[On gay equality]
I accept and agree with equal rights. They already have these though. Every single homosexual is entitled to marry someone of the opposite sex anytime they so choose.
27 comments
Now, he -does- have a point. The way the law is written right now, everyone -does- have the same right.
I think he's just being wilfully ignorant. When a man gets married, generally (in theory, anyway) he doesn't just marry "a woman" he marries the woman he LOVES. Gay men love men, gay women love women - in order for them to have a happy loving marriage, they can't marry someone of the opposite sex.
It may be obvious ... however, from a legal standpoint, he -is- correct.
It may be obvious ... however, from a legal standpoint, he -is- correct.
Actually Jesse, this is a common argument used by anti-choice wingnuts. It's their way of sticking their fingers in their ears & chanting "la la la", when confronted with the fact that there are plenty of same-sex couples who are truly committed to each other.
(First, let me just say up front that I'm playing devil's advocate here. I personally think that if I've got to suffer through marriage, then so should they!)www.section508.gov
As far as "the benefits of marriage" goes, exactly what are those? There is no tax benefit to being married - the married filing jointly standard deduction is exactly the same as two people filing singly. And, hell, all you'd have to do is change the wording to "cohabiting, filing jointly."
Are there any other benefits that I'm missing?
Also, your analogy to having to become Christian to marry is flawed from the outset. Such a law would be unconstitutional on the face of it - it would be tantamount to establishing a state religion.
I have the right to marry someone I am actually attracted to.
Hypothetical James is attracted to other men. Hypothetical James does not have the right to marry someone he is actually attracted to.
Ergo, he does not have equal rights. QED.
@Jesse
Primarily, by the absolute letter of the law, yes, it is equal. But it is not fair. It's a lot like saying you can get any size of jeans you want, so long as it's a waist size of 30 or under. Everyone gets jeans, but not everyone is happy with them.
Next is the "benefits of marriage." I'm not exactly boned up on tax laws, so I'm not gonna try. But a committed gay man will never, as it stands, be a legal next of kin. In the eyes of the law, he is a roommate, and no better. He has no say over health care, if no will is drawn up, he's screwed, he gets no consideration whatsoever as a widower. Again, not fair.
Finally, the Church DOESN'T have to become involved in a marriage. That's why the gay community is so up in arms about this. We are far more concerned with the legal aspect, than the religious. I speak for myself here, but if the church chooses not to recognize my relationship, and my marriage, I don't care. But in terms of a legal standpoint, my relationship is just as valid as Bob and Ethel down the street. So why should I have to take a backseat to them?
No, sweetheart, what that means is "all straight people have the right to marry someone they love." We want to change that to "everyone has the right to marry someone they love."
I know that 'love' is almost as hard a concept to grasp as compassion, but maybe you'll get there.
"And if gay marriage was allowed, then heterosexuals would be allowed to marry the same sex anytime they so choose."
Seems that equal rights would be protected there too. Oh, but wait! You can't just marry anytime you so choose anyways, like the people in the Babble could, cause polygamy isn't allowed either.
"Black people have the same right white people do - to marry someone of the same race."
Oh, oopsies. The argument is so similar, I got a little confused. My bad.
I've always enjoyed hearing fundies use this argument, especially when it can be turned back on them so easily.
I'd love to hear what Lyric's Dad would have to say if the United States suddenly decided to ban all religions with the exception of Islam. By his logic, since everyone would have the same freedom to practice Islam, religious equality would be preserved. To throw his own words back at him: Every single American would be entitled to worship and praise Allah anytime they so choose.
How does that sound, LD? =3
UGH. THAT IS NOT EQUAL RIGHTS. I will now prove that:
Heterosexuals can marry the person they love (provided the other person is consenting) at any time, because the person they love is of the opposite gender to them. However, homosexuals cannot marry the person they love at any time, because that person in of the same gender as them.
Therefore, heteros have the right to marry someone they love but homosexuals do not.
bwahahahahahahahaha
Actually no. It may seem equal that way, but it's really not. Why?
A straight man has a right to marry a woman.
Seems equal? It's not. The man of either gender orientation in these examples does not have the same righ tas the woman of either gender orientation in these examples, and vice versa.
A woman can marry a man, but a man cannot marry a man...this is sexism. The woman has a right the man does not.
A man can marry a woman, but a woman can't marry a woman...again, sexism. The man has a right the woman does not.
Now, if equal marriage is granted?
A straight man has the right to marry a man or a woman.
Beyond the identifier, every word of these sentances are EQUAL, across the board, for EVERYONE.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
