Discrimination is just another word for choice. Someone else put it quite nicely:"When I order steak instead of hamburger, I'm discriminating."
Somehow I don't quite think it works the same way with steaks and hamburgers as people. A person is free to choose which food to eat, but the government is not free to choose which citizens to protect and provide with basic rights.
Who cares if homosexuality has biological origins or not?
Why do you always ask for clarification on the most obvious points? It's significant because were homosexuality chosen, we'd be talking about discriminating against a lifestyle choice, but instead we're talking about discriminating against people. They have no choice, this is who they are. If a gay man wants to get married, he cannot simply decide to become heterosexual and marry a woman. To suggest that a gay man should marry a woman if he wants to be married is to truly destroy the definition of marriage. Sex is a fundamental part of marriage. A gay man is not going to have sex with a woman any sooner than you're gonna beg a guy to fuck you in the ass. Two people that do not have sex don't have a very good chance for a successful marriage.
This is one reason why your "gays have the same rights" argument is idiotic.
Yes, they do. Repeating that lie will not make it true. The truth isn't invalidated by your refusal to accept it.
Good lord you're obtuse. Your claim is solely based on semantics. You say that homosexuals have the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex that anyone does. While this is true, it's obviously an attempt to be correct based on a technicality. A child could see the weakness of this argument. Can you dispute this statement?
"Homosexual couples are not provided the same right to officiate their relationship in marriage as straight couples are."
No, you cannot. Therefore, homosexual couples do not have the same rights as straight couples. QED.
Let me ask you, if *only* gay marriage were legal, would you feel you have the same rights as gays? You have just as much right to marry someone of the same sex as they do. This is every bit as stupid as your argument.
What about homosexuality requires that we destroy marriage to make homosexuals happy?
What about letting gays marry destroys marriage?
Why don't they come up with their own damn institution - Garriage, maybe?
Why would you throw something that stupid in there? What are you trying to say? Their own damn institution? First of all, you don't "own" marriage. Secondly, in what capacity would this institution serve? How would it differ from marriage? I suspect you were joking, but that's just a dumb thing to say.
now you're advocating redefining marriage (and destroying it in the process) as defending the sanctity of marriage?
The great thing about you is that you continue to rely on arguments that have already been disproven. We're glad you make yourself laugh, but you've yet to show that allowing gays to marry represents either the redefinition or destruction of marriage.
Face it, the only arguments you guys can come up with (after paring away all the obfuscation, ad hominem attack, and strawman argument), is "come on, be nice, why are you being so mean?"
No, not really. Several people have tried, with varying degrees of patience and tact, to show you the many fundamental flaws in your reasoning. You continue to hold the same false premises as truisms, however. You don't have a single rational support for your position. For fuck's sake, you've already given yourself away! Just drop the act already. You don't approve of gay behavior and you want to stick it to the liberals. I'm starting to suspect more and more that not only are you a bigot, but you've got a few marbles rolling around upstairs.
By writing the laws to exclude a natural state of being (homosexual)
That never happened, so the arguments based upon it are invalid.
How can you call them invalid when you've admitted that you'd support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? That would be a law excluding a natural state of being. Pull your head out of your ass.
The marriage laws don't care what religious means (ceremony) are used to achieve the end (marriage - woman and man).
Again you're supplying your own self-serving definition of marriage without citing anything but precedent as support. Face it, you're begging the question.
This sort of presupposes that the only reason marriage was gender-specific in the first place was to exclude homosexuals, which I find ridiculous.
Where are you getting this stuff? Talk about straw men. His point was clearly that when marriage was first made a legal process it was not known that homosexuality was as natural a state of being as heterosexuality. Now that this is known, it becomes clear that not allowing gays to marry is unfairly discriminating against them, and denying rights to gays because of their sexuality is just as bad as denying rights to blacks because of their race.
Morlock, in every single post you're making invalid assumptions which lead directly to your invalid conclusions. You have no argument. You're the worst straw man offender here. You pick apart replies and disagree with non-central points as though that destroys the refutation of your basic premise. Your position as you've presented it is utterly flawed. If you're not representing it properly, maybe you should do so rather than having a nice chucklefest with yourself over how smart you obviously believe yourself to be. You're currently saying nothing.
~SteveThis comment was edited on Apr 12, 20:59.