Originally posted by Red Nemesis
inimalist, I was using marriage as a shorthand for the benefits it grants- the actual marriage seems less important than the rights it confers. As long as marriage is the only way to get equal treatment under the law though, and as long as it is denied to homosexuals there will be inequality.
It isn't, there is no law that says a gay man cannot marry a woman.
The equality is NO MAN in certain states can marry another MAN. In those states NO WOMAN can marry another WOMAN. That is equality.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-GavPlease don not tell me you are using this as your argument, I thought you were kidding the first time.
It isn't, there is no law that says a gay man cannot marry a woman.The equality is NO MAN in certain states can marry another MAN. In those states NO WOMAN can marry another WOMAN. That is equality.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-GavOh, I can help you, I made some images a while back illustrating this point (vs. the point of blacks and whites being unequal during segregation):
It isn't, there is no law that says a gay man cannot marry a woman.The equality is NO MAN in certain states can marry another MAN. In those states NO WOMAN can marry another WOMAN. That is equality.
Hell almost all of the US doesn't even recognize a same sex marriage from another country. OK, you can be married to this guy in your country but not here unless you move to Arizona then it is OK and you two can be married but don't go over the state line because then you are not and are just two dudes and don't even qualify for common law marriage.
OK, now I'm confused 😖
Originally posted by Da Pittman
Hell almost all of the US doesn't even recognize a same sex marriage from another country. OK, you can be married to this guy in your country but not here unless you move to Arizona then it is OK and you two can be married but don't go over the state line because then you are not and are just two dudes and don't even qualify for common law marriage.OK, now I'm confused 😖
Yeah, you are not "listening" to exactly what Gav is "saying". He's not making a value judgement.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosI get what he is saying I think that it is a dumb standpoint, it would be the same a saying you can vote only if you can read but we didn't teach you to read. You still have the right to vote by the "law" but you can't, just as the same as you can marry as long as you marry a woman.
It's not a joke. He's making a statement of fact but you're assuming an implicit subtext of to it that isn't technically there.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
I get what he is saying I think that it is a dumb standpoint, it would be the same a saying you can vote only if you can read but we didn't teach you to read. You still have the right to vote by the "law" but you can't, just as the same as you can marry as long as you marry a woman.
No it is not the same here is the fact, in states where gay marriage is illegal:
All men can marry women.
All women can marry men.
No men can marry men.
No women can marry women.
Thus they all have equal marital rights.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-GavAnd you would be wrong, not all men can marry women and not all women can marry men but if you want to play this game I can but I would rather have a discussion about this then playing this stupid ass word game. I have much more respect for you than this and expected more form you.
No it is not the same here is the fact, in states where gay marriage is illegal:All men can marry women.
All women can marry men.
No men can marry men.
No women can marry women.Thus they all have equal marital rights.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
And you would be wrong, not all men can marry women and not all women can marry men but if you want to play this game I can but I would rather have a discussion about this then playing this stupid ass word game. I have much more respect for you than this and expected more form you.
We're not playing a word game we are point out the facts, hetrosexual people cannot do anything homosexual people cannot do when it comes to marriage. Thus they are equal before the law.
You are going to bring up "love" but can love really be used as an argument for law making?
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-GavYou are playing a word game and no I was not going to bring up love. First of all the way you want to word the law makes you statement valid but it does not make it true. First all men can not marry women and all women can not marry men, you first need to define what is a man and what is a woman. Then let’s define what happens when you are transgender and are not classified as either gender? Now lets bring in age, a 15 year old male can not marry and a 15 year old female can not marry either so that makes you statement invalid. A male can not just marry anyone because if you marry just so you can stay in this country that is also illegal so the government requires that you actually have a valid relationship.
We're not playing a word game we are point out the facts, hetrosexual people cannot do anything homosexual people cannot do when it comes to marriage. Thus they are equal before the law.You are going to bring up "love" but can love really be used as an argument for law making?
So let us look at it again, you have one consenting legal adult can not marry another consenting legal adult.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
I get what he is saying I think that it is a dumb standpoint, it would be the same a saying you can vote only if you can read but we didn't teach you to read. You still have the right to vote by the "law" but you can't, just as the same as you can marry as long as you marry a woman.
That's not a valid analogy.
And the standpoint that Gav has, is the only correct one.
The fight for marriage between homosexual couples is not an equality issue between gays and straights. It is however a rights issue for every person, and an inequality between men and women. You may call it a pedantic viewpoint, but it is, strictly speaking, correct. It doesn't mean that those marriage rights shouldn't be granted...it's just a rational evaluation of the situation, without any judgement of value.
Originally posted by Bardock42I don’t see it that way. Saying that you can get married knowing full well that they will not because they will never marry a woman is the same as saying you can vote only if you can read knowing full well that they can not. They both still have the same rights, they can vote or get married as long as they either learn how to read or marry someone that they do not want. The rule still applies to all it just has an additional stipulation attached to it, now both can simply learn to read or marry a woman and you can argue that is their choice. My analogy is based on adding stipulation to a law knowing that the person will not comply with it to prevent them from having the same right or completing it.
That's not a valid analogy.And the standpoint that Gav has, is the only correct one.
The fight for marriage between homosexual couples is not an equality issue between gays and straights. It is however a rights issue for every person, and an inequality between men and women. You may call it a pedantic viewpoint, but it is, strictly speaking, correct. It doesn't mean that those marriage rights shouldn't be granted...it's just a rational evaluation of the situation, without any judgement of value.
Making statements like they have the same rights is still bogus as I’ve pointed out, they can legally get married in one state and if they go to another state that marriage is not recognized, straight marriages do not have this issue and state recognized the marriage performed in another state except for same sex marriages. It used to be that any marriage accepted by a state was then accepted by the federal government and only recently changed with the express purpose of excluding rights to one of the populous based on the fact that they will not marry the other sex.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, you are not "listening" to exactly what Gav is "saying". He's not making a value judgement.
What Gav is "saying" is naieve and childish. Its a restriction on freedom of choice. Its like saying "well, everyone is perfectly welcome to vote for a Republican candidate, but you can't vote Democratic." Clearly such a choice is not democratically fair. It also implies that men and women are also not legally interchangable, therefore not equal.
Your analogy is a bad one because it is based on people having to earn this right to vote.
It has nothing to do with what I am saying. All heterosexuals and all homosexuals are equal when it comes to marriage.
They are all limited to marrying members of the opposite sex- that is equality.
Originally posted by Ordo
What Gav is "saying" is naieve and childish. Its a restriction on freedom of choice. Its like saying "well, everyone is perfectly welcome to vote for a Republican candidate, but you can't vote Democratic." Clearly such a choice is not democratically fair. It also implies that men and women are also not legally interchangable, therefore not equal.
Just because I am stating the status-quo you people assume I am hiding somesort of agenda or opinion about gay marriage behind it.