BF2S Forums Are ALL opponents of gay marriage closet gays?

lowing wrote:

Being pulled over for being black is not discrimination, it is a prejudice based on things like experiences gained while being a cop. IF the same cop had similar experiences with white people, they to would be pulled over. A white person driving a Honda Odessy in a black neighborhood know for dealing drugs will get pulled over, and why, experience dictates that person is looking for drugs. so again no discrimination.

1. They are not discriminated against at all. ANYONE who is a convicted child molestor is treated the same way, and deservingly so. There is no discrimination. Your behavior determines your treatment by society, and ALL who act in such a manner, when caught, are treated the same way. Unless you know of a convicted  child molestor of any race or sex that has applied for a teaching postion and gotten it. Personally I do not.

I don't think you understand the definition of discrimination.  I know we tend to think of it in terms of what is legally liable as discrimination, but I'm talking about the figurative definition -- which is much broader.

discrimination
1.an act or instance of discriminating.
2.treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.
3.the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment.

Both 2 and 3 apply to what I'm saying.  You are discriminating when you pull blacks over more often than whites.  The degree to which this is acceptable is subjective and relates to the context.  For example, in the context you gave, it might be more acceptable than in other cases.

Either way, all of us discriminate to a degree.  Whether or not it is justified is where the debate is.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Being pulled over for being black is not discrimination, it is a prejudice based on things like experiences gained while being a cop. IF the same cop had similar experiences with white people, they to would be pulled over. A white person driving a Honda Odessy in a black neighborhood know for dealing drugs will get pulled over, and why, experience dictates that person is looking for drugs. so again no discrimination.

1. They are not discriminated against at all. ANYONE who is a convicted child molestor is treated the same way, and deservingly so. There is no discrimination. Your behavior determines your treatment by society, and ALL who act in such a manner, when caught, are treated the same way. Unless you know of a convicted  child molestor of any race or sex that has applied for a teaching postion and gotten it. Personally I do not.

I don't think you understand the definition of discrimination.  I know we tend to think of it in terms of what is legally liable as discrimination, but I'm talking about the figurative definition -- which is much broader.

discrimination
1.an act or instance of discriminating.
2.treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.
3.the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment.

Both 2 and 3 apply to what I'm saying.  You are discriminating when you pull blacks over more often than whites.  The degree to which this is acceptable is subjective and relates to the context.  For example, in the context you gave, it might be more acceptable than in other cases.

Either way, all of us discriminate to a degree.  Whether or not it is justified is where the debate is.

If EVERYONE is suspect and subject to being pulled over, as in I described then it is not discrimination. ALL suspected behavior, for whatever reason is investigated. NOT discrimination. If you can find an example where a white person who was suspecious was not pulled over because they were white, get back with me.

You also need to change your verbage, although I understand what you are saying, a cop that pulls over a black guy for being black is prejudiced not discriminating. ALL people are subject to being pulled over, wheather or not you are is a different matter.

Last edited by lowing (2010-03-07 12:48:31)

Nope, I don't get it. Gay people who love each other can't get married. They don't have the same rights as straight people. Therefore arguing that gay marriage should be allowed isn't special consideration, it's equal consideration. It is gay rights cos it's rights for gay people that they don't have at the moment. If you're for same sex marriages I really don't see the problem. There clearly is discrimination - since they can't get married like straight people can. You can easily argue that the group of people known as heterosexuals DO have special rights that homosexual people don't have, and are treated better than gay people because they're allowed to marry each other. Which is wrong, as you say above.

If gay marriage was allowed how many hetero people do you seriously think would take advantage of the law and marry each other for the sake of a few financial benefits? Hardly anyone, surely. If anyone at all.

I'm sorry, I don't see why letting gay people marry each other and be entitled to all the tax benefits or whatever that entails is positive discrimination or why anyone should be against it - which you're not anyway, as you say yourself. I don't see that gay people DO get any special treatment. The only thing they're allowed (in some places) is to be considered common-law partners and have the same rights as common-law partners in heterosexual relationships. perhaps I just don't understand the point of this discussion, since you say you're for same sex marriages, and I have nothing against them either....so what's the issue?

Maybe I'm just tired...time for bed.

lowing wrote:

They can get married like straight people can. They can not marry same sex just like straight people can not marry same sex. They have the EXACT same rights.

No they don't.

They cannot marry the person they love because they love someone of the same sex.

You know traditionally people marry each other because they do love each other not just for tax reasons yeah? Come on, seriously.

OK now I really am going to bed...in my nice heterosexual marital bed to be exact.

lowing wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

They can get married like straight people can. They can not marry same sex just like straight people can not marry same sex. They have the EXACT same rights.

No they don't.

They cannot marry the person they love because they love someone of the same sex.

