Allowing a difference in terms even if it was possible to have both groups have the exact same rights (enforced equally and everything) is allowing an establishment of a 'second-class' group.
Please explain how this creats a "second class group". Following that logic, the classifications of, say, race or ethnicity would also likewise create "second class groups"? If that's the case, we should all refer to each other as white, because anything different would not be equal, right? Silly.
All men are created equal, but we are not all equal. Some are smarter, some are better looking, some have superior reflexes, some are richer, some can see better................the possibilities of differences in equity is countless. That's not a legitimate argument.
Please explain how this creats a "second class group". Following that logic, the classifications of, say, race or ethnicity would also likewise create "second class groups"? If that's the case, we should all refer to each other as white, because anything different would not be equal, right? Silly.
All men are created equal, but we are not all equal. Some are smarter, some are better looking, some have superior reflexes, some are richer, some can see better................the possibilities of differences in equity is countless. That's not a legitimate argument.
Think about it this way: let's say homosexuality becomes the norm (the majority of people are gay). Would you be happy if they passed a law saying marriage is between two men, or two women, and heterosexual couples are allowed the same benefits but they will be referred to as civil unions? Would you be happy if that was placed on YOUR sexual preference?
all men are created equal, but we are not all equal. Some are smarter, some are better looking, some have superior reflexes, some are richer, some can see better................the possibilities of differences in equity is countless. That's not a legitimate argument.
qft
__________________
~We the unwilling, led by the unqualified, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful.
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." ~Mother Teresa
Why do I get the feeling anti same sex marriage people just want to be "more equal"?
__________________
90% tax on the rich, what made this country great! Then Kennedy dropped it to 70% and it's been down hill ever since. Conservative's worst nightmare; a successful Obama Presidency. Rush Limbaugh the American Osama Bin Laden.
Think about it this way: let's say homosexuality becomes the norm (the majority of people are gay). Would you be happy if they passed a law saying marriage is between two men, or two women, and heterosexual couples are allowed the same benefits but they will be referred to as civil unions? Would you be happy if that was placed on YOUR sexual preference?
I dont know, but if white was a minority I hope some day I get a first look for a job because of it, despite my skills. That would be excellent!
__________________
~We the unwilling, led by the unqualified, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful.
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." ~Mother Teresa
All men are created equal, but we are not all equal. Some are smarter, some are better looking, some have superior reflexes, some are richer, some can see better................the possibilities of differences in equity is countless. That's not a legitimate argument.
In law, equality goes to ' The Fundamental Rights' of the individual not their potential unique capabilities. Equality seeks to provide these 'rights' to all citizens regardless of [the string of protected classes]. To deny a class of citizens a 'right' enjoyed by the majority is the basis underwhich 'Equal Protection' is invoked.
__________________
A mirror reflects more than what the viewer is capable of seeing!
I dont know, but if white was a minority I hope some day I get a first look for a job because of it, despite my skills. That would be excellent!
How about Women being the majority sex in the USA and NOT being afforded equal pay for equal work. What's with that?
I think equal capability rewards with equal opportunity. Anything else is discriminatory, imo.
__________________
A mirror reflects more than what the viewer is capable of seeing!
I dont know, but if white was a minority I hope some day I get a first look for a job because of it, despite my skills. That would be excellent!
1) I find it hard to believe that you don't know.
2) Did you REALLY just make the argument "Since some laws discriminate against me I don't care about laws that discriminate against others"?
Same sex marriage is extraordinarily straight forward and the same people against it today were against inter-racial marriage, for the same reasons, 40-50 years ago. They'll be looked at in history the same way years from now that the inter-racial marriage nuts were looked at in the 50's and 60's; as bigots.
__________________
Quote:
Originally posted by: K3N
keep living in the denial. when the Illuminati decide to nerve gas you and your family, you'll still be calling us tinfoil hats.
Think about it this way: let's say homosexuality becomes the norm (the majority of people are gay). Would you be happy if they passed a law saying marriage is between two men, or two women, and heterosexual couples are allowed the same benefits but they will be referred to as civil unions? Would you be happy if that was placed on YOUR sexual preference?
I would have no problem with that at all. My marriage *is* a civil union recognized by the state.
