Gay Marriage

[uncooper 1]

Here's what I'm getting at. Say there was a law made by white people, saying that black people couldn't marry whites*. This law would inherently suggest that all black people were inferior to white people. Not that black people who wanted to marry white people were inferior, or that interracial relationships are inferior. That's why I think your distinction is insignificant. *This analogy works whether this hypothetical law prohibited all interracial unions, or allowed interracial civil unions but protected the word marriage for all-white loving.edit: Another way of putting it is "You can't call the relationship inferior without implying that the person is inferior".

[copernicus 0]

edit: Another way of putting it is "You can't call the relationship inferior without implying that the person is inferior".

Of course you can.

[KramitDaToad 0]

This isn't true. I said a few things without specifying so you assumed that. I don't think anyone has called it that. Watch your biases my friend.

The sooner you start thinking that if it's Christian it must be wildly different, the better

All we are saying is, damnit, leave us this. It's been between a man and a woman since forever, it's our dichotomy. ****ing get your own.

Enough said.

[Loismustdie 0]

Enough said.

Completely misquoted on the second, that was a response to an accusation by you and I was pointing out the "christian" ideal is the largely prevelant ideal, and therefore not just christian, the second quote was coming from the angle of "us" meaning "straights". Nice try, though.

[KramitDaToad 0]

Completely misquoted on the second, that was a response to an accusation by you and I was pointing out the "christian" ideal is the largely prevelant ideal, and therefore not just christian, the second quote was coming from the angle of "us" meaning "straights". Nice try, though.

Perhaps you should learn about context then. When you put those 2 quotes in 1 paragraph it is correct to assume that they have the same topic.So your objection to gay marriage is non-religious? So what you are saying is that people should be denied/granted benefits, rights, and privileges based purely on their sexual orientation?Essentially you're condoning discrimination.

[copernicus 0]

So your objection to gay marriage is non-religious? So what you are saying is that people should be denied/granted benefits, rights, and privileges based purely on their sexual orientation?Essentially you're condoning discrimination.

No, hes condoning differentiation, a less charged word because discrimination implies withholding something that is a "right". We differentiate between things every day of our lives.

[KramitDaToad 0]

No, hes condoning differentiation, a less charged word because discrimination implies withholding something that is a "right". We differentiate between things every day of our lives.

In the US are over 1000 statutory provisions "in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving 'benefits, rights, and privileges.'" http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/55xx/doc5559/06...SexMarriage.pdfThat's plenty of rights being denied to a minority don't you think? Still think it's differentiation?

[vbnautilus 48]

In the US are over 1000 statutory provisions "in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving 'benefits, rights, and privileges.'" http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/55xx/doc5559/06...SexMarriage.pdfThat's plenty of rights being denied to a minority don't you think? Still think it's differentiation?

Let me throw this out there again, because I don't think I got a satisfactory objection to it (and I think there is one):Gays are not being denied any rights. They are refusing rights. Clay Aiken has the same right to marry as I do, he just doesn't want to.

[KramitDaToad 0]

Let me throw this out there again, because I don't think I got a satisfactory objection to it (and I think there is one):Gays are not being denied any rights. They are refusing rights. Clay Aiken has the same right to marry as I do, he just doesn't want to.

I understand your point, but is it not illegal to marry to gain, say citizenship?Surely that is predicating that marriage must be based on something other than coming to a financially rewarding arrangement. Perhaps a genuine desire to be with the person you are marrying in a loving relationship.Likewise if the rights applied only to people who had spouses that were white, nobody would be being discriminated against? It depends on your definition of discrimination I guess.Finally a question? Should it be a right to marry a consenting adult you love, who loves you in return. If not, why extend benefits and privileges to those that can?

[copernicus 0]

In the US are over 1000 statutory provisions "in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving 'benefits, rights, and privileges.'" http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/55xx/doc5559/06...SexMarriage.pdfThat's plenty of rights being denied to a minority don't you think? Still think it's differentiation?

Yup. There are plenty of areas of the law that differentiate between groups/classes.

[KramitDaToad 0]

Yup. There are plenty of areas of the law that differentiate between groups/classes.

Do you have any examples?

[El Guapo 8]

Do you have any examples?

Taxes.

[nutzbuster 7]

Taxes.

ZING!

[El Guapo 8]

Taxes.

Social SecurityMedicareAffirmative Actionvotingcigarettesalcoholmilitaryshould I keep going?