You know traditionally people marry each other because they do love each other not just for tax reasons yeah? Come on, seriously.

OK now I really am going to bed...in my nice heterosexual marital bed to be exact.

Nor can anyone else.

The laws do not specify gay or straight rights. The law says NO ONE can marry same sex. It applies to us all. What makes you gay is sex not love.

I think you're missing his point that marriage is supposed to be about love -- not gender.

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nor can anyone else.

The laws do not specify gay or straight rights. The law says NO ONE can marry same sex. It applies to us all. What makes you gay is sex not love.

I think you're missing his point that marriage is supposed to be about love -- not gender.

and you are missing the point that homosexuality is about sex with the same sex and not marriage.

And you still aren't getting that equality means having structures in place that meet the needs of all people, not just heterosexuals.

The point of marriage is to marry someone you love.

Gay people cannot do that.

Hetero people can.

Ergo, they are discriminated against.

If you don't see that, then...there is no hope for you in this argument, I'm afraid.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

And you still aren't getting that equality means having structures in place that meet the needs of all people, not just heterosexuals.

Nope I get that, and gays are free to marry any opposite sex person they choose, just like straight people are. I am not free to marry same sex any more than gays are.

This is just getting sad.  Lowing...  let me use another example...

Let's say the law doesn't allow you to marry someone outside of your race.  By your definition, this is an ok law because, if it is applied universally, then no one of any race is allowed to marry outside of their race.

Do you see the problem with your logic?

Never said anything about it being an "ok law", I am saying it is not discriminatory. We all have the same right to marry opposite sex people.

If such a law existed and it applied to us all, then it would not be discriminatory it might be still be restrictive however.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

This is just getting sad.  Lowing...  let me use another example...

Let's say the law doesn't allow you to marry someone outside of your race.  By your definition, this is an ok law because, if it is applied universally, then no one of any race is allowed to marry outside of their race.

Do you see the problem with your logic?

Never said anything about it being an "ok law", I am saying it is not discriminatory. We all have the same right to marry opposite sex people.

If such a law existed and it applied to us all, then it would not be discriminatory it might be still be restrictive however.

Ok...  let me ask this then.  Regardless of whether or not it is discrimination, do you believe it is right or even wise to keep a law in place that does not allow someone to marry the person they love because of their race or gender?

No I do not. I think govt. over steps its bounds with such laws, it is none of their business or mine what others do, as long as it does not affect my ability to pursue life liberty and happiness.

Turquoise wrote:

Well, I'm glad we can at least agree on that then....

I made that point a long time ago I think.

The argument was discrimination, not the the right or wrong of it.

Pubic wrote:

lowing wrote:

No they are not, NO ONE, not gay or straight people can marry the same sex. The law applies to all of us.

well the domestic partner thing is a fact and it is discrimination.

the difference being, laws defining marriage do not specifically call out gays or straights. It applies to all people.

Domestic partnership laws call out specifically gay people and withhold from straight people.

You are wrong - the fact that marriage laws only recognise marriage between opposite-sex partners (heterosexual couples) is discriminatory.  According a right/privilege to one group on the grounds of sexuality, is discrimination on the basis of sexuality.  To say that they aren't discriminatory can be considered - at best - deliberate ignorance.

I am not arguing in favour of your domestic partnership thing - besides it not affecting me (unless I moved to the US of course), its a seperate issue.

Already made my point, no one not gay or straight can marry same sex. It is not discriminatory

lowing wrote:

Already made my point, no one not gay or straight can marry same sex. It is not discriminatory

lowing you are totally missing the point. I guess for you then Rosa Parks shouldn't have complained about needing to sit at the back of the bus because both black and white people could have got the same bus and nothing discriminatory was going on - which is plainly bollocks.

Saying gay people can marry people of the opposite sex has nothing to do with it. Gay people want to marry someone of the SAME sex. It's not about what they theoretically could do, it's that they are prevented from doing what they WANT to do.

People want to get married because they love their partner.

Hetero people can marry someone they love.

Gay people cannot.

What is it about this simple state of affairs that causes you to ignore the issue and claim it's not discriminatory when it so blatantly is?

Maybe if I put it like this:

Preventing someone from doing something that a) they want to do, and b) other people can do, is discriminating against them.

lowing wrote:

Pubic wrote:

lowing wrote:

Already made my point, no one not gay or straight can marry same sex. It is not discriminatory

Why can't someone marry someone else of the same sex?  Bear in mind here that you can't object on legal grounds (eg. "they can't because the law says they can't") because the legal status of gay marriage is whats being called into question - is your objection based on moral grounds?  Some practical reason perhaps?

I am asking you to justify the status quo.

Might wanna read prvious posts. I have no probel with same sex marriages. I have a problem with "GAY RIGHTS"

gay rights is them seeking RIGHTS that they dont have such as gay marriage.