hypocrisy of the gay movement

Originally posted by twhitehead
And what are these 'reasonable reasons'? I think it is largely cultural.

[b]If the rights of gay people are not the equal of heterosexuals then there had better be a decent reason for it.
But their rights are equal, they are just not fair. I am tall ( 6'4" ) and frequently find that I am discriminated against (low doorways, small chairs) even tho ...[text shortened]... reference then it's not really on is it?[/b]
As I have said, I fully support gay marriage.[/b]

I am tall ( 6'4" ) and frequently find that I am discriminated against (low doorways, small chairs) even though I have equal rights to everyone else.
--------whitey-------------------------------------------

False analogy I'm afraid. Doorways and chairs and such like have to have fixed properties because of finances and physical constraints etc. It would make little difference to change marriage rights and would make it open to more people , whereas increasing door sizes or ceiling heights could mean 2-3 less floors on a large appartment building thus making some people homeless.

Your analogy is false because in design a reasonable compromise has to be reached somewhere between function , finance and access. Opening up rights to gay marriage has few such constraints.

In short you are discriminated against because of your height because to not do so would mean somewhere , someone else would lose out instead (either financially or otherwise) . That's the difference. Allowing gay marriage would not stop anyone else from marrying.

Originally posted by knightmeister
False analogy I'm afraid. Doorways and chairs and such like have to have fixed properties because of finances and physical constraints etc. It would make little difference to change marriage rights and would make it open to more people , whereas increasing door sizes or ceiling heights could mean 2-3 less floors on a large appartment building thus maki ...[text shortened]... wise) . That's the difference. Allowing gay marriage would not stop anyone else from marrying.

Come on. I have repeatedly stated that I support gay marriage. I am not arguing in any way that the status quo is fair or right or that changes would cost money or anything. My argument was merely that currently we all have equal rights, the fact that we have unequal desires is what makes the rights unfair.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I think there is an argument that it is genetically not a very healthy thing to do for a society? But maybe it is cultural , I don't know.

I realize there is some genetic risk to marrying your sister, but it is not that great. Animals do it all the time. We do not tell people with genetic diseases they cant marry - even when it is a guaranteed fact that their children will have genetic diseases. If we are talking about minor genetic diseases then we probably all have some - I know I do. Besides if the offspring was the problem then they could choose to adopt or simply not have children - after all we are making similar arguments regarding gay marriage.
My point is that if we legalize gay marriage then why don't we legalize sibling marriage and polygamy? Why shouldn't we be fair to everyone?

What I do know is that there is no reasonable reason for discriminating in favour of hetrosexuals. Can you think of one?
No, I can't think of any. I support gay marriage. I obviously support the right of Churches not to perform gay weddings if they choose not to, but then a Church should have the right to refuse any wedding they wish. The government on the other hand should not have any such discretion.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Come on. I have repeatedly stated that I support gay marriage. I am not arguing in any way that the status quo is fair or right or that changes would cost money or anything. My argument was merely that currently we all have equal rights, the fact that we have unequal desires is what makes the rights unfair.

My argument was merely that currently we all have equal rights, the fact that we have unequal desires is what makes the rights unfair.

------whitey---------------

I suppose I am simply going to have to that I don't know what you are talking about. What does this actually mean in real terms? How are the desires "unequal"? Surely you mean "different"?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
There is/was a similar argument with the miscegenation rules that were around before in the US that you could argue that EVERYBODY is allowed to marry a person of the same race so it wasn't discrimination to disallow white people to marry black people. After all, EVERYBODY had the exact same rights to marry someone as long as they were the same general sk ...[text shortened]... t's used to basically say that there isn't any argument for allowing single-sex marriage.

oh i do not in any way argue that gays should not marriage. i do not in any way suggest that the rule today is right. right now the argument is whether gays have less rights than heteros. a law, no matter how wrong and stupid, if it is applied to everyone equally then there is no issue of discrimination.

by all means yell to the government to change the marriage law. and i will yell with you. if i would ever had to choose between a candidate supporting gay marriage and one not supporting, the latter would have to be freakin ghandi reincarnate to get my vote.

and yes, if the marriage law would be "you can marry only someone who's name starts with the same letter as yours" and john wanted to marry Lili they couldn't. and they wouldn't be discriminated against. same goes for that "whites can't marry blacks" law. no matter how stupid it is.

stupid laws get changed. eventually. screaming wolf when there is none gets you nowhere.

Originally posted by knightmeister
My argument was merely that currently we all have equal rights, the fact that we have unequal desires is what makes the rights unfair.

------whitey---------------

I suppose I am simply going to have to that I don't know what you are talking about. What does this actually mean in real terms? How are the desires "unequal"? Surely you mean "different"?

yes.

we have unequal desires. meaning we cannot all be wanting the same thing. meaning some of us would want to do something the others don't want. which leads to government instating laws so that some don't disturb others with their desires.


that being settled, you have a law. in this case the marriage law. but it could be anything, like not being allowed to rape some small little girl. you have a law and you have to obey it. some do it easily because they don't want to rape little girls. does that mean that rapists and would be rapists are discriminated against? no. nobody is theoretically allowed to rape anyone.
this is was the easy example. the no brainer one. we all know (should know) that the law against rape is just and anyone thinking otherwise is sick. but what if the law is unjust? like a tax law that asks each citizen of a country to give 5000$ each month to the government. the ones that have a larger than 5k income a month do it. the others are left pennyless and to starve. is this discrimination? or is it injustice?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
oh i do not in any way argue that gays should not marriage. i do not in any way suggest that the rule today is right. right now the argument is whether gays have less rights than heteros. a law, no matter how wrong and stupid, if it is applied to everyone equally then there is no issue of discrimination.

by all means yell to the government to change the ...[text shortened]... stupid laws get changed. eventually. screaming wolf when there is none gets you nowhere.