How about Women being the majority sex in the USA and NOT being afforded equal pay for equal work. What's with that?
I think equal capability rewards with equal opportunity. Anything else is discriminatory, imo.
This is a subject for its own thread.
I'm not disputing that women on average are paid less per hour than men. But I'd like to see what the figures are for men and women in the same profession, with the same number of years of experience, with the same educational background. That is (for example), a women who's taken two leaves-of-absence for pregnancy over the course of a five-year career cannot claim "equivalence" with an otherwise identical man.
I agree there's SOME disparity, but I'll bet that if all objective differences are accounted for, the disparity is MUCH less than the 20% or so typically cited.
I can't control how people use the language, but the very definition of marriage specifically requires a man and a woman. My 3 year old son often immitates our cat, but he is still a boy and not a cat no matter how much he wants to be a cat.
So a gay person comparing their relationship to a straight person's is like a child who thinks he's a cat. Do you see how that comparison might be just a tad insulting to gay people? You're flat out saying that their love is not as valid as a heterosexual couple's love, that they are "imitating the cat," though they can never be it. What basis do you have for saying that a gay couple's relationship is less valid than a straight couple's? Your own definition? Because your definition sounds like textbook bigotry.
Talk about bigotry. I know and am friends with several homosexuals who are members Catholic and Protestant churches. Homosexuality does not turn one into an athiest or agnostic. At all. Period.
Why not take a crack at answering the question I posed that you quoted.
You're calling me a bigot? That's rich. I was raised by lesbian mothers, one Catholic, one Jewish. Neither one of their churches supports gay marriage. Neither one of them thought that legalizing gay marriage would allow them to get married within the church. They still supported the idea of gay marriage though. Your argument, specifically, "the desire to force religious institutions to sanctify homosexual relationships" is absolutely, 100% not what supporters of gay marriage are trying to do. I couldn't care less if the Baptist church allows gay people to marry. What I do care about is that marriage, by virtue of not being solely a religious institution, but a union recognized by the secular state, offers certain benefits to one group but not another based on an arbitrary distinction of sexuality. That is not fair, and it is not in line with the principles of equality that this country was founded on.
So, to answer your question, in the exact same way that I already did, which you conveniently ignored: marriage in the eyes of the law is completely separate from the marriage in the church. Do not conflate the issue.
Same sex marriage is extraordinarily straight forward and the same people against it today were against inter-racial marriage, for the same reasons, 40-50 years ago. They'll be looked at in history the same way years from now that the inter-racial marriage nuts were looked at in the 50's and 60's; as bigots.
Twenty years from now I'll bet it will be awfully difficult to find anyone who admits that they opposed same-sex marriage in 2009.
Think about it this way: let's say homosexuality becomes the norm (the majority of people are gay). Would you be happy if they passed a law saying marriage is between two men, or two women, and heterosexual couples are allowed the same benefits but they will be referred to as civil unions? Would you be happy if that was placed on YOUR sexual preference?
Quote:
Originally Posted by actuarial
1) I find it hard to believe that you don't know.
2) Did you REALLY just make the argument "Since some laws discriminate against me I don't care about laws that discriminate against others"?
OK my bad. I do know. I wouldnt give a rats ass what it was called. Call it Shuma Shuma for all I care *shrug*
Yes I just made that argument. I apologize for the lack of a /sarcasm tag, even if there is a bit of truth in it.
__________________
~We the unwilling, led by the unqualified, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful.
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." ~Mother Teresa
Anti-same-sex-marriage bigots insist that gays are trying to force them to accept their marriages. Which is nonsense. The bigots can continue to think whatever they want about same-sex unions.
What's important is the rights conferred by the state: Rights of inheritance. Marital privilege for legal proceedings. Tax treatments. Rights to pension and SS benefits. Medical rights. From wikipedia's article on marital benefits:
Quote:
According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. These rights and responsibilities apply only to male-female married couples, as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as between a man and a woman and thus bars same-sex couples from receiving any federal recognition of same sex marriage or conveyance of marriage benefits to same sex couples through federal marriage law.
I'm not disputing that women on average are paid less per hour than men. But I'd like to see what the figures are for men and women in the same profession, with the same number of years of experience, with the same educational background. That is (for example), a women who's taken two leaves-of-absence for pregnancy over the course of a five-year career cannot claim "equivalence" with an otherwise identical man.
