Quote:
Originally Posted by boardman
I would agree by that definition that banning marriage among gays is discrimination.
I will go further by giving you my definition of discrimination
Discrimination would be the behavior of treating someone differently based on personal characteristics.
Can we agree on that?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF
Thursday night football...missed this. Trust me, I will not run from this thread. It is not a hard position to defend in my book.
We can. Can we agree that not all discrimination is bad? After all, we treat people in wheel chairs differently by building them bigger bathroom stalls...ramps and the like.
|
Absolutely, ADA was about to be my example of good discrimination.
I'm just wondering though.
On what basis do you choose to discriminate against polyamorous marriage?
What about sibling marriage?
or underage marriages?
There are people groups that practice these things or at least desire to...or do you not believe that? I won't even get into Human-animal marriage.
Don't they have a right to define marriage in the way they choose if we allow that for gays?
You are the self described champion of anti-discrimination yet you've just discrimnated as blatantly as anyone on the board. Why is that? Personal disgust? Some kind of moral code instilled in your upbringing? Don't tell me that underage or palyamorous marriage is inherently wrong, That would be subjective, You do know what subjective means, don't you?
And before you go and say those people can do those things, it's no skin off your nose, let me remind you that we both agreed on a contemporary secular definition of marriage.
By re-defining marriage to suit the needs of a few aren't we discriminating against those that originally defined marriage. Or is that not a personal characteristic for them and their belief system?
I couldn't give two fucks if a couple(insert your own meaning here) want's to be recognized as a couple by the state or federal government. Man, woman, whatever, they should have the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else when it comes to taxes and benefits. But are you prepared to give those same rights to others who you might find personally disgusting in their practices not just gays.
WTF is wrong with the term civil union. Isn't that a term the LGBT community came up with? How about the state gets out of the business of marriage altogether. Keep marriage in the church. Do it like the Catholics do, or used to do. Refuse to recognize divorce granted by the state. Only Civil unions or the dissolution of same can be recognized by the state. Let each people group have their own rules of Marriage. Wouldn't that be the ultimate in separation of church and state?
Let's go it one further. Let's make civil unions a contract that has an expiration date. That contract would, up front, define the boundaries of the union, the property of the union and upon dissolution of the union, the terms of separating property. We wouldn't get it all right at first but our system of common law would allow that unforeseen circumstances during dissolution could be dealt with and decided upon by impartial juries and judges and put into the contracts of future civil unions. That's how LLC's do it. Near the end of the term of the civil union the partners can decide if they want to stay in the partnership. It would only take one no vote to dissolve the partnership.
The real point here is that you like to point out other's hypocrisy. I know you don't take this board seriously(only when you want to) but others do. You use terms like teabilly to insult and constantly use homophobic slurs yet you claim to be a Libertarian. Either you are a faux Libertarian or you are purposefully being obtuse. Try being a little less obtuse, offer meaningful thought and commentary from time to time and stay away from the temptation to insult someone based on their beliefs. After all isn't the way someone chooses to feel about a particular issue a personal characteristic. Oh shit, there you go discriminating again. Or do you think I'm being obtuse?
