I don't understand how people can say that not changing the definition of marriage is denying anyone *equal* rights. The one man, one woman definition of marriage is available to everyone, including those who suffer from SSA. The fact that you can't find anybody of the opposite sex that is good enough for you doesn't make it discrimination. We don't ask for a redefinition of arson in the case in which we feel like burning down your house, so why do you insist upon taking away our definition of marriage simply because you are too stubborn to comply?
37 comments
sooooo.... it's the old "it's marriage for everyone, because everyone can get married to the opposite sex" argument. i'd call that a white wedding for fiscal benefits, and that is blaspheming the "sanctity" of marriage far more than two gays getting married to vouchsafe the other's inheritance (which incidentally seems like one of the major reasons marriage equality was passed in france, the surviving partner usually got shafted by the family of the deceased)
The legal definition of marriage, which prevents miscegenation, is available to everyone, including those who suffer from attraction to people of other races. The fact that you can't find anybody of your own race that is good enough for you doesn't make it discrimination.
FTFY
"I don't understand how people can say that not changing the definition of marriage is denying anyone *equal* rights."
I don't understand how people can think civil rights changes the definition of marriage. Unless you define marriage as a union of one white man and one white women.
How about we change the definition of "religion" to mean only Islam? You will still have the freedom to practice any religion you want, as long as it's Islam. How is that denying anyone equal rights? You still get to practice religion, as long as it's the way we want it and not the way you want it.
See how that equates? Why would gay people want to participate in your narrow definition of marriage? Why do you insist that gay people get into a marriage they don't want to be in? It's all about changing people doing something you don't like, isn't it?
Apropos of nothing:
Shawn sounds the same as the Irish man's name 'Seán' = the Gaelic version of John.
Franchi sounds exactly the same as the Irish word 'Francaigh' - the Gaelic for Rats.
Interesting, but needing pest control, perhaps.
The only way that being gay could be considered a mental disorder (i.e. SSA or same-sex attraction disorder) is by changing the definition of mental disorder.
Folks, we have a hypocrite
The issue is to afford, everyone...EVERYONE...the ability to be able to spend their most significant adult relationship with the person they love. What the fuck do you care anyway? If you don't want to be with someone of the same sex, then don't.
Latest News:
FRANCHI FINDS CURE FOR HOMOSEXUALITY.
Check out this other comment by Franchi which comes later in the same comments section.
Shawn Franchi3 November 2012 23:00
You can have a Ford in any color you like, as long as you like black.
We're not really changing the definition of marriage, it's still a legal contract between two consenting adult who intend to spend their lives together, sharing everything with each other.
You seem to have a very limited ability for empathy, if you can't even realize that if you are not attracted to men, then you won't be falling in love with a man, regardless of your gender. It has nothing to do with stubbornness or "good enough". Whatever gender you are attracted to makes no difference to anybody but you, and your significant other(s) and is therefore legal. Arson makes a hell of a difference to others, and is therefore illegal.
Okay, let's say Steve and Jack go to the courthouse to get married, the court will say no. Then Susan walks into the courthouse with Jack, the court will say yes. We have created a system where Susan is able to marry Jack because she is female while Steve is denied the marriage certificate because he is male. The moral of the story is that gender based discrimination is wrong.
Wait. Wow. Same sex couples want to marry because they couldn't find someone of the opposite sex that was "good enough" for them? That's an advanced level of deluded bigot, right here. No one suffers from same-sex-attraction. But people do suffer due to prejudice from hateful, anti-human shits who choose to be homophobes. Nice throwing that arson bit in there...
People like this would love to turn back the clock, no doubt. "Well, a black person is free to marry someone of their own race and a white person is free to do the same so, it's equal! Why should we change the laws because they are too stubborn and can't find someone within their race to marry??" Guess what? Marriage has evolved over the decades and will continue to do so. Deal with it!
But we are fighting for your right to marry a person of your sex!
Doesn't give you a fucking thing?
Yeah, that's how gay people feel about straight marriage.
Dr Shrinker,
It was removed from the Diagnostic Manual with a popular vote, show of hands. There was no laboratory work - just a show of hands. It was a fashion statement brought in by secret lobbying.
"So it goe"s Doc - the full hypocrisy circle
Orwell's proud
It's not a question of finding someone good enough, it's being denied the right to marry the person you have found who IS "good enough."
P,S. Your arson analogy is ridiculous. Burning down someone's house destroys their property and maybe takes lives, while allowing homosexuals same-sex marriages doesn't deny anyone anything.
@ Phillip-George(c)2013
And you really think that the decision was made on a whim? Or as a "fashion statement" (kind of an odd objection from someone who often touts popular books as sources of truth). You really think that there was no analysis of data involved in the decision?
Look, I know that you don't believe in objective analysis, peer review, or anything else that goes into established science. That does not mean that the rest of the world functions as you apparently do. Gut feelings, sensationalism and divination just don't cut it for people who are interested in facts.
The one man, one woman definition of marriage is available to everyone, including those who suffer from SSA
If that argument made sense, we could close all the churches since you'd still have the freedom to be an atheist like everyone else. Or we could ban all meat since you'd still have the freedom to be a vegetarian.
Also, homosexuality was removed from the DSM because it didn't fit the criteria of a mental illness, fundie lies aside. The claim that it was a political decision is an outright and deliberate lie.
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.
