More on the British sniper...er, homosexuality

[KiffinKiller]

Tax credits are rights? Well by all means hand them all out to everyone. Why stop with consenting adults engaging in sexual acts. I mean we wouldn't want college roommates to be discriminated against would we? Two heterosexual partners living together? Because it is beyond orientation as well. Where do you stop? What if others want that perk as well? You're thinking a little short sighted on this whole issue.

Agreed. It's much more complicated than most of us think.

 

[IPorange]

Tax credits are rights? Well by all means hand them all out to everyone. Why stop with consenting adults engaging in sexual acts. I mean we wouldn't want college roommates to be discriminated against would we? Two heterosexual partners living together? Because it is beyond orientation as well. Where do you stop? What if others want that perk as well? You're thinking a little short sighted on this whole issue.

Denying tax credits because of sexual orientation of one's partner is an issue of civil rights.

I mean, in my example does everyone have the right to use the same water fountain? Or does everyone have the right to go to the same school? What if the school is full? This way of thinking while ignoring the obvious issue is silly and intellectually dishonest. I'm sure you see the difference when racial discrimination is discussed. It is no different in this case.

And again, you stumble into a "slippery slope" argument where all roommates will get a tax credit, blah blah blah. If you applied this reasoning to anything, you'll come up with absurd results. It's a straw man, and a deflection from the matter at hand.

I guess you come to this way of viewing it because of a fundamental refusal to recognize two gay people in a relationship as being as much of a committed couple as two heterosexual people in a relationship. Because we aren't talking about "roommates." We're talking about two people that love one another, live together, and are committed to one another, but depending on their orientation are treated differently and given different civil options, with these rules originating from a particular religion's way of looking at the world. That isn't right.

No "slippery slope", "thinking small picture" argument changes that and to compare it to pedophilia (child RAPE), bestiality (animal RAPE), or random friends or acquaintances wanting to be able to get hitched is slanderous and insulting to gay people. it demonstrates no respect for their own personal dignity.

 

[IPorange]

Agreed. It's much more complicated than most of us think.

It really isn't, don't fall for the logical fallacy of a "slippery slope."

"A leads to B, B leads to C, C lead to D," but of course there is no proof or reason to believe that any part of that chain leads to another part.

Either you are for a government that sees everyone equally, or you are for the government being able to reflect a majority's "values."

 

[CSpindizzy]

Slippery slope and straw man says the poster repeatedly bringing up water fountains....

Denying tax credits is a matter of being married NOT sexual orientation. You're seriously going out on a limb here. Heterosexual couples not married have the same issue.

We're talking about two people that love one another, live together, and are committed to one another, but depending on their orientation are treated differently and given different civil options, with these rules originating from a particular religion's way of looking at the world. That isn't right.

I will say again, hetero couples are treated differently as well. I mean why should a piece of paper issued by a county limit their ability to be treated as 'married' as well? What about polygamists? You haven't touched that one either. As for your pedophilia reference, what are you basing the rape idea on? Because the other day you said being an adult is relative. But now you are implying that consent should be a set age for all and therefore would be rape if under that age even if the two were consenting and the 'child' in question were mature beyond his years.

I'll just ask you....what is your precise definition of marriage? If you could magically wave a wand and proclaim the definition of marriage, what would it be?

 

[CSpindizzy]

Either you are for a government that sees everyone equally, or you are for the government being able to reflect a majority's "values."

Tell me what "equally" is regarding marriage. Tell me what the legal definition of marriage is that is equal under the law according to IPorange...

 

[gcbvol]

Slippery slope and straw man says the poster repeatedly bringing up water fountains....

Denying tax credits is a matter of being married NOT sexual orientation. You're seriously going out on a limb here. Heterosexual couples not married have the same issue.



I will say again, hetero couples are treated differently as well. I mean why should a piece of paper issued by a county limit their ability to be treated as 'married' as well? What about polygamists? You haven't touched that one either. As for your pedophilia reference, what are you basing the rape idea on? Because the other day you said being an adult is relative. But now you are implying that consent should be a set age for all and therefore would be rape if under that age even if the two were consenting and the 'child' in question were mature beyond his years.

I'll just ask you....what is your precise definition of marriage? If you could magically wave a wand and proclaim the definition of marriage, what would it be?

Absolutely true, however heterosexual couples have the option to get married to obtain federal legal standing and related benefits while gay couples have no equivalent option (civil unions are not currently equitable). This is my primary concern - an equitable option.

 

[CSpindizzy]

So again, it comes down to getting a tax cut rather than love and marriage like so many are claiming it is. And again, why discriminate against polygamists? They are consenting adults. Are we discriminating on marriage based on number now? What is it really about? Equality? Orientation? What is the standard? What is the "equal" definition of marriage? I'd really like someone on that side to redefine it for me.

I'm having a hard time finding someone on the "equality" side of the argument to tell me what is fair, equal, etc. It's easy to say marriage should not discriminate but it is hard for anyone to then legally define what it should be.

 

[gcbvol]

So again, it comes down to getting a tax cut rather than love and marriage like so many are claiming it is. And again, why discriminate against polygamists? They are consenting adults. Are we discriminating on marriage based on number now? What is it really about? Equality? Orientation? What is the standard? What is the "equal" definition of marriage? I'd really like someone on that side to redefine it for me.

I'm having a hard time finding someone on the "equality" side of the argument to tell me what is fair, equal, etc. It's easy to say marriage should not discriminate but it is hard for anyone to then legally define what it should be.

Again, I am only speaking for myself on this. I am not concerned with being married. My concern is also not based on getting a tax cut (although I did unfortunately mention tax benefit earlier). For me, it is definitely rooted in love. The problem today is if my partner of 17 years is critically ill in a hospital I have no legal right to be by their side, make medical decisions on behalf, etc. without a medical power of attorney - even then some hospitals will not accept the poa. This is not an issue with people who are married.

I am not saying I want to me married. What I want is the same legal standing a spouse has in the above situation. That does not exist today.

 

[hndog609]

I'm having a hard time finding someone on the "equality" side of the argument to tell me what is fair, equal, etc. It's easy to say marriage should not discriminate but it is hard for anyone to then legally define what it should be.

I'm not really on the "other side" so much as I had previously posited that as long as civil unions available to gay couples were "functionally" indentical to a heterosexual marriage then it would take a lot of the teeth out both sides. The "marriage" traditionlists could keep the word associated with the specifc union of man and wife while the gay community could couple up and have the same governmental considerations as the former. They could call it "scrumptious foreverness" or whatever. (hold a contest for the name, win a vacation)

 

[gsvol]

I'm not really on the "other side" so much as I had previously posited that as long as civil unions available to gay couples were "functionally" indentical to a heterosexual marriage then it would take a lot of the teeth out both sides. The "marriage" traditionlists could keep the word associated with the specifc union of man and wife while the gay community could couple up and have the same governmental considerations as the former. They could call it "scrumptious foreverness" or whatever. (hold a contest for the name, win a vacation)

Or we could let each state have their constitutional right instead of making a federal case of it.

There is nothing in the constitution or the bill of rights that give the federal government jurisdiction.

People who want to be involved in same sex partnerships could live in states that grant licenses to them.

This is just one of many isssues coming from the homosexual/transgendered community, another is gay rights in the work place, non-descrimination issues, hiring of gays quotas, the demands can be endless.

I heard this same argument before with almost identical circumstances which may or may not be true, in order to gain sympathy.

You can forget the vacation contest, no one is going to top 'scrumptious foreverness.'