Gay marriage and the law

CS, Nope, it's because I hold a different opinion to you. You aren't going to win an argument by implying that I am ignorant. I don't need your painfully obvious definition. As has already been made clear, that is only one possible interpretation. There are many others. We have civil partnerships in the UK and the sky has not fallen. {AbE} If the wording of the law is a problem then change it. This is not an insurmountable problem.{/AbE} Of course homosexuals are excluded from marriage. If the only marriage option is heterosexual, it is simply not an option for homosexuals. It would be torturous for a homosexual to enter into a heterosexual marriage. The point you keep dodging is that heterosexuals have the chance of a happy marriage. Homosexuals don't because the kind of marriage which could make them happy is not legal. Does that sound enough like:

quote:

---

treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit
  —Dictionary.com

---

{AbE} It is not necessary to treat people differently to discriminate against them. It is perfectly possible for two groups of people to be treated the same, but get different end results. Example; The government announces a $20 tax rebate for all citizens. The only condition is that you have to attend a particular office to get the rebate. The office is at the top of a tall building and, since there is no elevator, you must climb ten flights of stairs t get there.
Everyone in this example is being treated the same, but there is an obvious inequality. Without wheelchair access, the system is discriminating against the disabled. They can't get up the stairs, they don't get their $20.They are being treated the same as the able bodied, but there is a different and unfair end result. Thus, they are being discriminated against. Every time you see a wheelchair access ramp in a public place, you are seeing the kind of action needed to avoid discrimination through inflexibility.{/AbE} That is precisely the problem. Marriage to the opposite sex is great for most, but hopeless for many. Insisting that there can only be one definition of marriage destroys peoples right to pursue happiness in that area. Clear discrimination. What is disingenuous is attempting to pretend that the problem with gay marriage is the definition of marriage, or some other legal nicety. We all know why this is so upsetting to you and NJ; it's your religiously inspired prejudice. Plain and simple discrimination.Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

---

Mutate and Survive

quote:

---

The societal acceptance of homosexuality which perverts the natural order of God's law.

---

I didn't ask about gay marriage, I asked about marriage in general.

quote:

---

No. And certainly stable families include mothers and fathers. Wouldn't you agree?

---

Not necessarily, no. Two or more caregivers make for more stable families than single parent households, but it doesn't really matter what gender those two or more responsible adults are.

quote:

---

Then pedophilia is a trait that cannot be stopped. Its innate. If it that is so, then we can't very well ask them to stop what is normal, can we?

---

What does pedophilia have to do with homosexuality?The vast majority of pedophiles are men who say they are straight, you know.

quote:

---

You can't act as if people are incapable of controlling themselves. By doing this, you alleviate responsibility, which in turn makes for a very unhealthy society.

---

Right, but I still can't figure out where you got any of this from my statement above. I was talking about the fact that most people's sexual orientation falls somewhere in the middle of a bell curve with "very hetero" on one end and "very homo" on the other, and that society influences which kinds of feelings and relationships they persue.What does pedophelia or rape have to do with sexual orientation, for christ's sake?

quote:

---

Even Thomas Jefferson slept with his own slaves.

---

Yeah, and many powerful conservative Christian men who condemn homosexuality seem to seek out gay sex.Funny, that.

quote:

---

LOL! Can you explain why anything is immoral aside from invoking God?

---

Sure. Is there harm?Now, back to the question I asked.I asked if you could explain why homosexuality is immoral without using a religious argument.Try, really try to put aside your religious bigotry, and do your best to come up with a non-religious moral reason that homosexuality is immoral.Who does it harm?

quote:

---

Why is it, good? What is inherently good about it?

---

It is simply the moral thing to do.It contributes to the stability of society.

quote:

---

Can you feel the pride?

---

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

quote:

---

Nator is arguing that sexuality follows a bell curve and is not black and white. Assuming this is true, marriage remaining between a man and a women does not deny any protection of the law to any persons.

---

Except, of course, it does deny exual protection for those who wish to marry someone of the same gender.Maybe you don't get that the bell curve of sexuality I was talking about puts a lot of people in the "bi but leaning towards homo" category.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Why do you think I think it would? You seem to have a confused interpretation of my comments, perhaps you are trying to read too much into them. If the only way to get equal rights for a minority group is to call it something else then let's call it something else - for everyone.Changing all the laws that refer to "marriage" to refer to "civil union" and letting anyone have a "civil union" that wants one is neither doing away with the secular institution nor does it restrict people from having optional ceremonies of their choice.What would be hilarious to me, would be to do an end run around the fanatic fundies, one that ends up providing more rights to more people than would have occurred had they not raised a stink about gay marriage. What's wrong with polygamy and polyandry between consenting adults? What's wrong with a commune of consenting adults all living under one mutual support contract? What's wrong with two people forming a family without having sexual relations (say two single moms)?You can define "civil union" to include all of these kinds of families, and accomplish more real change than just with gay marriage.Is there a reason why you think such contracts would ruin your family?If "civil union" has bad vibes, then let's call it a "family contract" and focus on the real issue of it being a contract for mutual support, taking care of dependents (young or old) and shared benefits.A truly "rainbow" coalition.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

quote:

---

That's all off-topic. I'm not familiar with the laws regarding non-citizens and minors anyways.

