Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Opposite gender is one. I have to live by it, don't know why you're in favor of special exceptions being given based on love or attraction.
That requirement, however, is discrimination. To give special circumstances to one party but leave another party out simply because they live a lifestyle opposite to one that a lawmaker approves of is discrimination.
It's the people against same-sex marriage that's asking to get special treatment, not gays wanting to be married.
That requirement, however, is discrimination. To give special circumstances to one party but leave another party out simply because they live a lifestyle opposite to one that a lawmaker approves of is discrimination.
It's the people against same-sex marriage that's asking to get special treatment, not gays wanting to be married.
How is requiring EVERYONE to marry only people of the opposite gender discrimination?
How is requiring EVERYONE to marry only people of the opposite gender discrimination?
Remember...EVERYONE has the same rules.
Please point out where I specified that term in any of my posts.
Did I say gender discrimination?
No.
I said discrimination.
Because allowing party A. to get married but disallowing party B to get married because their couple makeup is different from party A is discrimination.
Please point out where I specified that term in any of my posts.
Did I say gender discrimination?
No.
I said discrimination.
Because allowing party A. to get married but disallowing party B to get married because their couple makeup is different from party A is discrimination.
I'm not aware of party B not being able to get married, or being held to a different standard than party A. Could you actually explain that one to me?
I'm not aware of party B not being able to get married, or being held to a different standard than party A. Could you actually explain that one to me?
Party A. consists of man+woman.
Party B consists of any number of combinations such as man+man, woman+woman, man+woman+woman, etc.
Allowing party A to get married but disallowing party B is discrimination.
Party B is not asking for special privileges, just the same a party A. It's only those advocating for man+woman marriages that's asking for special privileges.
How is requiring EVERYONE to marry only people of the opposite gender discrimination?
Remember...EVERYONE has the same rules.
You're right, it's not discrimination against the person.
However, it is discriminatory against the coupling.
What would be the special treatment of allowing any person of any gender to marry any person of any gender in order to receive the same rights, benefits, privileges, and protections for their relationship?
Party B consists of any number of combinations such as man+man, woman+woman, man+woman+woman, etc.
Allowing party A to get married but disallowing party B is discrimination.
Party B is not asking for special privileges, just the same a party A. It's only those advocating for man+woman marriages that's asking for special privileges.
Is there a valid reason to do away with the time-tested, proven institution of marriage to go with that? I'm not aware of any. You might argue that the divorce rate indicates it's broken. Ok...I would agree. If anything, though, that suggest that we need to do more to strengthen it--not water it down. Marriage is a good thing for the stability of society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rita Mordio
You're right, it's not discrimination against the person.
However, it is discriminatory against the coupling.
What would be the special treatment of allowing any person of any gender to marry any person of any gender in order to receive the same rights, benefits, privileges, and protections for their relationship?
Everyone would still have the same rules.
And a 14 year old not being able to get a driver's license while a 16 year old is age discrimination. But everyone has to deal with it.
It's only those advocating for man+woman marriages that's asking for special privileges.
The irony of it is quite pathetic, at best.
"I want the special privileges of marriage, but others cannot have it because I find them to be icky. Just ignore the fact that there is no difference other than the number of X and Y chromosones in the relationship."
If things like FMLA can be provided to opposite-sex couplings, then it should be no problem to have it cover same-sex couplings. To give benefits of hetero-couples and refuse them to homo-couples is... special treatment of hetero-couples.
I just want to point out that in my state, 100% of all divorces come from hetero-couples. Isn't that sad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
And a 14 year old not being able to get a driver's license while a 16 year old is age discrimination. But everyone has to deal with it.
Perfect. So you openly admit that there is discrimination going on, but because it doesn't affect you, people should just "deal with it."
Spoiler
Also, we are talking about adults. Inb4 alcohol purchases must be 21+, to which I would respond with "And I feel 18-year olds, being of majority age, should be allowed to purchase alcohol." Just preempting.
Is there a valid reason to do away with the time-tested, proven institution of marriage to go with that? I'm not aware of any. You might argue that the divorce rate indicates it's broken. Ok...I would agree. If anything, though, that suggest that we need to do more to strengthen it--not water it down. Marriage is a good thing for the stability of society.
Is there a valid reason to not allow such marriages to pass outside of religion?
Appeal to tradition=/=valid reason.
If marriage is a good thing for the stability of society, then I see gay marriages, incest marriages, and poly marriages as good for society. Not watering it down to some groups who cry and whine for special treatment and don't want to share their toys with others.
Is there a valid reason to not allow such marriages to pass outside of religion?
Appeal to tradition=/=valid reason.
If marriage is a good thing for the stability of society, then I see gay marriages, incest marriages, and poly marriages as good for society. Not watering it down to some groups who cry and whine for special treatment and don't want to share their toys with others.
Ultimately, I believe it is immoral--so my convictions require that I not be supportive of it. That's just the way it is. You may disagree--that's fine. I won't scream and call you names, I request the same courtesy from you.
Having said that, I think traditionally marriage as a precursor to procreation and the family unit is a very good thing. I don't know that declaring that anything can be called marriage or anything is a family unit is going to really accomplish the same thing. Again...that's just the way I feel on it. I haven't seen anything to persuade me differently.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
