People against gay marriage, what do you have against it?

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I am against gay "marriage" but for civil unions.

I think we need a different word for it. We have different words for different genders. Husband, wife. Well in a sense there is a different gender situation when you have husband-husband. They should have another word for it but the same rights.

That is fine for you perhaps but separate but equal is not equal. I think all should be able to participate in the sanctity of marriage whether or not it's a fiction. Whether that sanctity will be conferred by a church is the church's business. But the government must confer equally.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I am against gay "marriage" but for civil unions.

I think we need a different word for it. We have different words for different genders. Husband, wife. Well in a sense there is a different gender situation when you have husband-husband. They should have another word for it but the same rights.

That is fine for you perhaps but separate but equal is not equal. I think all should be able to participate in the sanctity of marriage whether or not it's a fiction. Whether that sanctity will be conferred by a church is the church's business. But the government must confer equally.

Why do you participate in "selective equality"? Unless you support the marriage of siblings and polymagists, you're not for equality for all.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I am against gay "marriage" but for civil unions.

I think we need a different word for it. We have different words for different genders. Husband, wife. Well in a sense there is a different gender situation when you have husband-husband. They should have another word for it but the same rights.

That is fine for you perhaps but separate but equal is not equal. I think all should be able to participate in the sanctity of marriage whether or not it's a fiction. Whether that sanctity will be conferred by a church is the church's business. But the government must confer equally.

I don't think separate but equal is a problem. I think people are just stuck on the race case. That was just a pretext where seperate was in fact not equal. Here, we would have actual equality. Also, I think it's useful to look at foreign languages that have gendered words. It's separate, but equal. We have a name for husband and wife, how about huswife for gay couples, I dunno... I think we can preserve the tradition of heterosexual marriage while building on it with something equally good. I think sometimes we try to simplify things too much in our society. The more words, the better.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
That is fine for you perhaps but separate but equal is not equal. I think all should be able to participate in the sanctity of marriage whether or not it's a fiction. Whether that sanctity will be conferred by a church is the church's business. But the government must confer equally.

Why do you participate in "selective equality"? Unless you support the marriage of siblings and polymagists, you're not for equality for all.

Not necessarily. Consider this: Marriage (from a government standpoint, not religious) is a government contract, which bestows certain rights, responsibilities, and benefits to those that enter into this contract. There are limits as to who can enter into this contract (no minors, only 2 participants, no close blood relations, etc), same as any other contract. So far, so good. Except that the contract does not allow 2 members of the same gender to enter into the contract.

Now gender is one of the principle protected traits, along with race. You can legally refuse to hire a minor, on the sole fact that he is a minor, you can legally refuse to hire your brother, on the sole fact that he is your brother, you can legally refuse to hire 3 people, based solely on the fact that you only need 1, but you can NOT refuse to hire someone solely because of their gender or race. Simple.

So with these conditions outlined, how can the government refuse to allow 2 people into the marriage 'contract' based solely on the gender of one of the participants? If one of them magically (or surgically) changed genders, while everything else stayed the same, then there would be no problem. How is that not gender discrimination?

It has nothing to do with homosexuality, sanctity of marriage, whether people are born gay, whether people love each other, etc. It is a simple matter of the government selectively denying a person from entering into a contract based on gender alone.

That's the way I see, anyway. And that's also the only reason why I support the idea of same-sex marriage.

 

[lordtyranus]

Now gender is one of the principle protected traits, along with race. You can legally refuse to hire a minor, on the sole fact that he is a minor, you can legally refuse to hire your brother, on the sole fact that he is your brother, you can legally refuse to hire 3 people, based solely on the fact that you only need 1, but you can NOT refuse to hire someone solely because of their gender or race. Simple.

Sure you can. Try applying to a hooters restaurant.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

Now gender is one of the principle protected traits, along with race. You can legally refuse to hire a minor, on the sole fact that he is a minor, you can legally refuse to hire your brother, on the sole fact that he is your brother, you can legally refuse to hire 3 people, based solely on the fact that you only need 1, but you can NOT refuse to hire someone solely because of their gender or race. Simple.

Sure you can. Try applying to a hooters restaurant.

Google: "men hooters discrimination" 😉

Link

The Hooters restaurant chain has agreed to pay $3.75 M to settle a sexual discrimination suit brought by men turned down for jobs because of their gender. The settlement allows Hooters to continue luring customers with an exclusively female staff of Hooters Girls, but it must create a few other support jobs, such as bartenders and hosts, that must filled without regard to gender. The restaurant said its hiring practice is not discriminatory because the chain is "in the business of providing vicarious sexual recreation and female sexuality is a bonafide occupational qualification.

It may be a bit of a stretch, but they don't deny men jobs, just from being waitresses that require "vicarious sexuality." And it cost them quite a bit of $$ for that settlement.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I am against gay "marriage" but for civil unions.

I think we need a different word for it. We have different words for different genders. Husband, wife. Well in a sense there is a different gender situation when you have husband-husband. They should have another word for it but the same rights.

That is fine for you perhaps but separate but equal is not equal. I think all should be able to participate in the sanctity of marriage whether or not it's a fiction. Whether that sanctity will be conferred by a church is the church's business. But the government must confer equally.

I don't think separate but equal is a problem. I think people are just stuck on the race case. That was just a pretext where seperate was in fact not equal. Here, we would have actual equality. Also, I think it's useful to look at foreign languages that have gendered words. It's separate, but equal. We have a name for husband and wife, how about huswife for gay couples, I dunno... I think we can preserve the tradition of heterosexual marriage while building on it with something equally good. I think sometimes we try to simplify things too much in our society. The more words, the better.

When I said it's fine for you I meant that what gays want is not what you propose to give them. What they want is to marry. You should petition the government to grant you civil union and let gays who wish to marry marry.

 

[EXman]

Ask the millions that voted to protect the family 😀 the unspoken majority VOTED!