Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID

Well you have to distinguish between legal discrimination and illegal discrimination - a job interview is a process of legal discrimination. You are perfectly at liberty to not employ, say, a gay man if you have reason to believe that he can't do the job, but you can't if your reason is that he is gay.As for your speeder, it's an unrealistic example and it depends on the laws of the country. Here in the UK a business can refuse service so long as their reason is not one of discrimination, directly or indirectly, over a protected class - disability, religion, gender etc.Speeders are not a protected group but neither can you randomly refuse one group of people over another - you must have an objective business reason for doing it. So if your speeder wanted to buy a packet of cigarettes you'd probably be illegally discriminating but if he wanted to apply for a job as a driving instructor you wouldn't.But you'd go out of business quickly; convicted speeders are not a minority...protected or otherwise.

Baloney. It is discrimination based on sex, period. You are saying that you can marry a woman, as long as you aren't a woman. That is sex discrimination, and last I checked you have no say as to what sex you are born as.Discrimination based on race and sex are directly comparable.

Well, that's a clever way to twist it. Full of logical holes but probably politically correct enough to pass muster. But again, most blacks would not agree with it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So what? who gave them the power to declare whether or not some other group is facing discrimination?

What logical holes? You are claiming that who you can marry should be based on sex. That is sexual discrimination, straight away. Who cares if they agree or disagree. What matters is the truth, or at least it matters to some of us . . . perhaps not to you.

Once again, here is the decision reached back in May dealing with gay marriage in my home state:

quote:

---

Idaho s Marriage Laws withhold from them a profound and personal choice, one that most can take for granted. By doing so, Idaho s Marriage Laws deny same-sex couples the economic, practical, emotional, and spiritual benefits of marriage, relegating each couple to a stigmatized, second-class status. Plaintiffs suffer these injuries not because they are unqualified to marry, start a family, or grow old together, but because of who they are and whom they love.

​

The Defendants (state of Idaho) offered no evidence that same-sex marriage would adversely affect opposite-sex marriages or the well-being of children. Without proof, the Defendants justifications echo the unsubstantiated fears that could not prop up the anti-miscegenation laws and rigid gender roles of days long past. Then as now, it is the duty of the courts to apply the law to the facts in evidence. Here, the facts are clear and the law teaches that marriage is a fundamental right of all citizens, which neither tradition nor the majority can deny.
http://www.ktvb.com/story/news/local/2014/07/03/12174729/

---

Again, it is about discrimination against same SEX marraiges. It is about discriminating against couples because of their sex. On top of that, they can demonstrate harm while no one who opposes gay marriage can present any real harm that will come to them because two women can get married. Even federal judges are comparing the ban on gay marriages to the ban on mixed race marriages.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

I'm discriminating against Women because some women, a very tiny minority of women, want to marry other women?I guess I just don't have the ability to put my head into the logical pretzel that makes such thinking seem to make sense. Alas!But I guess I'm not discriminating against Women if I ignore the votes of a huge number of women against gay marriage?No need to answer, the murder of logic will only give me a headache.

Yep. What part of same SEX marriage is so hard for you to figure out? Just like you are not discriminating against mixed race marriages if a majority of whites vote against it?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

It's a phony misuse of the word.Kind of like saying that normally we lock our doors with a male bolt that fits into a female recess, but it would be discrimination not to allow some to try to lock their doors with two female recesses or two male bolts if they want to.The fact that there are in nature two quite distinct sexes rather determines the right combination of them. But emotion is everything these days, we make laws based on feelings rather than objective realities or even the near-universal practices of millennia. If the feeling contradicts the objective physical reality, we just go with the feeling. This is considered "progress."Marriage has to do with the objective physical fit of male and female. If people want to have relationships based on their feelings they can do that, but changing the normal meaning of marriage should not be their right.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Are you married, or have you ever been married?

In other words it's an oxymoron.Yes I've been married.

Would you say that your marriage is\was defined by the times you had sex? So you never had oral sex? Mutual masturbation? Used sex toys? No foreplay?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : ...

Bullshit Faith.Marriage is a secular contract. It has always been. It was during the time of Abraham, it was at the time of Jesus, it is today.And we are far more moral today than Jesus was. When it comes to stoning people we do not say as Jesus did "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." we say "Don't throw stones period."

One's personal experience of marriage has nothing to do with a question like this, but it's very telling that people so often try to make it a personal issue. Like what I said about feelings being the way things are determined these days. Marriage is an institution, a social institution, it is not defined by any particular marriage as you all want to make it out to be, it is defined by society. And until recently society defined it as between a man and a woman, as the Sixth Dist. Circuit Court said. If there were not two distinct sexes there would be no marriage. It's ABOUT the uniting of the two sexes. It doesn't make sense for two of the same sex.

Often visiting privileges in hospitals are limited to family members only and including spouses.Many laws, rules and regulations use the term spouse to determine rights, duties, responsibilities and privileges.Spouses have particular legal standing when it comes to confidentiality, inheritance, estates.Income taxes are different for single and married parties.All of those are valid whether we are speaking of a man woman, man man or woman woman marriage.