender, religious sect, etc… that you wished.
Do you honestly think that you could just choose to start being attracted to men? Seriously, just think about that for a moment, which you probably will refuse to do as it’s quite an emotionally traumatizing thing to even think about (if you’re a straight male).
Now people suggest that homosexuals should have to do just that. Why the double standard?
You’re right Zap. But gender and race were simply two other examples of characteristics that might be used as a basis for discrimination.
Not allowing a person to marry the individual of their choice based on their sexual orientation is just another form of discrimination. It doesn’t matter that people are NO LONGER denied the right to marry the person of their choice based on their race. It’s simply an example of a group that previously was discriminated against in that area.
Once again, if you think that sexual preference is simply a choice, how would you feel about my hypothetical scenario where only homosexual activity was permitted? And let’s say that they didn’t put other limiting/discriminatory factors on your choice either. You could marry any male of any race, age, gender, religious sect, etc… that you wished.
Do you honestly think that you could just choose to start being attracted to men? Seriously, just think about that for a moment, which you probably will refuse to do as it’s quite an emotionally traumatizing thing to even think about (if you’re a straight male).
Now people suggest that homosexuals should have to do just that. Why the double standard? [/quote]
Marriage is not the only form of a relationship. I have no problem with homosexual relationships. For other people of course They just aren’t marriage because marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
I think some form of civil union is appropriate but it doesn’t even need to be based on sexuality. I don’t care if it comes with a ceremony or not. I don’t even care if it involves more than two people. It just isn’t a marriage.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Marriage is not the only form of a relationship. I have no problem with homosexual relationships. For other people of course They just aren’t marriage because marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
I think some form of civil union is appropriate but it doesn’t even need to be based on sexuality. I don’t care if it comes with a ceremony or not. I don’t even care if it involves more than two people. It just isn’t a marriage.[/quote]
Hey, it’s nice to once in a while to be able to fully agree with somebody. Inheritance rights, closest relative and so on, all can be included in a civil union, but marriage is a reserved word.
The problem with most of the people who down play discrimination and seem to be so adamantly supporting the immorality of gay marriage/sexual preference is that the majority of them are probably the “norm” and have never had to deal with discrimination themselves. So, they basically cannot, or at least have not ever identified with those who do.
…
BostonBarrister wrote:
What’s your definition of discrimination? Providing a set of benefits from the government for which you need to take certain actions to qualify?
Sentoguy wrote:
Denying certain members of the population benefits that the rest of the population enjoys, based purely on skin color, gender, sex, class, etc… That could be (but is not limited to) the right to vote, the right to go to certain schools, medical benefits, etc…
BostonBarrister wrote:
There is a big difference here. Anyone in society can marry - no one is denied the right to marry. It’s the right to marry a person of the gender you desire to marry that is denied currently.
Sentoguy wrote:
But, the difference there is that heterosexuals can marry anyone of the opposite sex (outside of their immediate family, which yes brings up more debate) whom they choose. In other words, you’re denying homosexuals the right to marry the person of their choice. Which once again, is discrimination.[/quote]
See my reply to CappedAndPlanIt a few posts back.
[quote]
Sentoguy wrote:
Also, as far as sodomy, you do know that the term “sodomy” is actually derived from the bible (as in Sodom) right? So, one could say that the reason that “sodomy” is considered wrong is solely due to the bible. You might however argue that anal sex is considered wrong for other reasons (though I still don’t think anyone has mentioned any good ones).
BostonBarrister wrote:
Yeah, but that’s crap (no pun intended). There were/are societies who have never heard the word “sodomy” who disapproved of anal sex or same-sex sexual relations. I don’t think anyone cares about the stigmatization of the word “sodomy” or the city of Sodom… So as I said, while it may be true that many people in the U.S. who disapprove of sodomy do so for Biblically based reasons, one can hardly say that all moral approbation of gays is due to the Bible.
Sentoguy wrote:
Haha, yeah. I know. I was just playing with semantics. The term “sodomy” can be referenced from the bible. The actual act of anal sex isn’t necessarily.
