Welcome to Gaia! ::

castrillo's avatar

9,700 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Mark Twain 100
  • Invisibility 100
in the argument of gay marriage?

Tired of people beating a dead horse here + not really trying to add even more rehashed threads to the ED but this has been plaguing my mind recently.

Often times I see people who are for gay marriage saying "they were born that way," like its some type of importance. Same goes for the opposing argument, "it's a choice!" Okay, but so is marriage, so why are we arguing orientation?

Why can't people see this for what it really is, gender discrimination. Hypothetically, if homosexuality really was a wake-up decision, "i want to be gay now," type situation, why would they still be barred from marriage equality?
There's no rule in marriage that you have to be born with an idea of liking a particular sex. It's actually pretty irrelevant to marriage. The biggest choice in marriage is exactly its title, marriage.

So instead of basing an argument on sexuality, why isn't it more weighted on the blatant gender discrimination? If men and women legally are supposed to be equal, then why is a man not allowed to marry a man based on genitals alone? If this man had a v****a, it would be legally protected. This is the core of discrimination, saying one gender is worth more legally than the other gender.

Lots of people seem to think comparing orientation and race are not comparable in reference to interracial marriages being banned not too long back. Sure, okay, but the race war IS identical to this gender war, not being allowed to marry based on FACTUAL unpreventable birth attributes.
Yoshpet's avatar

Dedicated Loiterer

4,200 Points
  • Super Tipsy 200
  • Lavish Tipper 200
  • Forum Regular 100
People argue about the validity of homosexuality because that's usually the basis of their homophobic reasoning. By claiming it to be a choice and an immoral one they feel validated in revoking our civil rights. To them we're just un-punished sex criminals.
Steam Punk Adept's avatar

Witty Genius

9,000 Points
  • Partygoer 500
  • Conventioneer 300
  • Perfect Attendance 400
Yoshpet
People argue about the validity of homosexuality because that's usually the basis of their homophobic reasoning. By claiming it to be a choice and an immoral one they feel validated in revoking our civil rights. To them we're just un-punished sex criminals.
Much as how blacks were considered lesser citizens during the era of segregation.
i really don't care i am just sick of hearing about it.
Verocious's avatar

Shirtless Entrepreneur

It's all about abnormalities. People are afraid and/or disgusted by what they don't understand. It will always be this way. If not homosexuality, something else. Most people don't look at this topic as logically as you do for that simple reason. They were not born into a pro-gay world. Their parents didn't tell them Gay was okay when they were children.

However, I believe in a generation or two times will change and homosexuality will be generally excepted. It's this way with most things.
Gender != sex (sexual organs).
Because people are so hateful towards things they don't really understand or find them pretty much abnormal since it isn't something they really have been around for a long period of time. But I know, homosexuality has in fact been known of since around the tie of the Romans, but even so, people, or most are close minded, and can only argue with religious, or their personal definition of what is normal and what isn't.
Heimdalr's avatar

Mega Noob

It's not a level playing field, so the defensive position is far behind midfield. These things shouldn't really matter and is a red herring anyway. It's the authoritarian's favorite refuge: Justify your personality, your lifestyle, when it should really be them who should justify their calls for discrimination and asshattery.

Frankly I find the notion that one is born with any specific sexuality quite silly. I'm more inclined to believe in predispositions that may or may not manifest at puberty, just as natural and deterministic but not rooted in wishful thinking.
keeping my secrets's avatar

Animal Lover

12,850 Points
  • Pet Trainer 150
  • Pet Lover 100
  • Fluff Healer 100
razorsarz
i really don't care i am just sick of hearing about it.
Oh yeah, the existence of this thread is shoving homosexuality down your throat.

I mean, when you saw this thread, you had absolutely no choice in the matter: you just HAD to click on it, or ELSE. You just couldn't skip past it and go on about your evening.