Ok. Interesting to know you think the miscegenation laws were not discriminatory.

I just completely disagree that people are crying wolf on this as you state it.

It's also not just the concept of the term "marriage" at stake here either. It's the recognition of the relationship and all the rights that are given with it such as the simple right to be by their side if they are in the hospital or even help plan their partner's funeral.

In Rhode Island a governor vetoed a bill that would allow a homosexual partner organize a partner's burial:
http://newsblog.projo.com/2009/11/ri-gov-carcieri-vetoes-domesti.html

Originally posted by knightmeister
I suppose I am simply going to have to that I don't know what you are talking about. What does this actually mean in real terms? How are the desires "unequal"? Surely you mean "different"?

Yes, I mean different.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Ok. Interesting to know you think the miscegenation laws were not discriminatory.

I just completely disagree that people are crying wolf on this as you state it.

It's also not just the concept of the term "marriage" at stake here either. It's the recognition of the relationship and all the rights that are given with it such as the simple right to ...[text shortened]... a partner's burial:
http://newsblog.projo.com/2009/11/ri-gov-carcieri-vetoes-domesti.html

In Rhode Island a governor vetoed a bill that would allow a homosexual partner organize a partner's burial:
http://newsblog.projo.com/2009/11/ri-gov-carcieri-vetoes-domesti.html[/b]

what does this has to do with our argument? it belongs in the thread of "stupid things stupid americans do because stupid americans let them"
if there would be a law denying homosexual partners to organize their partners burial that would be clearly discriminatory. how would you formulate it? its not like there is the matter of sex involved in a burial. it is simply one person organizing the burial for another person. exactly like forbidding gays from teaching for being gay, when the act of teaching doesn't involve being or not being gay.
and having read the link i must say i feel stupider for reading it and i have you to blame. another case of "mind your own bussiness americans". a man is dead, another man is suffering, yet a homophobe sees fit to meddle in affairs that don't concern and don't affect him. Oh my god, a gay is making funeral arrangement for another gay, our livelihoods are threatened.

that being said, i must again say that this has nothing to do with our argument. it is an injustice of criminal levels. and discrimination. real discrimination. gays wanting to be married and unable is only injustice. not discrimination.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Ok. Interesting to know you think the miscegenation laws were not discriminatory.

I just completely disagree that people are crying wolf on this as you state it.

It's also not just the concept of the term "marriage" at stake here either. It's the recognition of the relationship and all the rights that are given with it such as the simple right to a partner's burial:
http://newsblog.projo.com/2009/11/ri-gov-carcieri-vetoes-domesti.html

and yes, if by miscegenation laws you mean the "can't marry a person of different skin coloring" laws, they were not discriminatory. stupid yes. wrong yes. discriminatory no.

EDIT: unless they would not apply them to all people IE if they allowed let's say jewish white people to marry budhist black people. then they would have been discriminatory.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
In Rhode Island a governor vetoed a bill that would allow a homosexual partner organize a partner's burial:
http://newsblog.projo.com/2009/11/ri-gov-carcieri-vetoes-domesti.html

what does this has to do with our argument? it belongs in the thread of "stupid things stupid americans do because stupid americans let them"
if there would be a law denyin ...[text shortened]... rimination. gays wanting to be married and unable is only injustice. not discrimination.[/b]

He vetoed a bill because he was afraid of the possibility of homosexuals organizing funerals for their partners.

The bill wasn't to allow homosexuals to organize funerals - it applied to heterosexual partners who were not married also. The governor didn't care about heterosexual partners, but vetoed the bill specifically to discriminate against homosexuals.

Your argument doesn't take into account the purpose and views behind these types of legislation. Just because a law applies to everyone doesn't mean it's not discriminatory.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
He vetoed a bill because he was afraid of the possibility of homosexuals organizing funerals for their partners.

The bill wasn't to allow homosexuals to organize funerals - it applied to heterosexual partners who were not married also. The governor didn't care about heterosexual partners, but vetoed the bill specifically to discriminate against homose ...[text shortened]... f legislation. Just because a law applies to everyone doesn't mean it's not discriminatory.

i am sorry, i seem to not have a clear view of your definition of discrimination.
in your view, is discrimination not being able to do what you want? or preferential treatment on some characteristic or another?
should we link to merriam-webster?

and yes, i understand now the bill argument, and yes it is relevant to the topic. still not a discrimination example.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i am sorry, i seem to not have a clear view of your definition of discrimination.
in your view, is discrimination not being able to do what you want? or preferential treatment on some characteristic or another?
should we link to merriam-webster?

and yes, i understand now the bill argument, and yes it is relevant to the topic. still not a discrimination example.

This is absurd.

Here's a definition from Dictionary.com:

"Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners."

But how are the parameters that are enacted in law that apply equally to everybody chosen? On what basis do you think somebody chose that we shouldn't be able to marry somebody of the same sex, or of a different race? By golly, you don't think it could be just prejudice or partiality do you?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi

and yes, i understand now the bill argument, and yes it is relevant to the topic. still not a discrimination example.

I think vetoing the legislation was an act of discrimination in it's essence, plain and simple since it was targetted towards preventing one specific group from participating in something. You simply saying it's not discrimination doesn't make it an actual argument.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i am sorry, i seem to not have a clear view of your definition of discrimination.
in your view, is discrimination not being able to do what you want? or preferential treatment on some characteristic or another?
should we link to merriam-webster?

Discrimination can be manifest either in either the definition or the effects of a law.

Let's say for the sake of argument that only black people waterski. It is entirely possible that legislation banning waterskiing is discriminatory even if it prevents white people from doing it too. Since the law is intended only to really prevent one group from an act then it is discriminatory in its intent.