That said, though, I don’t think anyone has made a good counter argument to my examples of Ancient Greece or Rome as embracing the concept/reality of homosexuality. Those were two of the most successful and influential societies in human history. If homosexuality truly was so damaging to society, than those two societies would never have thrived like they did.[/quote]
The Romans had a very interesting view of homosexuality - as I understand it, they more or less analyzed it as the act of penetrating or being penetrated. The act of penetrating was considered basically male, and while they might be made fun of a little, they weren’t really subject of much discrimination, comparably. However, those who were on the receiving end were basically considered not men, and it was a slanderous charge to accuse someone of “giving up his arse” - probably why it was a popular smear in the political realm.
As for the Greeks, they definitely embraced it to a higher degree than we do today. Whether that was an outgrowth of their massive misogyny is something to consider…
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The Romans had a very interesting view of homosexuality - as I understand it, they more or less analyzed it as the act of penetrating or being penetrated. The act of penetrating was considered basically male, and while they might be made fun of a little, they weren’t really subject of much discrimination, comparably. However, those who were on the receiving end were basically considered not men, and it was a slanderous charge to accuse someone of “giving up his arse” - probably why it was a popular smear in the political realm. [/quote]
The problem with most of the people who down play discrimination and seem to be so adamantly supporting the immorality of gay marriage/sexual preference is that the majority of them are probably the “norm” and have never had to deal with discrimination themselves. So, they basically cannot, or at least have not ever identified with those who do.
…
BostonBarrister wrote:
What’s your definition of discrimination? Providing a set of benefits from the government for which you need to take certain actions to qualify?
Sentoguy wrote:
Denying certain members of the population benefits that the rest of the population enjoys, based purely on skin color, gender, sex, class, etc… That could be (but is not limited to) the right to vote, the right to go to certain schools, medical benefits, etc…
BostonBarrister wrote:
There is a big difference here. Anyone in society can marry - no one is denied the right to marry. It’s the right to marry a person of the gender you desire to marry that is denied currently.
Sentoguy wrote:
But, the difference there is that heterosexuals can marry anyone of the opposite sex (outside of their immediate family, which yes brings up more debate) whom they choose. In other words, you’re denying homosexuals the right to marry the person of their choice. Which once again, is discrimination.
See my reply to CappedAndPlanIt a few posts back.
Sentoguy wrote:
Also, as far as sodomy, you do know that the term “sodomy” is actually derived from the bible (as in Sodom) right? So, one could say that the reason that “sodomy” is considered wrong is solely due to the bible. You might however argue that anal sex is considered wrong for other reasons (though I still don’t think anyone has mentioned any good ones).
BostonBarrister wrote:
Yeah, but that’s crap (no pun intended). There were/are societies who have never heard the word “sodomy” who disapproved of anal sex or same-sex sexual relations. I don’t think anyone cares about the stigmatization of the word “sodomy” or the city of Sodom… So as I said, while it may be true that many people in the U.S. who disapprove of sodomy do so for Biblically based reasons, one can hardly say that all moral approbation of gays is due to the Bible.
Sentoguy wrote:
Haha, yeah. I know. I was just playing with semantics. The term “sodomy” can be referenced from the bible. The actual act of anal sex isn’t necessarily.
That said, though, I don’t think anyone has made a good counter argument to my examples of Ancient Greece or Rome as embracing the concept/reality of homosexuality. Those were two of the most successful and influential societies in human history. If homosexuality truly was so damaging to society, than those two societies would never have thrived like they did.
The Romans had a very interesting view of homosexuality - as I understand it, they more or less analyzed it as the act of penetrating or being penetrated. The act of penetrating was considered basically male, and while they might be made fun of a little, they weren’t really subject of much discrimination, comparably. However, those who were on the receiving end were basically considered not men, and it was a slanderous charge to accuse someone of “giving up his arse” - probably why it was a popular smear in the political realm.
As for the Greeks, they definitely embraced it to a higher degree than we do today. Whether that was an outgrowth of their massive misogyny is something to consider…[/quote]
Which is kind of bullshit since it was usually rich, powerful Senators who enjoyed the act of penetrating. And it was usually the poor, young, and/or disadvantaged that got penetrated.
You’re right Zap. But gender and race were simply two other examples of characteristics that might be used as a basis for discrimination.
Not allowing a person to marry the individual of their choice based on their sexual orientation is just another form of discrimination. It doesn’t matter that people are NO LONGER denied the right to marry the person of their choice based on their race. It’s simply an example of a group that previously was discriminated against in that area.
