Oh Jesus, can't believe I didn't mention that one. My bad. Please believe when I say I do know that is a more than common reason.
But vast majority as purely economic? Really?
I chose the part of the tradition that has, through it all, remained intact and laid the groundwork for what marriage is. It is a tradition in itself.
On love: Of course I'm not saying a gay couple can't love each other as much as a straight couple can. ...Christ... Please read my posts.
On procreation: But the two of them alone (in the homosexual relationship) cannot procreate.
On state benfits: Please read my ****ing posts.
On my actions: My reasoning for having marriage used exclusively for straight couples does not hold any resentment towards gay couples. Not in the wording, intent, or ultimate execution of the belief.
I promote homosexual unions. Call them something other than marriage. Revise laws so that this word is recognized to have the same rights and benefits as marriage. One denotes gay; the other denotes straight. Put up the proposition and I will support it.
Obviously you did, I am asking why you get to personally decide and it translate into you being right in denying others equality?
Then why did you bring up "Love" as a valid aspect to your argument, if gays and heteros are equal in terms of love?
There are some hetero-couples that can't procreate, should we renege their marriage on those same grounds?
Yes, you said you have no problem with gays having the same benefits, yet you'd personally deny them that equality JUST because the use of a word, that is illogical as illogical can be, so I doubt those are your true feelings. Just doesn't jive.
Here's an idea, why not allow gays to marry, give them equal rights, let them use the term "marriage" if they like, but you personally not call it that; you can call it anything you like. EG Fagship, Union-of-the-labias, Buttroth etc. etc. etc.
I think discussing the reasons for marriage would be irrelevant at this point.
I personally decided to believe in it because it is the longest tradition within marriage, therefore doing a large part to define it in my eyes.
Again, this is my personal belief.
Denying others equality? Look, I'm not from planet Marklar where everything is referred to as Marklar.
Why do you believe they should use the term "marriage"?
Last edited by Aequo Animo on Nov 4th, 2008 at 11:55 PM
You said you'd have no problem denying others equal rights if you think it's right, based on your own personal bias. It was a few pages back, Inimalist read it too. So I am asking you why your personal bias is a valid reason to deny others rights? You can hate gays all you like; I couldn't care less, but denying equal rights is never the right thing to do.
They should be allowed to use the term "marriage" based on the notion of equality-for-all/there shouldn't be discrimination because of someone's sexual orientation.
Personal bias?
I've used reasoning to make an argument for keeping marriage sacred between a man and a woman, while checking my own sexual orientation at the door. Twist it as you like in order to perceive me as homophobic but it is simply untrue. Deface it as you like to proclaim it stupid when it is held in the eyes of Presidential candidates (at least when taken at face-value) and other citizens.
I am no bigot.
Obama must have felt like this x1,000,000 when he voted against that military appropriations bill.
That's discrimination. Minor, maybe, but it is there.
I choose not to allow the title of 'marriage' for homosexuals based on sexual orientation.
You choose not to call gays 'straight' based on sexual orientation.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
No, you choose to support legislation to discriminate against adult citizens. That's the difference. Before the law they should have the same rights to have a union with the spouse of their choice AND it has to be the exact same union straights have...if you in private choose to call marriage between homosexuals faggy-****-friendship, have a blast, don't use the government to force your bigotry on undeserving, innocent citizens.
Don't be a retard, that's like saying I'm discriminating against women if I were to refer to them as 'females.'
BINGO, you're discriminating and not allowing equal rights on a certain group because of "sexual orientation"; that is illegal and it is an injustice. No real difference than you not allowing a certain group of people to not have equal rights based on the color of their skin, place of birth, religious views etc. etc. etc. I am glad you finally come clean of your bigotry.
Again, don't be a retard. I choose to not call gays, 'straight', because straight refers to being heterosexual, which they're obviously not. Same way I choose to not call women, 'men', because they're not.
You are differentiating; choosing to make a fine distinction. That is discrimination.
The other side of discrimination is the idea that I favor one over the other by hurting the other. I'm not hurting the other. You aren't either when you discriminate and call them gay or homosexual...that's what they are. Nothing wrong with that.
As I have shown, not all discrimination is bad, so get that out of your thick skull.
Not all things fair are equal, and vice versa.
That doesn't necessarily equate to injustice, either.
Again, it is not as black and white as you make it out to be.
What about the case of Robert/Michelle Kosilek? How do you label that person? You must have your own views on the subject. I assume they have reason. ...they should...
Discrimination:
-the power of making fine distinctions
-the act or instance of discriminating
>>>>>>>>discriminating: differentiating; discerning; having excellent taste or judgement
Did you even look it up before you asked or did you just go out there and wing it? I'm guessing you did the wing thing. I, personally, would have done the smart thing.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Y-you do realize that that's a very different definition of discrimination? It's in relation to judgement. If your point was that not all meanings of discrimination are bad, I guess I can agree, it's obviously not what you have been talking about, especially since you called it a "minor discrimination". Everyone here was talking about this though: "to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality: The new law discriminates against foreigners. He discriminates in favor of his relatives. "
Including you. I like how you played those semantics though, quite good. Still, you are incorrect, it's a totally different word in this case, it's not the same kind of discrimination as you bigotedly denying rights to humans out of your own selfish stupidity.
In that sense I'm making a minor discrimination: Marriage is between a man and a woman. I'm not denying homosexuals rights, and I've only been promoting them, and they are the same ones that married couples have. They are of equal status. Still, I am discriminating, in the same sense you all do everyday, but it is justified because it is not reserved for a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 4th, 2008 11:10 PM
