Bard Kesnit <vtcheme@hotmail.nospam..com> wrote in message news:<9b1h6010inqfraa3s1cilsnbmtj2ho1l41@4ax.com>...
"Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1414fd53.0403250902.20b91984@posting.google.com...
Bard Kesnit <vtcheme@hotmail.nospam..com> wrote in message
news:<68f560lrv8q65hd6gl2d1e9pdog9eu2bvq@4ax.com>...
You're the one playing games when you know quite well that what I
just said is perfectly true.
Fine.
Is that your way of conceding?
No, it's my way of saying I am taking a step back and an going
to approach this from another angle.
Interesting choice of words.
How would you feel if the government told you that you
can marry anyone you want - as long as that person is on a
pre-approved list.
The government doesn't say that to anyone.
They are saying it to me and every other homosexual.
No one is saying anything to you.
I can
marry anyone I want - as long as that person is on their pre-approved
list (a list of men in my case).
There is no list.
Since I don't want to marry anyone on
that list, my right to a legally recognized marriage is being
violated.
There is no such thing as the *right* to a "legally recognized"
marriage.
The rules apply equally to everyone.
No, they don't.
Yes, they do.
Bob can marry Marcia. Betty cannot marry
Marcia. So Betty is being discriminate against on the basis of gender.
Well, a ten year old can't marry anyone. Aren't you upset about age
discrimination?
Sexual dimorphism as a biological reality and sex discrimination based
on it are part of the foundation of a civilized society. That's why
there are separate bathrooms for the sexes, the Olympics is still
segregated on sex, etc etc.
"The attributes of mothering and fathering
are inherent parts of sex differentiation that
paves the way to reproduction. This is where the sociology
analogy so often drawn between race and sex breaks
down in the most fundamental sense. Genetic
assimilation is possible through interracial mating, and we can
envisage a society that is color blind. But genetic assimilation of
male and
female is impossible, and no society will be sex-blind."
(American Sociological Review, Vol. 49, No.
1, Feb., 1984. Gender and Parenthood.
Alice S. Rossi. :10)
The heterosexual norm in marriage, however, is not
based upon the superiority of one gender over the
other. To the contrary, it assumes that each gender is
indispensable to society's most basic building block.
Miscegenation laws segregate the races; conventional
marriage laws integrate the genders. Miscegenation laws
assume superior and inferior races; conventional
marriage assumes the equal value of each gender."
(Rick Duncan, Professor, University of Nebraska College of Law,
American Lawyer Newspapers Group Inc., The Connecticut Law Tribune,
January 20, 1997 :9)
Anyone who says differently is lying.
I am telling the truth. How is my statement about Bob, Betty,
and Marcia a lie?
It's not based on any kind of reality. Your idea that the sexes are
identical/interchangable is a lie.
Are you really so clueless that you can't even read?
I can read; the problem is that you are misrepresenting the situation
and outright lying.
I am not lying. Homosexuals are being discriminated against on
the basis of gender.
That's not true.
Straights
have the legal right to marry the people they are attracted to and
love. Gays do not have that legal right.
Yes, they do.
I am not attracted to men.
So? Who you are attracted to and who you aren't isn't relevant to
public policy.
That is like saying "the rule is applied equally to everyone because
everyone has the right to marry someone of their own race." That
argument was struck down by the Supreme Court.
Sex preferences are now = to race. Or so you want people to believe.
Your argument is the same as the argument used to ban
interracial marriage -
Are you arguing that sex is now the same as race; ie, all races are
the same, therefore the sexes are the same?
Or are you arguing that just because one type of discrimination was
wrong at one time, therefore all discriminations are now wrong?
Your problem is that no one buys it.
No, a large and growing number of people "buy it." About
40-45% based on recent polls.
Depends on the question.
No, they don't. The courts have never ruled that homosexual
marriage is a constitutional right.
The courts ruled in Loving vs. Virginia that marriage is a
fundamental right.
So get married. No one is stopping you.
I would love to.
Then do it.
But I don't think it is fair to marry a
man I don't love.
It happens all the time. In fact, people marry for all kinds of
reasons, not the least of which is emotion.
And the laws won't let me marry the woman I do love.
No law says that.
You are making the same arguments that
were used to defend the VA law -
No one is making that argument at all. No one is saying that you
can't marry someone because of what you look like.
