Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay bashing versus christian bashing
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 60 (497932)
02-06-2009 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Chiroptera
02-06-2009 5:26 PM


If one thinks that being in love is an important part of marriage, then, no, gays don't have the same rights to marriage that non-gay people have.
In the eyes of the law, marriage is just a legal contract which fails to incorporate love.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Chiroptera, posted 02-06-2009 5:26 PM Chiroptera has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 60 (497935)
02-06-2009 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by kuresu
02-06-2009 5:43 PM


So really, anyone can get married only in 2 states, and in all other states you have to be one man, one woman to be married.
The claim wasn't that anyone could marry anyone, its that anyone can enter the contract of marriage, which they can.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by kuresu, posted 02-06-2009 5:43 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by kuresu, posted 02-06-2009 6:11 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 28 by Taz, posted 02-06-2009 7:22 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 60 (498061)
02-07-2009 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Huntard
02-07-2009 5:13 PM


this is about gay people not having basic rights, except they DO HAVE the same basic rights.
They most certainly DON'T. They can't marry the person they love, like heterosexuals can.
In the eyes of the law, marriage is just a legal contract that fails to incorporate love. People don't have the right to marry the one they love. Especially if the one they love doesn't want to marry them.
The seperate but equal bullshit? Come on man, get over that, and just admit you don't want gays to be happy in marriage like the heterosexuals because they make you feel icky.
Its not that they're separate but equal, its that they're not separate. Its not about feeling icky, asshole.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Huntard, posted 02-07-2009 5:13 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Huntard, posted 02-07-2009 6:02 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 38 by Straggler, posted 02-07-2009 6:40 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 52 by Rrhain, posted 02-08-2009 8:00 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 60 (498062)
02-07-2009 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Taz
02-06-2009 7:22 PM


CS writes:
The claim wasn't that anyone could marry anyone, its that anyone can enter the contract of marriage, which they can.
Yes, and the same claim can be made during the segregation era when interracial marriage was illegal.
The RIA said that whites could not marry non-whites, not that interracial marriage was illegal. Could a brown have married a yellow? I dunno.
But before it was repealed, it was the law and would have been rightly claimed as such.
Currently, our law is that marriage has to be between opposite sexes but it doesn't prevent anyone from entering the contract (except kids).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Taz, posted 02-06-2009 7:22 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Rrhain, posted 02-08-2009 8:07 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 60 (498074)
02-07-2009 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Huntard
02-07-2009 6:02 PM


Then tell me why two people that love each other are not allowed to marry.
Because, in the eyes of the law, marriage is a social contract that has nothing to do with love.
It doesn't matter who loves who, only one man and one woman can enter the contract of marriage, by law.
They can in my country, is my country wrong?
No. Your country has different laws. Right and wrong are subjective determinations of the people.
Oh and thanks for calling me asshole, I love you too.
Whether or not you're an asshole has nothing to do with whether or not I love you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Huntard, posted 02-07-2009 6:02 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Huntard, posted 02-08-2009 3:11 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 60 (498076)
02-07-2009 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Straggler
02-07-2009 6:40 PM


Re: Marriage By Alphabet
You might as well say that a law stipulating that 'no two people who both have a Christian name beginning with the letter C be allowed to marry' is not discriminatory.
Everyone is subject to the same law.
If your name happens to begin with a C you can either find someone whose name does not begin with a C or change your own name.
Completely fair, unbiased and equal to all. Obviously.
If that was the law, then claiming that the law was as such would not be erroneous.
Whether or not that law was justified, or constitutional, or moral, wouldn't be relevant to whether that was the law or not.
Arguing about what that the current law shouldn't be is different that arguing about what the current law is.
Seriously - How exactly is a law restricting two consenting adults from legal union based on sex any different in terms of rationale or principle from the example above?
Marriage, by law, is defined as a social contract between one man and one woman. In terms of rationale or principle, by law, I'm not in a position, at this time, to determine the difference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Straggler, posted 02-07-2009 6:40 PM Straggler has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 60 (498077)
02-07-2009 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Taz
02-07-2009 8:39 PM


Re: are you for real?
Everytime a minority group wants to end unjust discrimination it has to convince society at large that such and such discrimination is unjust.
I agree and I'm not convinced that gays are being unjustly discriminated against.
For years now, I've been debating and trying to convince people that having a "right" means much more than being protected under the law.
Sure, but what we can see from the Japanese American internment is that you really don't have any rights that the government doesn't allow you to have.
Society at large still doesn't think demonizing gay people is unjust discrimination.
I find it to be an invented discrimination that has nothing to do with demonization.
Would society have allowed the decision to be made without a public outcry if the decision was about private school expelling students based on their religion or skin color?
Your private school example is really poor. I went to private schools and they can pretty much get rid of you for any reason they want without public outcry.
Of course you would play dumb and refuse to see the parallel, just like the people who refused to see a parallel between segregation and slavery.
Can you not see that it is not people playing dumb and refusing to see the parallel but people who realize that its not parallel in the first place?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Taz, posted 02-07-2009 8:39 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by onifre, posted 02-08-2009 3:13 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 47 by Granny Magda, posted 02-08-2009 11:29 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024