Federal judge: Arguments against gay marriage 'are not those of serious people'

[bhsmte]

The constitution was written to put up boundaries between the government and the people to ensure that the government's powers are kept in check. As for government assistance in the form of tax subsidies--I don't believe they should exist because the government should not be giving tax breaks to some while fully taxing another. That's basically the government showing discrimination (using the liberal's language here).

Well, it isn't really equal "treatment" under the law that I care about so much as it is equal "opportunity" under the law. Discrimination on the basis of irrelevant characteristics such as race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. denies members of the population equal opportunity to participate in society.

Nobody is born with equal opportunity. Everyone has their own gifts and talents and it's up to them to make their own way in the world. Nobody is guaranteed anything. Much depends on the decisions they make in life, whatever their skin color, who they have sex with, or what god they worship.[/quote]

Are you for protecting people from being discriminated against?

 

[Aldebaran]

I'm for people in this country being free to make their own decisions.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm for people in this country being free to make their own decisions.

You didn't answer the question. Are you for protecting people from being discriminated against? yes or no

 

[Aldebaran]

You didn't answer the question. Are you for protecting people from being discriminated against? yes or no

You're sounding like a prosecutor as if I was on trial now. As the guy on the witness stand, I'll counter: "Define discriminate". But I don't expect you to, so I'll do it myself so we're on the same page.

Discriminate: to notice and understand that one thing is different from another thing : to recognize a difference between things.

Do I have the right to notice and understand that one thing is different from another thing? I think I do.

 

[bhsmte]

You're sounding like a prosecutor as if I was on trial now. As the guy on the witness stand, I'll counter: "Define discriminate". But I don't expect you to, so I'll do it myself so we're on the same page.

Discriminate: to notice and understand that one thing is different from another thing : to recognize a difference between things.

Do I have the right to notice and understand that one thing is different from another thing? I think I do.

Are you serious with that definition? Do you have any desire to be intellectually honest?

Discrimination is action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice. This includes treatment of an individual or group based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated".[1] It involves the group's initial reaction or interaction, influencing the individual's actual behavior towards the group or the group leader, restricting members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are available to another group, leading to the exclusion of the individual or entities based on logical or irrational decision making.[2]

 

[Aldebaran]

Are you serious with that definition? Do you have any desire to be intellectually honest?

Discrimination is action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice. This includes treatment of an individual or group based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated".[1] It involves the group's initial reaction or interaction, influencing the individual's actual behavior towards the group or the group leader, restricting members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are available to another group, leading to the exclusion of the individual or entities based on logical or irrational decision making.[2]

Oops! My apologies! I got my definition from Webster's Dictionary. I didn't know Webster's was an obsolete source for definitions of words in the English language. I guess "political-speak" replaces Webster's.

 

[bhsmte]

Oops! My apologies! I got my definition from Webster's Dictionary. I didn't know Webster's was an obsolete source for definitions of words in the English language. I guess "political-speak" replaces Webster's.

Really?

Here is the Webster's definition below. Do you often cherry pick parts of definitions that suit you?

: the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people
: the ability to recognize the difference between things that are of good quality and those that are not
: the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing

Discrimination - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[Blessedj01]

The judge was probably right, because an argument based on procreation is probably the wrong one.

It's more accurate to say that it's illogical for homosexuals to want to include themselves in an ancient Jewish custom that is described as being for a man and a woman when there are civil unions that exist providing the exact same legal benefits without any of the religious connections.

 

[Cute Tink]

It's more accurate to say that it's illogical for homosexuals to want to include themselves in an ancient Jewish custom that is described as being for a man and a woman when there are civil unions that exist providing the exact same legal benefits without any of the religious connections.

Except that most US states do not have civil unions and civil unions in the US don't provide the exact same legal benefits, due to the fact that the federal government has no legal recognition of that relationship.

 

[Queller]

The constitution was written to put up boundaries between the government and the people to ensure that the government's powers are kept in check.

Then I would presume that you are against just about every law out there as very few laws actually relate to keeping the government's power in check.

As for government assistance in the form of tax subsidies--I don't believe they should exist because the government should not be giving tax breaks to some while fully taxing another. That's basically the government showing discrimination (using the liberal's language here).

That is neither here nor there. As long as the subsidies do exist, people should not be allowed to take advantage of them while breaking the law.

Nobody is born with equal opportunity.

Completely false and your very next sentence shows why.

Everyone has their own gifts and talents and it's up to them to make their own way in the world.

That is the very definition of equal opportunity.

Nobody is guaranteed anything. Much depends on the decisions they make in life, whatever their skin color, who they have sex with, or what god they worship.