Those damned homosexuals are at it again! Making you do stuff you don't have to do and hear things you don't have to listen to!


neutral
keeping my secrets's avatar

Animal Lover

12,850 Points
  • Pet Trainer 150
  • Pet Lover 100
  • Fluff Healer 100
castrillo
Often times I see people who are for gay marriage saying "they were born that way," like its some type of importance. Same goes for the opposing argument, "it's a choice!" Okay, but so is marriage, so why are we arguing orientation?
Because homophones think that-for some reason-if our orientation is a choice, then that's proof that we aren't as good as the almighty really-born-this-way-heterosexuals, and are therefore undeserving of the right to marry and celebrate our love.

Quote:
Why can't people see this for what it really is, gender discrimination.
Gender discrimination and discrimination based on sexual orientation are two different things.

Quote:
Hypothetically, if homosexuality really was a wake-up decision, "i want to be gay now," type situation, why would they still be barred from marriage equality?
There's no rule in marriage that you have to be born with an idea of liking a particular sex. It's actually pretty irrelevant to marriage. The biggest choice in marriage is exactly its title, marriage.
The ten thousand dollar question. Are we not allowed to make our own choices in life? I think we are.

Quote:
So instead of basing an argument on sexuality, why isn't it more weighted on the blatant gender discrimination? If men and women legally are supposed to be equal, then why is a man not allowed to marry a man based on genitals alone? If this man had a v****a, it would be legally protected. This is the core of discrimination, saying one gender is worth more legally than the other gender.
I don't see this. Discrimination based on sexual orientation isn't saying that "one gender is worth more legally than the other."

Discrimination based on sexual orientation would be: heterosexual relationships are "normal" and worth more legally and biologically than homosexual relationships, and therefore one is more deserving of the right to marry than another.

Quote:
Lots of people seem to think comparing orientation and race are not comparable in reference to interracial marriages being banned not too long back. Sure, okay, but the race war IS identical to this gender war, not being allowed to marry based on FACTUAL unpreventable birth attributes.
Sexual orientation =/= gender.
castrillo's avatar

9,700 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Mark Twain 100
  • Invisibility 100
razorsarz
i really don't care i am just sick of hearing about it.

People who want to get married are not sick of hearing about it.
castrillo's avatar

9,700 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Mark Twain 100
  • Invisibility 100
Moratuoa
Gender != sex (sexual organs).

Were you unable to get the point of my OP or are you just trying to get me to be politically correct?
castrillo's avatar

9,700 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Mark Twain 100
  • Invisibility 100
keeping my secrets
castrillo
Often times I see people who are for gay marriage saying "they were born that way," like its some type of importance. Same goes for the opposing argument, "it's a choice!" Okay, but so is marriage, so why are we arguing orientation?
Because homophones think that-for some reason-if our orientation is a choice, then that's proof that we aren't as good as the almighty really-born-this-way-heterosexuals, and are therefore undeserving of the right to marry and celebrate our love.

Quote:
Why can't people see this for what it really is, gender discrimination.
Gender discrimination and discrimination based on sexual orientation are two different things.

Quote:
Hypothetically, if homosexuality really was a wake-up decision, "i want to be gay now," type situation, why would they still be barred from marriage equality?
There's no rule in marriage that you have to be born with an idea of liking a particular sex. It's actually pretty irrelevant to marriage. The biggest choice in marriage is exactly its title, marriage.
The ten thousand dollar question. Are we not allowed to make our own choices in life? I think we are.

Quote:
So instead of basing an argument on sexuality, why isn't it more weighted on the blatant gender discrimination? If men and women legally are supposed to be equal, then why is a man not allowed to marry a man based on genitals alone? If this man had a v****a, it would be legally protected. This is the core of discrimination, saying one gender is worth more legally than the other gender.
I don't see this. Discrimination based on sexual orientation isn't saying that "one gender is worth more legally than the other."

Discrimination based on sexual orientation would be: heterosexual relationships are "normal" and worth more legally and biologically than homosexual relationships, and therefore one is more deserving of the right to marry than another.