I agree there's SOME disparity, but I'll bet that if all objective differences are accounted for, the disparity is MUCH less than the 20% or so typically cited.
As I sit here thinking...
I can't think of many employments that do vary the earnings according to sex. Government, Quasi Government, Education, Legal, Health care and most other fields have moved to a more uniform emolument configuration. I think in some opinions/figures are the job promotional aspects which does tend to reduce the lifetime earnings of women. And I think in some areas getting the job being a woman is the first hurdle.
It is not all that long ago that Mom stayed home while Dad worked and if a woman wanted to forgo that condition she was thought to be taking a man's job and would suffer the pay differential for doing so.. except in Government and the like. A GS 17 was paid the rate of a GS 17.
The leave of absence issue is a quirky one to think about... Guys don't usually have babies, Girls do but why are Girls given the paid time off? Free time off is no problem for me, but paid time sorta is (on first blush). I'll have to visit that 'law' cuz it may be that men get that time off too to tend to the baby if the woman is back at work....
__________________
A mirror reflects more than what the viewer is capable of seeing!
One problem I see with calling same sex and opposite sex marriages different things is that it reeks of "separate but equal" which we have a bad history with in this country. We're always happy with the separate part but then the equal is hard to follow up with. What exactly is the problem with calling them the same thing anyway? I don't see any problem with it as long as they don't force churches to do it or something like that.
Would the majority of gays be happy with civil unions that carried the same "rights" as a marriage?
I'm not gay and I wouldn't be satisfied with that. It only endorses a "separate but equal" policy.
Want things to be equal? Then legally designate civil unions for everyone and the peoples' faiths determine their status of "marriage".
edit: Bah, that's been covered. I'm still getting used to picking out the vB page listings in threads. After 9 pages my argument has been covered several times I'm sure.
One problem I see with calling same sex and opposite sex marriages different things is that it reeks of "separate but equal" which we have a bad history with in this country. We're always happy with the separate part but then the equal is hard to follow up with. What exactly is the problem with calling them the same thing anyway? I don't see any problem with it as long as they don't force churches to do it or something like that.
What the "problem" comes down to (although most in the anti-gay crowd won't actually admit it) is that the bible is being interpreted to mean that God doesn't like homosexual behavior. Therefore, legalizing same-sex marriage is (to this crowd) tantamount to approving of sin. They rationalize their opposition with all sorts of transparently inane arguments, but that's their real "problem" with same-sex marriage.
What the "problem" comes down to (although most in the anti-gay crowd won't actually admit it) is that the bible is being interpreted to mean that God doesn't like homosexual behavior. Therefore, legalizing same-sex marriage is (to this crowd) tantamount to approving of sin. They rationalize their opposition with all sorts of transparently inane arguments, but that's their real "problem" with same-sex marriage.
Not more than 5 minutes ago I heard [insert a human resident of my palatial estate] say on the phone.. "they even wear wedding bands to be like us... disgusting"
It really is a religious issue for her... She even went so far as to say ... now this is remarkable... "In every one of the early movies homosexual behavior was shown to be a cause of God's wrath" then went on.. "these are the final days, no doubt... today's movies show it to be the lifestyle of evil flaunted in our face. It is everywhere."
See... I've my very own ATPN right here... hehehehe The saving grace is that I can't be banned here... hehehehehehhehehehe
__________________
A mirror reflects more than what the viewer is capable of seeing!
PORTLAND, Maine - Maine voters repealed a state law Tuesday that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed, dealing the gay rights movement a heartbreaking defeat in New England, the corner of the country most supportive of gay marriage.
Gay marriage has now lost in every single state — 31 in all — in which it has been put to a popular vote. Gay-rights activists had hoped to buck that trend in Maine — known for its moderate, independent-minded electorate — and mounted an energetic, well-financed campaign.
Once again someone they don't know has come in just as a thief in the night, went through their most personal items, just like a thief in the night, and robbed people of something near and dear to them, just like a thief in the night.
So again I ask, what is the point of lawmakers and courts granting same sex marriage rights on the state level? Sadly none!