Exactly, which is why people shouldn't be discriminated against on the basis of irrelevant characteristics such as their skin color, who they have sex with, or what god they worship.

 

[Belk]

The judge was probably right, because an argument based on procreation is probably the wrong one.

It's more accurate to say that it's illogical for homosexuals to want to include themselves in an ancient Jewish custom that is described as being for a man and a woman when there are civil unions that exist providing the exact same legal benefits without any of the religious connections.

I don't think there is any government in the world, including Israel, that has ancient Jewish customs as part of their legal landscape. I am fairly certain what they are asking for is legal recognition, not old customs.

 

[Queller]

You're sounding like a prosecutor as if I was on trial now. As the guy on the witness stand, I'll counter: "Define discriminate". But I don't expect you to, so I'll do it myself so we're on the same page.

Discriminate: to notice and understand that one thing is different from another thing : to recognize a difference between things.

Do I have the right to notice and understand that one thing is different from another thing? I think I do.

Pathetic. You know good and well that bhsmte was referring to the first definition in Webster's as that is what this thread is about.

But if you really want to play semantic games, how about this; do you think places of public accommodation should be able to treat one group of people differently than another group based on irrelevant differences between the two groups?

 

[Blessedj01]

I don't think there is any government in the world, including Israel, that has ancient Jewish customs as part of their legal landscape. I am fairly certain what they are asking for is legal recognition, not old customs.

Marriage comes from the Jewish custom. That's why it exists.

Legal recognition could simply be found by calling "marriage" something else (which existed with civil unions) and taking it outside a church and away from the religious context.

 

[Queller]

The judge was probably right, because an argument based on procreation is probably the wrong one.

It's more accurate to say that it's illogical for homosexuals to want to include themselves in an ancient Jewish custom that is described as being for a man and a woman when there are civil unions that exist providing the exact same legal benefits without any of the religious connections.

In addition to what Cute Tink and Belk said, marriage is not, nor has it ever been, a solely ancient Jewish custom.

 

[Blessedj01]

Yes it has. The first marriage was recorded in Genesis in the old-testament, then it carried on into Jewish tradition from there.

Anything else is not "marriage", it's whatever you want to call it but it isn't a marriage.

What we call marriage today was instituted by Moses. If you don't believe in marriage, have a civil union.

 

[Cute Tink]

Yes it has. The first marriage was recorded in Genesis in the old-testament, then it carried on into Jewish tradition from there.

Anything else is not "marriage", it's whatever you want to call it but it isn't a marriage.

Except that you aren't the arbiter of definitions. Societies decide on definitions.

In the US, legally, marriage is not a religious matter and doesn't require religious approval.

 

[Belk]

Marriage comes from the Jewish custom. That's why it exists.

No it doesn't. Marriage predates the Jewish religion and was a custom in all cultures.

Legal recognition could simply be found by calling "marriage" something else (which existed with civil unions) and taking it outside a church and away from the religious context.

If you wish to advocate for that then by all means do so. It does not change the fact that currently marriage is ensconced in secular law and we must either change that or allow homosexuals to be married.

 

[Queller]

Yes it has. The first marriage was recorded in Genesis in the old-testament, then it carried on into Jewish tradition from there.

I take it you are YEC and Biblical literalist then? Because that is the only way I can see that you can think that marriage did not exist prior to the time of Moses.

Anything else is not "marriage", it's whatever you want to call it but it isn't a marriage.

Then what do you call it when two Hindu believers get married? Two Buddhists?

What we call marriage today was instituted by Moses. If you don't believe in marriage, have a civil union.

Why should anyone do that when a perfectly logical institution already exists?

 

[Blessedj01]

None of that matters. It doesn't make sense to want something that originally began in a religious, biblical context, if you reject that context, when you can get those same rights legally in another form.

It's kind of like me demanding that I can go on a haj to mecca when I'm not a Muslim.

 

[Freodin]

Yes it has. The first marriage was recorded in Genesis in the old-testament, then it carried on into Jewish tradition from there.

Anything else is not "marriage", it's whatever you want to call it but it isn't a marriage.

What we call marriage today was instituted by Moses. If you don't believe in marriage, have a civil union.

The term "marriage" is not used exclusively for the jewish and derived concept. Cultures before Judaism and outside of Judaism have this institution, which is also referred to (in the english language) as "marriage". The term "marriage" itself comes from Latin, not Hebrew.

That is not something that Jews or Christians can claim as their exclusive property.

If you don't believe in marriage, go and have a "divinely inspired union between man and subordinate woman".