Quote:
Lots of people seem to think comparing orientation and race are not comparable in reference to interracial marriages being banned not too long back. Sure, okay, but the race war IS identical to this gender war, not being allowed to marry based on FACTUAL unpreventable birth attributes.
Sexual orientation =/= gender.


Quote:

Quote:
Why can't people see this for what it really is, gender discrimination.
Gender discrimination and discrimination based on sexual orientation are two different things.

Sure. But a man not being able to marry a man is gender discrimination which is the point of this thread.

You may look at it as discrimination based on sexual orientation i.e) gays and lesbians can't marry.
I look at it like, I can't marry another man for the fact that he's not a woman. Straight marriage is legal, but I can't marry a consenting straight man? So if its not the orientation we're saying no to, then its the gender. If two heterosexual women can't get married, its because one's female, not because they're straight.
Weretindere's avatar

Kawaii Glitch

11,400 Points
  • Peoplewatcher 100
  • Invisibility 100
As a gay man, it would have been better if they also didn't cower to the government's ability to grant married people tax cuts instead of opting to force themselves into obtaining more of a tax cut from a religiously biased practice that atheists could not well enough care less about.

If there's going to be a stalemate for which side of the equation is supposedly worth 'more' by a tarnished government's sadistic viewpoint, then I don't really care if you legalize gay marriage or not.

Why must I partake in such a morally subjective role crafted by a sentimentally unsound government that really doesn't care what the hell you do anyway, so long as it's profitable?

Heterosexual marriage should not grant anyone tax cuts.

EDIT:
Since I'm still in the mood for this, I'm also going to note that gay marriage is legally allowable as a practice, as is any other form of marriage. If you want the ceremony, marriage is just a cult practice, but it appears that people don't really 'love' one another unless they sign some form of document that informs a bunch of hypocrites. People were once allowed to marry when they were 10-ish, but what changed that; all of your beloved documents.

Also, it's not illegal to be married if you're under the age of 18. You get parental consent, and you're fine. Of course, it's still quite odd how people who get sex changes are now 'legally' considered to be the opposite gender and may get married. Funny how corrupted by stupidity these people are, isn't it?

Here's just the Texas version of the law as of 2009: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/FA/htm/FA.2.htm
Right near the top of the page;

"Sec. 2.001. MARRIAGE LICENSE. (a) A man and a woman desiring to enter into a ceremonial marriage must obtain a marriage license from the county clerk of any county of this state.
(b) A license may not be issued for the marriage of persons of the same sex."

"Sec. 2.003. APPLICATION FOR LICENSE BY MINOR. In addition to the other requirements provided by this chapter, a person under 18 years of age applying for a license must provide to the county clerk:

(1) documents establishing, as provided by Section 2.102, parental consent for the person to the marriage.
(2) documents establishing that a prior marriage of the person has been dissolved; or
(3) a court order granted under Section 2.103 authorizing the marriage of the person.

And lastly;
"Sec. 2.005. PROOF OF IDENTITY AND AGE. (a) The county clerk shall require proof of the identity and age of each applicant.

(b) The proof must be established by:
'skip the first 7'
8. an original or certified copy of a court order relating to the applicant's name change or sex change"

I guess a sex change automatically makes you 'not' what a homosexual you once were, thus you're allowed marriage. It might have changed since then, but I doubt you can actually determine that a person with a sex change is automatically not to be denied before the homosexual that the person once was before the operation.
castrillo
in the argument of gay marriage?

Tired of people beating a dead horse here + not really trying to add even more rehashed threads to the ED but this has been plaguing my mind recently.

Often times I see people who are for gay marriage saying "they were born that way," like its some type of importance. Same goes for the opposing argument, "it's a choice!" Okay, but so is marriage, so why are we arguing orientation?

Its not a type of importance. Its only a response to the gays that go around claiming that "we're born that way, so we deserve X,Y, and Z." You've mistaking a response from an initial statement.

castrillo
Why can't people see this for what it really is, gender discrimination. Hypothetically, if homosexuality really was a wake-up decision, "i want to be gay now," type situation, why would they still be barred from marriage equality?