---

No it's not. You claimed that Marriage was not discriminatory for all citizens. If I marry a foreign girl, the marriage tax laws are discriminatory to me and her, giving unequal treatment opposed to two citizens. And your statement means that you do not consider minors to be citizens. That is quite legally false.Just suck it up and admit you're wrong. Marriage IS discriminatory.

quote:

---

It doesn't explicitly. Its a consequence of the definition of the word marriage.

---

Therefore you admit it does implicitly. Therefore it discriminates.
Furthermore, you act as if the definition of marriage is concrete.

quote:

---

Every group falls into the categories of man or women. No group is prevented or barred from access. Sexual orientation is independent of gender.

---

Wrong again!Minors are barred and prevented from access. Adults are not barred from entering into the pre-described, narrow definition of what American marriage, which historically has undergone at least four different revisions is. What they are barred from is entering into the broader definition of marriage.

quote:

---

But the legal definition of marriages remains indiscriminatory.

---

Seriously. I just corrected you, giving examples of a foreign spouse and minors!The legal definition of marriage along with its associated legal and tax code is very discriminatory.The legal definition of marriage gives you very few options in your choices. It restricts and limits what you can do. How is something that restricts choices indiscriminatory?

quote:

---

The societal acceptance of homosexuality which perverts the natural order of God's law.

---

But the 450+ species that freely practice homosexuality aren't perverting the natural order of God's law?

quote:

---

Why do you think I think it would?

---

Because it seems like you are playing the war of attrition card.Since you don't want gay people to get married, you propose that we get rid of legal marriage all together. Since the Soviets didn't want the Nazis to have a strong foothold deep inside Russia, they destroyed everything behind them when they retreated. Since southerners didn't want black children to attend the same schools as white children, they proposed to close down the public school system.Same thought pattern. If you already have something and you don't want your enemies to get their hands on it, you'd rather destroy than let your enemies have it.I'm having a hard time seeing this as anything but war of attrition.

quote:

---

You seem to have a confused interpretation of my comments, perhaps you are trying to read too much into them.

---

I once attended a church meeting on this very subject. Some people were so hateful that they proposed the country rids itself of marriage overall just so gay people couldn't get married.I'm having a hard time accepting that after years of seeing "normal" people reap the rewards and social acceptance of marriage that now we have to accept a lesser form of this institution. If the government does indeed get out of the marriage bussiness all together and everyone is presented with civil union, I'm pretty sure the people will blame this on homosexuals for years to come. This is exactly what the conservatives have been accusing us of for years, that we wanted to trash marriage. By getting rid of the legal institution of marriage, we effectively "trash" marriage just as predicted by fundamentalists.

quote:

---

If the only way to get equal rights for a minority group is to call it something else then let's call it something else - for everyone.

---

How is calling it something else achieving equal rights? You are proposing that we get rid of the legal institution of marriage all together just because you don't want homosexuals to get married. War of attrition mentality.

quote:

---

You can define "civil union" to include all of these kinds of families, and accomplish more real change than just with gay marriage.

---

I'm a conservative. Real change comes from recognizing certain inalienable human rights.Let me be a little more clear. Say that there are 2 families living side by side. One family is more economically prosperous than the other. Everyday, the kids in the rich family would go out and buy candies. The kids in the poor family couldn't afford the candies. So, for years, the poor kids have to watch the rich kids buy and eat their candies. Finally, one day the price of candies take a nose dive and it is now affordable to the poor kids. They hurrily run out to buy some candies but they find that the rich kids have burned down the candy store. Now, nobody can have any candy.The rich kids in this case might say that the candies are bad for your teeth so they're just doing the poor kids a favor. Would you believe the rich kids about the teeth? Should I believe you about your good intentions?

quote:

---

If "civil union" has bad vibes, then let's call it a "family contract" and focus on the real issue of it being a contract for mutual support, taking care of dependents (young or old) and shared benefits.

---

Ok, let's burn down the candy store and erect a twizzler store in its place.

quote:

---

The US government does not recognize homosexual unions as being legal.

---

California, D.C, Hawaii, and Washington allow same sex domestic partnershipsConnecticut, Maine, New Hampsire, New Jersey, Oregon, and Vermont allow same sex civil unionsMassachusets allows gay marriage

quote:

---

But then, you didn't honestly believe that laws are passed against things that are inherently good, did you?

---

Sure, it happens all the time.Marriage between people who love each other is considered by many to be inherently good, yet our government banned mixed race marriage for a long time, and still bans homosexual marriage in most places.

So we pass a law that changes all statutes and legal documents from "marriage" to "family contract" and allow any group (2+) to form a "family" by entering into a legal contract.You can now keep your precious definition to use as you see fit.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Read my words. Read them again and when you are done read them a third time.Maybe -- just maybe -- doing it enough times will let it sink in that
THAT IS NOT MY POSITION
AND NEVER HAS BEENSheesh. (sometimes you need a hint, sometimes you need a hammer).And while you are at that reading,Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

No, it just won't be recognized by the US government, which makes me wonder how that all works on their income taxes.

---

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

Again, how do you expect me to believe that you have good intentions if you are advocating what essentially is a scourge earth policy? Equality in the south weren't achieved by getting rid of the public school system. It was achieved by integrating everyone into the same already existing school system.

quote:

---

THAT IS NOT MY POSITION
AND NEVER HAS BEEN

---

Then explain to me why you are advocating a scourge earth policy?