The most incredibly stupid ignorant hateful thing I've read Follow

I've already explained this.

Heterosexual couples may produce children as a natural consequence of being a heterosexual couple. Gay couples will *never* produce children together as a natural consequence of being a couple.


It's like you're asking why we might pass a law restricting people from smoking at a gas station, but not restrict them from playing cards. One may produce a result that the other will not. Thus, it's legitimate to treat them differently.

If the government passes a law granting ponies, but then excludes you because you are white or male or straight, then yes, you right to equal consideration under the law is being infringed.

Idiotic thought exercises like this mean absolutely nothing. We're talking about a legal construct that exists and is available to everyone but a single sub-set of the population which is excluded because of who they are.

Qualifications for benefits are one thing. You can say, Benefit A applies to individuals who are at a certain income level, or who have served in the military, or who own a farm that grosses less than X dollars a year. You cannot say that Benefit A applies to anyone who isn't Asian, or red-haired, or straight.

If everyone was entitled to a free pony, and the government said "No, you can't get one because you just happen to be born in *insert year here*".

Then yes, I'd say your rights were being infringed.




The handicapped space "laws", at least overall, are not real. It's up to the business owner to enforce them.

There are 5 handicapped spaces at where I work, 2 by the office doors, 3 by the employee entrance. Any time I get called into work in the middle of the night, I park in the first handicapped space. The only way I'd ever get in trouble is if they called it in. But of course I'm coming in free of charge (Salaried employee) and am fixing their machines, so they don't care.


You could easily sue, and win, if a public park provided public restrooms, but for women only. Men couldn't use them, and didn't have a restroom of their own.

I don't know if it's lack of intelligence or what. However, I have explained this many many times. It's not even that complex.

The problem is that so many of you simply cannot view this issue except through the lens of a minority/disadvantaged group not getting something that someone else does. You keep missing key parts of the argument. I've already provided several examples in which the government does not provide benefits "equally" to all people. Thus, unless you're arguing that excluding me from parking in a blue space is a violation of my rights and we should eliminate *all* such restrictive qualifications for government benefits, then your argument's based solely on the fact that there is a qualification are all invalid.

That's basic logic. Either it's valid for the government to distribute benefits unevenly, or it's not. Which is it?


Assuming it's ok. Then we get to the next step. What are the reasons for restricting the state status of marriage to heterosexual couples? Do gay couples fill the same "need" from the point of view of the state?

And on that issue, the children production bit is key. It's why we have those benefits in the first place. They make up a set of incentive benefits designed to get heterosexual couples to marry. While it's nice for gay couples to marry, there's no need for the government to create an incentive for them to do so. If they wish to, they are within their rights to do so. No one's stopping them. Last I heard, it was not illegal for a gay couple to get married. Their marriage simple doesn't qualify for the legal status nor the benefits that grants.


Again. It's not even complex logic. There's a legal status. It has qualifications and provides benefits. Assuming you don't think this is wrong all by itself, then the issue is about whether the qualifications for that legal status fits the reason for it and the benefits it grants.

I've yet to hear any real argument along these lines. It always seems to devolve into appeals to emotion or circular arguments revolving around some kind of assumption that it's wrong to discriminate with the qualifications in the first place.

Stick to the issue. Explain to me what there is about a gay couple that makes it necessary or even desirable to provide them with the benefits provided by the government in this case? I've already told you why it's reasonable to provide those benefits to heterosexual couples. How about you explain why it's reasonable to provide them for gay couples as well. And if I hear "Because it's wrong to discriminate" you just lose the argument right there.

So you're avoiding admitting that, no, you can't gain all the benefits of marriage from your mythical contract and are instead backpedalling to "You don't need them anyway!!"

Funny how you'll say "You can visit your gay spouse in the hospital with a contract" but getting FMLA leave to tend for them is something they don't actually "need".

Ok, so long as we both agree that you were full of shit before. That's cool. Incidentally, most of the benefits from Veteran's Affairs, Medicare and Social Security come after the married couple has retired and the nest is long since emptied.

Edited, Nov 5th 2008 7:52pm by Jophiel

Any country with a women for a president would be scoffed at by at least half the countries if not more. USA would take a lot of heat and hurt in more then one area. In more civilized countries like us (Canada/USA), it wouldn't receive nearly as much fire as it would in say Afghanistan. Many religions (ex. Muslims) don't promote equality at all. Still a long way to go.

Concerning homosexuality, I don't believe it should be allowed. My opinion is my own however, you can believe whatever you want to.

Apparently what I need is to be told what I need by someone who believes that fertility is the entire worth of a person. :/

haha, if you don't think it's wrong to discriminate, then there's really no point in trying to discuss the issue with you...not that I had any illusions about that.

Nexa

Medically proved infertile, heterosexual couples, still qualify for these marriage benefits. They are just as incapable of producing children as a homosexual couple.

Don't bother, it's a strawman...while conservatives find it convenient to say that marriage benefits are all about children, few of them are and the benefit to the state is the monogamy of the couple and the contract to care for one another so the state doesn't end up doing it. The vows all revolve around caring for one another until death and omit anything about having children for a reason. One part of marriage is the point, the other is a side effect.

Nexa

Sigh... And how much are we going to spend to test every heterosexual couple prior to granting them the legal status in question?

I've already addressed this. We can't know which heterosexual couples can or will produce children. We automatically know that *no* homosexual couples will produce children.

You're approaching this from the wrong direction. Just because I can't prove that every heterosexual couple will produce a child is a ridiculous argument for expanding the qualification to couples who we know can't.

Look, it's a dead issue. Regardless if you think Prop 8 is immoral, wrong, or homophobic, it doesn't matter. The majority of people said marriages do not apply to gay couples. Geographically, statisically, numerically, demographically, genderically, and racially, every catagory of person with the notable exceptions of gays and young people said with their vote gay marriage is wrong.

It. Is. Over.

Totem

No, you're not wrong. Honestly, that's how christian conservatives view homosexuals, as if not beasts, lesser humans.

I wouldn't be saying this if someone who is adamantly against gay marriage hadn't said this to me first.