Once again, if you think that sexual preference is simply a choice, how would you feel about my hypothetical scenario where only homosexual activity was permitted? And let’s say that they didn’t put other limiting/discriminatory factors on your choice either. You could marry any male of any race, age, gender, religious sect, etc… that you wished.
Do you honestly think that you could just choose to start being attracted to men? Seriously, just think about that for a moment, which you probably will refuse to do as it’s quite an emotionally traumatizing thing to even think about (if you’re a straight male).
Now people suggest that homosexuals should have to do just that. Why the double standard?
Marriage is not the only form of a relationship. I have no problem with homosexual relationships. For other people of course They just aren’t marriage because marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
I think some form of civil union is appropriate but it doesn’t even need to be based on sexuality. I don’t care if it comes with a ceremony or not. I don’t even care if it involves more than two people. It just isn’t a marriage.[/quote]
I can very much appreciate why people do not want to extend the word marriage to gay relationships. There is a religious conotation to marriage and a lot of other dearly held and protected values. But I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why same-sex couples who self-identify as being in a committed relationship should not have every legal benefit that married couples have.
People talk of increased promiscuity among homosexuals, but I think you only have to look around and see the mockery people make of marriage all the time. Yet we don’t police and micromanage and say they are not giving the institution of marriage proper respect, so the legal benefits should not accrue.
Besides, I don’t know that there’s evidence that gays who actually profess to be in a committed relationship are any less faithful or take it any less seriously. Just that many don’t wish to be and aren’t in relationships. Well, those people wouldn’t be getting ‘civil unionized’ anyhow.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Marriage is not the only form of a relationship. I have no problem with homosexual relationships. For other people of course They just aren’t marriage because marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
I think some form of civil union is appropriate but it doesn’t even need to be based on sexuality. I don’t care if it comes with a ceremony or not. I don’t even care if it involves more than two people. It just isn’t a marriage.
Hey, it’s nice to once in a while to be able to fully agree with somebody. Inheritance rights, closest relative and so on, all can be included in a civil union, but marriage is a reserved word. [/quote]
Well ok, then as long as you guys are for the rights, then I’m personally not against calling a homosexual union a different word than “marriage”. As long as all rights that would be afforded a heterosexual couple are still observed.
IMO “marriage” (or any word for that matter) only has meaning because we give it meaning. Changing that meaning (or in this case broadening that meaning) isn’t a big deal for me. But, if it truly is for others than as long as people can come to a compromise that’s cool with me.
There is a big difference here. Anyone in society can marry - no one is denied the right to marry. It’s the right to marry a person of the gender you desire to marry that is denied currently.
And thats exactly the problem. Denying marriage to people based on gender is just as wrong as denying marriage based on race or religion
“No one is denied the right to marry. If a black man wants to get married, he just has to marry a black woman.”
“No one is denied the right to marry. If a jew wants to get married, he or she just has to marry another jew.”
Those comparisons has been made many times on this forum and every time they’ve been shot down.
And here’s why:
A black man cannot change the color of his skin (not suggesting he’d want to). It has yet to be determined how someone becomes a homosexual, or should I say bisexual as approximately 87% of all “homosexuals” have had sex with someone of the opposite sex (before you attack that figure as being something society forced them to do ask yourself how many purely heterosexual men could have sex with another man). Either way, it is a fact that many of them have indeed changed from homosexual-bisexual to heterosexual.
Trying to place them in the same category as a racial minority group is just not accurate.
#1
[/quote]
So a black man, with the preference of marrying a white woman, has the right to marry a white woman because he cannot change his race, nor can she change hers. In this example, the preference of either party is not challenged (no one is telling the black man he has to marry a black woman).
So, by the same logic, a man, with the preference of marrying another man, has the right to marry a man, because he cannot change his sex, nor can his partner change his. However, in this case the preference is challenged.
Again, saying that a gay man can marry a woman but not a man is the same as saying that a black man can marry a black woman but not a white woman (since both sex and race are traits that cannot reasonably be changed).
I’m totally on board for the whole “civil union” deal. Semantics are not important, whats important is that the government does not give rights to certain people and withhold them from others based on bigotry and discrimination.
Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions.[/quote]
Funny way how bigotry works, when there are enough bigots in a country: very powerful bigots can pass bigoted laws the perpetuate their own bigotry. For example, racists could make laws prohibiting allowing blacks to learn to read, thus “proving” that blacks are unintelligent. They can make laws that say homosexuals cannot marry, then argue that it is not bigoted of them, since the definition of marriage includes that it must be a man and a woman… but who, I wonder, created that defintion?