Just like the *****, the zoophiliac, and the nercrophile. They all choose what they want and like. Whether their love is a decision or not, is just as irrelevant as whether being gay is a choice or not, in regards to marriage. Why gays shouldnt be married has nothing to do with whether its inborn or not.

castrillo
There's no rule in marriage that you have to be born with an idea of liking a particular sex. It's actually pretty irrelevant to marriage. The biggest choice in marriage is exactly its title, marriage.

Wrong. There certainly are rules. For example, you cannot be married if you already are married. You cannot be married if your partner is not 18 (with certain exceptions). You cannot be married if your partner is not of the opposite sex. You cannot be married if your partner is not of the human species. You cannot be married if you are discovered that you're marry just for green cards. Theres plenty of rules regarding marriage that can disqualify you from being wed.

castrillo
So instead of basing an argument on sexuality, why isn't it more weighted on the blatant gender discrimination? If men and women legally are supposed to be equal, then why is a man not allowed to marry a man based on genitals alone? If this man had a v****a, it would be legally protected. This is the core of discrimination, saying one gender is worth more legally than the other gender.

Because the very legal definition of marriage in most states define marriage between a man and a woman. Which means no kids, no animals, etc. Its not a discrimination based on sex. The state and its people reserve the right to define marriage in their state. Keep in mind marriage is a license, just like your drivers license, gun license, CDL, etc. If the state can legally define the requirements for those, they also reserve the right to define marriage license. Therefore, its not discrimination.

castrillo
Lots of people seem to think comparing orientation and race are not comparable in reference to interracial marriages being banned not too long back. Sure, okay, but the race war IS identical to this gender war, not being allowed to marry based on FACTUAL unpreventable birth attributes.

First I would like to point out that this brings me back to my very first point, on where its the gay advocates that first claim "being gay is inborn." Such as you have done, in proving my point with the bolded section.

You're claim has its entire basis on three statements:
1. being homosexual is inborn.
2. homosexual attributes are as uncontrolable as race.
3. Perhaps the most important one in refuting your claim. You need to be very mindful of the language of the law. Gay marriage is NOT banned in most states. In most states marriage is DEFINED as between a man and a woman. I will elaborate on this at a section later.

Lets start with the first statement. You must first prove that homosexuality is inborn. Burden of proof is on you for making that claim. But let me just skip ahead for a sec, as medical science are still not able to prove or disprove that statement. If you dont believe me, you're more than welcome to do your own research, and back up your claim regarding homosexuality being inborn.

Second, you must be able to prove that sexuality is identical to race. In what ways are they similar enough that you can lump interracial marriage to gay marriage? Are you going to prove that a gay person have no choice but to express his/her sexuality? Are you going to prove that sexuality expression is as uncontrolable as skin color, or hair color, or facial features?

And saving the most important for last, the language of the law. This is where most gay advocates ignore and end up making fallicious arguments. The language of the law is very specific. Same sex marriage is NOT banned, as interracial marriage was. That is perhaps the biggest difference between the two issues and making them irrelevant to each other. The state simply defines marriage rather than bar a section of its civilians to obtain marriage. In banning interracial marriage, the government is infringing upon the rights of its civilians. In defining marriage, the government is not infringing upon the rights of its civilians, its simply just not recognized as legal, and therefore honored by the state.
This was the exact difference between Prop 22 and Prop 8, of California. Prop 22 was struck down by the California Supreme court as being unconstitutional because the language of it barred gays from getting married. However the revised version Prop 8, changed the constitution's definition of marriage. Therefore cannot be struck down by the supreme court as unconstitutional, because... well, its in the constitution itself. You cant exactly say the constitution is unconstitutional.

This is why it is fallicious for gay advocates to compare gay marriage to interracial marriage.

EDIT: The OP has block me from the topic rather than giving a logical rebuttle just proves her biasm. Silencing your opponents is not a good debate practice, and pretty much an admittance to being wrong or unable to refute an opponent's argument.

Luckily for me, gaia allows edits even if you're blocked from the thread.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games