Previous Entry Share Next Entry
(no subject)
Banning gay marriage isn't actually discrimination.

A gay man has the same rights as a straight man - the right to marry a woman. Thus, both sides are being treated fairly. You might as well say that not allowing ten-year-olds to marry is discrimination against kids.

Not saying I actually agree with that point of view, but it's one that nobody seems to have brought up yet...

  • 1
thats an interesting and good point actually.

this point has been brought up a lot at school. it all depends on who you ask. for those who argue that it's discrimination, then yeah, your point is valid. but there are those who argue that the definition of marriage is just outdated and shuold include same gender marriages. some go further to say that marriage is a human right, which i don't quite agree with. my point is that the arguments vary. however, when you explained your reasoning, it made sense, unlike some of these idiots at school.

That's obviously a valid point in one way, but it obviously ignores the fact that the definition of marriage itself is part of what is discriminatory. It is stopping people from marrying the person that they love, and entering into a legal bond that offers them the same civil rights as anyone else entering into that relationship. So saying that it isn't discrimination because a homosexual or heterosexual person could marry a person of the opposite sex is missing the point entirely. So yeah, I know you don't (necessarily) agree with that argument, but that would be my response to it.

Of course, polygamous people cannot enter into a legal marriage-equivalent bond with multiple people either, so they're being discriminated against too. I'm sure in the future that will eventually become acceptable too.

Oh, and the analogy with the children is invalid, because a ten-year-old will grow up to reach an age where marrying is legal, whereas a gay person will not grow up to reach an age where they become straight. Heh.

Interesting post, anyway!

Also, if homosexuals are given the same rights as married people in a civil union without actually being married, does this not discriminate against straight couples who choose not to marry, as well as friends and siblings who choose to cohabit for a long period of time?

If they're not allowed to actually get married, then no.

But it does - friends and siblings can choose to live together for decades yet have no way of declaring a union giving them the pension, inheritance, etc rights we now give to co-habiting homosexuals outside of marriage.

I could've sworn that non-married couples that live together for at least ten years end up having the same rights as married couples... I may be wrong, but I could've sworn that was the case.

Interesting point, but the real issue doesn't have anything to do with gender/sex. A straight person can marry someone he or she loves and is sexually attracted to. A gay person can't.

Doesn't sound like the same right to me. :o)

I shall play the part of the troll once more...

But a paedophile can't marry someone he or she loves either, nor can people who have sex with animals, or their family.

Not that I'm comparing being gay to any of those things - it's just that sometimes it's hard to see where to draw the lines...

Re: I shall play the part of the troll once more...

I would compare being gay to all of those things. Frankly i think it goes against the natural order of things. ;-)

Re: I shall play the part of the troll once more...


Re: I shall play the part of the troll once more...

You're not very good at playing devil's advocate. ;o)

  • 1

Log in

No account? Create an account