So a black man, with the preference of marrying a white woman, has the right to marry a white woman because he cannot change his race, nor can she change hers. In this example, the preference of either party is not challenged (no one is telling the black man he has to marry a black woman).
So, by the same logic, a man, with the preference of marrying another man, has the right to marry a man, because he cannot change his sex, nor can his partner change his. However, in this case the preference is challenged. [/quote]
How could you miss my point? Unless of course you just want to yammer on about what the politically correct social liberals think is best for our country. You’re not doing that are you? Are you?
I’ll try again:
No one has yet determined exactly how one becomes “gay”. Nor do we know why some stay “gay” and some change their preference. We do know that almost 90% of all “gay” people have had, or continue to have sex with someone of the opposite sex.
Odd huh?
How many straight men could have sex with another man?
Why should we honor that sort of behavior by changing the marriage laws or creating special rights?
Also as I stated there are studies which indicate that about 30% or so who sincerely go through therapy change their preference to heterosexual.
If one can change their preference why should laws be changed to accommodate them? If one is able to have sex with either sex then why change laws to accommodate them?
[quote]
Again, saying that a gay man can marry a woman but not a man is the same as saying that a black man can marry a black woman but not a white woman
Hardly shot down at all, I’d say.[/quote]
Not shot down at all if you are going to deny the evidence regarding the change rate of those undergoing therapy. And if you also dismiss without reason the question as to how someone becomes gay, which has not been answered by anyone other than the powerful gay lobby groups which insist without proof that one is “born that way”.
To the politically correct and the social liberals “one is born gay”. To the rest of us who only ask for some proof as to this baseless assertion, no one yet knows for sure how one becomes gay.
So if you disregard all of the facts then, it’s not shot down. However, if you acknowledge the facts as a thinking adult not being manipulated by “cool crowd” then you have no argument what so ever.
You’ve once again lumped them when there is no reason to.
Let’s put it this way: Race cannot be changed. However thousands of “gay” folks have indeed changed to heterosexual.
You can keep trying if you like but you’ve really not got a leg to stand on as the politically correct thought masters cannot conjure up any sort of good argument to counter something called FACTS.
I think you being purposely argumentative. You are taking the politically correct, social liberal stance which states that you are born as a homosexual. However, there is zero proof that this is the case. But that doesn’t seem to stop those of that political persuasion from continuing to claim it.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So a black man, with the preference of marrying a white woman, has the right to marry a white woman because he cannot change his race, nor can she change hers. In this example, the preference of either party is not challenged (no one is telling the black man he has to marry a black woman).
So, by the same logic, a man, with the preference of marrying another man, has the right to marry a man, because he cannot change his sex, nor can his partner change his. However, in this case the preference is challenged.[/quote]
Here is where you’re mistaken.
You allege that the “gay” person cannot change, yet about 30% of those who go into therapy end up changing their sexual preference.
And let me add one more thing, it is just that a “preference” as almost 90% of those who call themselves “gay” have had or are having sex with someone of the opposite sex.
Now how many straight guys can picture themselves having sex with another man?
Odd huh? I think the term “bisexual” is probably more appropriate. Certainly there are far more of them than homosexuals.
No, it’s not even close to the same thing as not one black person has ever turned white, or any other color for that matter (not that they’d want to). But, thousands of homosexuals have indeed changed from homo to hetero.
Well as we can clearly see one cannot be changed (race) but the other one is changed all of the time.
And no the your argument is not shot down at all if you want to ignore all of the facts as you seem to have in your post, and continue on with the “born that way” lie.
Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Funny way how bigotry works, when there are enough bigots in a country: very powerful bigots can pass bigoted laws the perpetuate their own bigotry. For example, racists could make laws prohibiting allowing blacks to learn to read, thus “proving” that blacks are unintelligent. They can make laws that say homosexuals cannot marry, then argue that it is not bigoted of them, since the definition of marriage includes that it must be a man and a woman… but who, I wonder, created that defintion?
hm?[/quote]
Hm. I wonder if you could come up with an example that made more sense? I don’t recall anyone making any claims that the fact that two individuals of the same gender cannot marry means anything in particular regarding homosexuals.
