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.
100
100
100
