Nah, I read them, you are not addressing what he is actually saying, but an idea you associate with it. What Gav was saying, is correct. He didn't derive an argument from it. That's really all there is to it.
Gay men and straight men have the same options and are equal before the law, in the case of marriage. Fact. No discussion needed.
Yes. That is correct. I never denied they had the same options. I never implied that statement was false. I denied that this is equality.
Yet, you continue to speak in circles and fail to grasp the bigger picture that I am attempting to present. This is not about gay and straight, this is about gender. A man is not afforded the same choice as a woman. Theoretically, men and women, adults, are treated as equals under the law. They are not in most state's marriage laws. Equality in marriage does not exist.
Also, as I have stated and you have also repeatedly ignored, such a choice between straight marriage or no marriage is not equal, because it presents an unfair choice between two non-equitable outcomes. I will reiterate my election analogy here. An election where you can decide to vote for one party or to not vote at all is "equal" under your logic. You have every right to vote...one way. If you refuse, such is a matter of simple personal choice and not a violation of your opportunity to cast a ballot, just as a refusal to enter into a heterosexual marriage is one of abstinence and personal choice, not government restriction. Yet, the REAL matter at hand, the election, can hardly be described as fair and denies legal equivalency between parties, just as restrictions on marriage between two legally equivalent adults denies equality between them. Just because a "choice" is afforded equally doesn't mean that the result represents a fair equality or a choice at all. Equality is in result, not in a forced result.
Inane and pedantic statements are irrelevant and based on narrow technicalities that only survive using simplistic and childish conceptions. In a nation where such statements really do represent a very real inequality, such limited discussions such as what you and Gav have provided do real damage and offer zero insight.
So yes, I have REPEATEDLY addressed EXACTLY what he is saying. What he's saying is an equal choice represents equality. This is, in fact, false both logically and in practice. Also in your narrow focus on gay-straight banter, you neglect gender, which is where the real inequality occours, nevermind that the choice itself is unfair and unequal.
Originally posted by Ordo
So yes, I have REPEATEDLY addressed EXACTLY what he is saying. What he's saying is an equal choice represents equality. This is, in fact, false both logically and in practice. Also in your narrow focus on gay-straight banter, you neglect gender, which is where the real inequality occours, nevermind that the choice itself is unfair and unequal.
Originally posted by Bardock42
[edit] Though I do disagree with Gav that everyone is equal. Women and Men can't choose from the same set of people. Therefore women and men are unequal, when it comes to marriage.
Oh boy, someone looks silly now.
Really though, they are equal, you are trying to divide something that doesn't need to be divided. Gav's point was that, if someone says "I am gay, I want equal marriage rights", that is nonsense, because they have equal marriage rights, what they want is more options according to their preference. You came in this thread with an extremely aggressive tone trying to call out Gav (and me), while we actually didn't talk about your silliness at all. What Gav said...is correct. Full stop. That's where this whole thing ends. You now, can introduce your own point, but don't attack Gav's or mine, because it is right, you yourself say so. And no, we don't "fail to grasp the bigger picture", we did not discuss it, as it wasn't the topic brought up by Gav's point.
So silly.
Originally posted by OrdoNah.
You fail to discern between equal opportunity and equality.You're saying that because gays have the same choice, there is marriage equality. This is simply ridiculously false.
End of story.
Equality is the condition of being equal. Straight men and gay men are equal (i.e. treated exactly the same) when it comes to marriage.
That's all I said. And that is correct. Why are you so aggressively debating that? If you want to make another point just make it..don't say "you fail to grasp it" or "you're wrong" because I made no statement on anything else, and I am not incorrect.
Originally posted by Bardock42I think you statement would be better if you said "are equal to when it comes to the legal definition of marriage according to the United States federal government." Other than that I would agree with Ordo that they are not equal because they are not equal in all circumstances and conditions.
Equality is the condition of being equal. Straight men and gay men are equal (i.e. treated exactly the same) when it comes to marriage.
OK, here is a question.
Can an openly gay man marry a women in church? Everyone in the world knows he is gay, sinning in the eyes of God and all that still get married in a church and in the eyes of God? He is still a male marrying a woman so if it is equal then any church should let them get married.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
OK, here is a question.Can an openly gay man marry a women in church? Everyone in the world knows he is gay, sinning in the eyes of God and all that still get married in a church and in the eyes of God? He is still a male marrying a woman so if it is equal then any church should let them get married.