So, from your post immediately above, it would seem that we’re living in a nation of bigots and discriminators, to our very core - for example, did you know that children cannot vote? Shocking, I’m sure. The entire country is likely bigoted against children - after all, how else could one justify differential treatment?
Of course, that’s not the best example for us. There are quite a few justifications for treating children differently than adults - and these have nothing to do with their actions.
But there may just be more appropriate parallels. For instance, the country must be bigoted against non-farmers. There are benefits that one can only attain by choosing to own and/or run a farm. I do not have any desire whatsoever to own or work on a farm, and am thus not able to take advantage of those benefits. The bigotry is self evident. Please initiate the lawsuit on my behalf.
What, you say that I could always start a farm if I wanted to do so? That, my friend, is the difference for which you were searching. It’s the action that matters.
So a black man, with the preference of marrying a white woman, has the right to marry a white woman because he cannot change his race, nor can she change hers. In this example, the preference of either party is not challenged (no one is telling the black man he has to marry a black woman).
So, by the same logic, a man, with the preference of marrying another man, has the right to marry a man, because he cannot change his sex, nor can his partner change his. However, in this case the preference is challenged.
How could you miss my point? Unless of course you just want to yammer on about what the politically correct social liberals think is best for our country. You’re not doing that are you? Are you?
[/quote]
No, I’m making the point that in one case you defend the preference (of a black man wanting to marry a white woman and vice versa) because of the unchangable aspect (race)… but in the other case you say the preference must change (of a man wanting to marry a man), despite the only thing holding them back being an unchangable aspect (sex).
Its a double standard, thats all.
So maybe most of them are bisexual? Or simply pressured by society to have “normal” sexual experiences?
I hope you arent suggesting that gays are just “faking it” in some way.
Regardless of if a person is gay, bisexual, or straight, the government does not have the right to discriminate between which consenting legal adults enter into a legal contract together. In my opinion, two straight male or female adults, wishing to get the legal benefits of marriage, should have the option.
What special rights? Its not “special rights” to say that people should be treated equally. Thats called equality. Now, to give certain rights to heterosexual couples and not to homosexual couples makes the rights given to heterosexual couples “special rights” (since heterosexuals are “special”, or favored, in this situation). If anyone is advocating special rights, its those who would deny equality.
Do you think, if a black man wanting to marry a white woman, went through “therapy”, his preference could be changed into wanting to marry a black woman?
If such a preference could be changed, why should the existing marriage laws, which prohibit interracial marriage, be changed?
Again, in one case you challenge the preference, in the other, you challenge the bigotry against it.
We could argue all day if those “changes” come from legitimate therapy or brainwashing, but I think thats another debate.
I dont see why it should matter. Are people born attracted to members of other races? Are you ‘born’ with a preference for marrying someone from another country? Is one “born” with the desire to marry outside of their own religion? Is the desire to marry outside of ones class an inherent trait, or learned?
Saying “But they can stop being gay!” is much the same as saying “But they can stop being Taoist!” or “But they can make money and stop being poor!” or “But they can change their citizenship!”.
Would you agree that, despite the fact that they can be “changed”, religion, class, and citizenship are not reasonable causes for the government to disallow two people to marry?
I’m sorry, I just see “the ability to change or not” as being a nonissue here.
Fact: Race cannot be changed. Preference to marry outside of ones race should not be forced to change.
Fact: Sex cannot be changed. Preference to marry someone of the same sex should not be forced to change.
Why do you keep missing that point?
Why do you keep applying double standard logic? Is it because homophobia is the bigotry of the day, whereas racism has already had its time in the sun?
Why not apply the same logic (that a black mans preference to marrying a white woman can change), and argue that interracial marriage is a “special right” granted to interracial couples? Why not ask for proof that interracial couples are “born that way”? Because you’re not racist, of course.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I think you being purposely argumentative. You are taking the politically correct, social liberal stance which states that you are born as a homosexual. However, there is zero proof that this is the case. But that doesn’t seem to stop those of that political persuasion from continuing to claim it.
[/quote]
No, I am taking the stance that the sex of the two people involved is not a legitimate reason for the government to disallow them to be married.
I’m saying that the gay person cannot reasonably change the fact that he is a man. Did you miss that part? Here, let me repeat it, verbatim:
So, by the same logic, a man, with the preference of marrying another man, has the right to marry a man, because he cannot change his sex, nor can his partner change his. However, in this case the preference is challenged.