[KramitDaToad 0]

Social SecurityMedicareAffirmative Actionvotingcigarettesalcoholmilitaryshould I keep going?

Actually you should start again. Those are topics, not examples. Specifics would help. What rights are being denied based upon race, gender or sexual orientation in your examples? Please keep the list to those that you feel are justified.

[copernicus 0]

Actually you should start again. Those are topics, not examples. Specifics would help. What rights are being denied based upon race, gender or sexual orientation in your examples? Please keep the list to those that you feel are justified.

topics, not examples? and the statement that was responding to said "classes of people", and was not limited to race, gender or sexual orientation.

[KramitDaToad 0]

So your objection to gay marriage is non-religious? So what you are saying is that people should be denied/granted benefits, rights, and privileges based purely on their sexual orientation?Essentially you're condoning discrimination.

No, hes condoning differentiation, a less charged word because discrimination implies withholding something that is a "right". We differentiate between things every day of our lives.

In the US are over 1000 statutory provisions "in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving 'benefits, rights, and privileges.'" http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/55xx/doc5559/06...SexMarriage.pdfThat's plenty of rights being denied to a minority don't you think? Still think it's differentiation?

Yup. There are plenty of areas of the law that differentiate between groups/classes.

the statement that was responding to said "classes of people", and was not limited to race, gender or sexual orientation.

Given that my point was - it is discrimination - arbitrarily renaming it to differentiation of "classes of people" is irrelevant until you can demonstrate that it is not discriminimation Lets go back a couple of steps thenYour definition of discrimination was "discrimination implies withholding something that is a right."I gave you over 1000 examplesPerhaps you can explain why that doesn't fit your definition of discrimination?

[KramitDaToad 0]

Your definition of discrimination was "discrimination implies withholding something that is a right."I gave you over 1000 examplesPerhaps you can explain why that doesn't fit your definition of discrimination?

< deafening silence >/thread

[El Guapo 8]

< deafening silence >/thread

We answered your question above, you disagreed, said you gave a 1000 examples, none of which you posted. Nothing more to say.

[Loismustdie 0]

In the US are over 1000 statutory provisions "in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving 'benefits, rights, and privileges.'" http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/55xx/doc5559/06...SexMarriage.pdfThat's plenty of rights being denied to a minority don't you think? Still think it's differentiation?

Are married couples the majority anymore? I would think that's the minority at this point, and should be protected as such.

[copernicus 0]

Are married couples the majority anymore? I would think that's the minority at this point, and should be protected as such.

Start with ditching the marriage penalty, like Clinton(?) promised.

[KramitDaToad 0]

We answered your question above, you disagreed, said you gave a 1000 examples, none of which you posted. Nothing more to say.

No you didn't.Copernicus gave a definition of discrimination as being "withholding something that is a right."I linked to congressional report that states there are over 1000 statutory provisions where marital status is factor in determining rights and benefits. Your "none of which you posted" line made me chuckle. You were kidding with that weren't you? 2 seconds of reading the link I gave you would give you these reports.the first 1049the next 120Now here's the first time I asked

In the US are over 1000 statutory provisions "in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving 'benefits, rights, and privileges.'" http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/55xx/doc5559/06...SexMarriage.pdfThat's plenty of rights being denied to a minority don't you think? Still think it's differentiation?

and the second

Your definition of discrimination was "discrimination implies withholding something that is a right."I gave you over 1000 examplesPerhaps you can explain why that doesn't fit your definition of discrimination?

So my question, which I will ask for a third time is...Given that there are over 1000 rights and benefits withheld or affected why is this not discrimintation by copernicus's definition.

[brvheart 1,752]

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: KramitDaToad.· View this post· Un-ignore KramitDaToad This page must be awesome... I'm seeing a lot of this.

[timwakefield 68]

No, hes condoning differentiation, a less charged word because discrimination implies withholding something that is a "right". We differentiate between things every day of our lives.

Can you further explain why this is "differentiation" and not discrimination? Who defines what is a "right?" Well, we do, the citizens and the people we elect. Our country used to "differentiate" between whites and blacks. Can you explain how this is different?

[copernicus 0]

Can you further explain why this is "differentiation" and not discrimination? Who defines what is a "right?" Well, we do, the citizens and the people we elect. Our country used to "differentiate" between whites and blacks. Can you explain how this is different?

Its not, thats my point. We differentiate amongst different groups at different times. Its only what society define as a "right" that is a right. If society says gays dont have the right to marry, they dont.