Yes, they are.
No, they're not.
As someone else has a habit of posting, Lady
Justice is being required to lift her blindfold and look down the
pants of applicants for a marriage license.
Sort of like what happens often in contemporary society, since the
sexes are not the same and never have been treated as such.
So? The states and government don't recognize a very long list of
varied human relationships as marriage. That is because marriage is a
right; governmental recognition IS NOT.
Loving vs. Virginia ruled otherwise.
No, it didn't. It ruled that governmental racial discrimination was
wrong. This is not news and in fact has little or nothing to do with
homosexuals or homosexuality.
Cheese and rice, get some new material.
Liberals believe in equal rights for all.
No, they don't.
How do we not?
Why don't you ask someone who has a business with more than eight
employees.
Or a landlord.
I think you are making a case against yourself.
How is that?
Businesses
aren't allowed to discriminate based on race or gender who they hire.
They should be.
Landlords can't refuse to rent to people based on race or gender.
They should be.
Both
of those would be classified as equal rights for all.
You think you should have the right to work at someone else's business
or live on someone else's property? Even if they don't want you
there?
Nobody defines their *entire* person by their
sex life,
Well, except someone calling themselves "homosexual."
Are you defined entirely by your sex life because you are a
heterosexual?
Nope.
Then why do you think that we are defined entirely on our sex
lives?
Gee, I wonder.
If not, why in the world would you think we are?
Gee, I wonder.
So do I...
I doubt it.
We have
lives, jobs, outside interests that have NOTHING to do with who is
on the other side of the bed at night.
Then why is the term "homosexual" even ever used?
What about the word "heterosexual?"
I don't use that word. Then again, I don't have to, because it has
nothing to do with "who I am" or what kind of goodies I can get out of
the government.
"Gays" have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
This "right" is useless for gays:
How so?
Because we believe that a marriage should be based on mutual love
and respect.
Great. You need a government piece of paper for that?
No,
So for about the fifth time, you have no argument.
but government recognition for the over 1000 rights given
to married couples would be a bonus.
You can apply for those through a lawyer. (BTW, your list is largely
false. Do your own research instead of swallowing whatever homosexual
propaganda you've chosen to read this week).
We believe that marriage should be about 2 people
joining their lives together.
And who is stopping you?
No one has stopped me from committing my life to the most
wonderful woman in the world.
Then yet again you have no case.
If marriage was only about love, there
wouldn't be an issue.
Then why do you keep arguing that "you can't marry someone you love?"
What's love got to do with it?
But the government has attached rights to it -
Rights that you, too, can get. If marriage is about rights, marry
someone of the opposite sex and viola--rights.
rights that gay
couples are denied because we cannot obtained a legally recognized
marriage license.
No one denies homosexuals marriage or the rights that come with it.
Me marrying a man would be a sham.
Then don't marry a man.
I don't want to. I want to marry a woman.
So marry a woman. I'm sure, in this day and age, you can find a
clergy-person to perform some sort of ceremony or something.
Gays DO NOT have the right to marry
someone of the sex they are attracted to.
Yes, they do.
Oh, so you are attracted to men, you just didn't marry one?
I'm a female.
Sorry, I can't keep track of everyone's gender.
Well, to you they're the same, right? So why would you want to?
Because according to you, everyone is attracted to both genders.
Where did you get that from my arguments?
The comment was made that gays can't marry someone of the
gender they are attracted to.
Except that they can.
You said "yes, they can." Since a gay
man cannot legally marry a man,
Yes, he can. The government doesn't recognize it as such,
appropriately, but no one will call if you have some kind of wedding
or something. Have a gay wedding. The police will only show up if
there's violence involved.
My argument is that
physical attraction or some other emotional critiria is irrelevant to
rational public policy, for obvious reasons.
Then what is the purpose of marriage?
The integration of the sexes for the purpose of raising children.
Should we go back to
arranged marriages, since emotion has no place in public policy?
If emotion was the deciding factor in marriage, marrying for money and
benefits, as you seem to want to, would be illegal.
Should we take the government out of marriage all together, make it a
religious issue only, and start issuing "civil union" licenses to all
couples - regardless of gender make-up?
Some people argue that way.
--S
.