I said he cannot change his sex, I did not address the issue of if he can change his preference (since I believe it to be a nonissue).
Ok, I’ll agree that many are probably bisexual, but its still a nonissue (like saying that, since you could marry someone within your own race, its ok for the government to disallow you to marry outside of it).
Micheal Jackson has. The author of a book titled “Black Like Me” was a white man who took pills that made his skin appear black. It has happened; but, like sex changes, it isnt something I would argue as being “reasonably changed”.
And again, the issue of if someone can “change” is irrelevant as to if its a legitimate reason for the government to disallow marriage based on.
Again, my stance is that “born that way” or “choose that way” is irrelevant when it comes to preference. However, when it comes to sex, people are obviously “born that way”.
Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Funny way how bigotry works, when there are enough bigots in a country: very powerful bigots can pass bigoted laws the perpetuate their own bigotry. For example, racists could make laws prohibiting allowing blacks to learn to read, thus “proving” that blacks are unintelligent. They can make laws that say homosexuals cannot marry, then argue that it is not bigoted of them, since the definition of marriage includes that it must be a man and a woman… but who, I wonder, created that defintion?
hm?
Hm. I wonder if you could come up with an example that made more sense? I don’t recall anyone making any claims that the fact that two individuals of the same gender cannot marry means anything in particular regarding homosexuals.
So, from your post immediately above, it would seem that we’re living in a nation of bigots and discriminators, to our very core - for example, did you know that children cannot vote? Shocking, I’m sure. The entire country is likely bigoted against children - after all, how else could one justify differential treatment?
[/quote]
Excuse me, Mr. Lion? Hey, Tin Man! Pardon me…Dorothy, is it? I think I see your friend here… do you mind coming and getting him? You see, I’m trying to have reasonable discourse and hes just kind of, well, you know, getting in the way. He doesnt make very much sense and trying to deal with him is just a distraction. Ok, thanks, you guys are the best.
Theres an old saying: Dont wrestle with pigs, you’ll just get muddy and the pigs will love it. Keep throwing up straw men and I’ll be sure to ignore you.
Indeed. So why waste your time bringing up the point? Oh wait, to get on my nerves and impede reasonable discussion? How extremely mature, really. But do go on.
Yay, another one! Wow you’re good at these! The analogy almost makes sense if you ignore the teensy tiny itty bitty little fact that the government does not discriminate over who can become a farmer and who can take advantage of those benefits (the same way it DOES discriminate over who can get married and who can take advantae of those benefits). See, the option to be a farmer is open to all, the option to get married is not.
Now, you MIGHT be making a point that the government is biased towards those who want to get married vs those who want to stay single (by giving those who want to marry special benefits), but thats another discussion altogether, isnt it?
Bringing up strawmen just shows your fear of the actual issue. How about we stick to that?
Yes, and a man, of any sexual preference, could marry a woman.
But why should he be forced to? What makes the sex of the people involved a legitimate reason for the government to disallow marriage?
A man, of any race, could marry a member of the same race. A man, of any religion, could marry a member of the same religion. Same for class, citizenship, and a variety of other issues.
When using statistics as the basis for your argument rather than just illustration thereof the issue of sources and citations becomes relevant. I don’t question that you saw those numbers somewhere, but there’s a wide range of meaning possible depending on how they were collected, by whom, for what, etc.
In response to your argument though, you seem to be arguing that heteros are distinct from bi’s who themselves you don’t deny are different from full on homosexuals. That some people who have sex with men like to fool around on the other side, or have at one time in the past, does not imply that everyone who has sex with men is “convertible”. Your statistics, whatever their accuracy or applicability, still leave substantial residual of gays with no lifetime hetero experience. You indicate you believe that heteros are substantially different from bisexual folks (since no hetero could want to have sex with another dude), but unless you can demonstrate that there is no similar difference between the bisexuals and the remaining non-bi gay population, your argument doesn’t really apply. The number of true gays is smaller, but still presumably substantial and immutable.
So to use the black-white analogy, we could say that many an octaroon has passed for being pure white, but no purely black man has. Similarly that there may be those who are sexually flexible doesn’t change that there are some who are not.
They just aren’t marriage because marriage is the union of one man and one woman.