That depends entirely on the church they try to get married in. I assume most churches that would see him as an abomination in the eyes of God wouldn't even let him in the door, let along ravish one of their women. More liberal churches might have a few questions about why he wants to marry her but that's about it.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
OK, here is a question.Can an openly gay man marry a women in church? Everyone in the world knows he is gay, sinning in the eyes of God and all that still get married in a church and in the eyes of God? He is still a male marrying a woman so if it is equal then any church should let them get married.
In terms of Catholicism he is as much as an abomination as everyone else- we all sin after all. Though usually openly gay men who openly practice their homosexuality are excluded from certain things- certainly the eucharist and celebrating mass in general.
However if he is a repentant sinner and does not commit homosexual acts, along with other sexual wrongs then he is certainly welcome into full communion with the Church.
As for a gay man (meeting either two of the above categories) wanting to marry a woman. I find it hard to think of any priest who would want to perform the marriage...I mean are they in love? Is he still homosexual and just marrying her to escape that? Is the marriage viable?
Normally if an openly gay man said he wanted to marry a woman the priest would say no, unless the circumstances were such that the priest believed that this marriage was real and would last. (Priests are required to "scrutinise" all couples regardless of sexuality to acertain whether they are ready for a sacramental marriage before God. A priest should never officiate over a marriage which he believes has no chance of lasting.)
If a gay man fell in love with a woman this would usually be encoraged, so save him from depravity and all that St. Paul stuff...He talks about a wife saving her husband from sinning etc.
So can an openly gay man marry a woman in a valid marriage? Of course he can, provided that the priest believes the marriage to be viable, as it would be with any marriage/
Originally posted by Da Pittman.... 😐
I think you statement would be better if you said "are equal to when it comes to the legal definition of marriage according to the United States federal government." Other than that I would agree with Ordo that they are not equal because they are not equal in all circumstances and conditions.
I repeatedly stated they are equal when it comes to marriage.
Your point that some marriages are not equal (for example that a gay couple is not recognized in one state as married, while they might be in another, whereas hetero couples tend to be always recognized (in the US) is true, but not related to what I am talking about).
Originally posted by Bardock42That is why there needs to be a clarification as to what you consider equal because it is not equal in all circumstances, it is only equal with a set criteria such as the federal definition of marriage. Such as 2 = 2 is always this way no matter what, you could say that during slavery that all blacks were equal until the law changed. All blacks had the same rights so all blacks were treated equally. Saying that they are equal when it comes to marriage is not since even the definition of marriage changes such as Gav pointed out based on his religious belief that if it is not a Christian marriage it is not valid in the eyes of God.
.... 😐I repeatedly stated they are equal when it comes to marriage.
Your point that some marriages are not equal (for example that a gay couple is not recognized in one state as married, while they might be in another, whereas hetero couples tend to be always recognized (in the US) is true, but not related to what I am talking about).
Originally posted by Da PittmanYeah, see, we were talking about legal marriage in the US, nothing else.
That is why there needs to be a clarification as to what you consider equal because it is not equal in all circumstances, it is only equal with a set criteria such as the federal definition of marriage. Such as 2 = 2 is always this way no matter what, you could say that during slavery that all blacks were equal until the law changed. All blacks had the same rights so all blacks were treated equally. Saying that they are equal when it comes to marriage is not since even the definition of marriage changes such as Gav pointed out based on his religious belief that if it is not a Christian marriage it is not valid in the eyes of God.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
Gav pointed out based on his religious belief that if it is not a Christian marriage it is not valid in the eyes of God.
Umm, Catholic really, or Eastern Orthodox.
Evangelical, Baptist, even Anglican marriages are not strictly speaking fully valid I don't think. As marriage is a sacrament.
Although, what I do feel is a marriage consummated is a marriage binding. Regardless of who performed the ceremony...
Originally posted by Bardock42But then that is really a mute point because a law would apply to everyone that it targets so by that logic it will always be "equal". I could make a law saying that only whites can marry blacks, and Christians can only marry Christians so each set is treated "equal". It doesn't say some white or some Christians, I could even say everyone named Bob can do something so every Bob has the same rights.
Yeah, see, we were talking about legal marriage in the US, nothing else.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
But then that is really a mute point because a law would apply to everyone that it targets so by that logic it will always be "equal". I could make a law saying that only whites can marry blacks, and Christians can only marry Christians so each set is treated "equal". It doesn't say some white or some Christians, I could even say everyone named Bob can do something so every Bob has the same rights.
moot point.