Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Marriage laws do not discriminate.

Chris.Allen
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 7:30:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Greetings everyone,

I want to post an opinion of mine for discussion to see if I have it right. My argument is that marriage laws as they are currently enacted do not discriminate based on sexual orientation. I believe it is a fact that the laws of the land do not have a sexual orientation requirement in them. In fact I believe the laws don't even have a requirement that the couple considering marriage even be sexual active or capable. The only requirement as it stands now is that only one man and one woman may be joined into a marriage. I believe these facts are proof that the laws do not discriminate on sexual orientation.

Please feel free reply to this opinion and let me know if I have overlooked any important details.

Thank you,
Chris Allen
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 7:36:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I want to post an opinion of mine for discussion to see if I have it right. My argument is that marriage laws as they are currently enacted do not discriminate based on race. I believe it is a fact that the laws of the land do not have a race requirement in them. In fact I believe the laws don't even have a requirement that the couple considering marriage even be sexually active or capable. The only requirement as it stands now is that only one man and one woman of the same race may be joined into a marriage. I believe these facts are proof that the laws do not discriminate on race.

The argument is nonsense. The unspoken premise is that whatever discrimination which exists is not, in fact, discrimination. The fact that the people being married must be of different sexes is a form of discrimination based on sex, just like the requirement that they be of the same race is a form of discrimination based on race.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 7:53:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You're trying to get around the issue by focusing, rather obtusely, on genders rather than sexual orientation. The point is that homosexuals are attracted to the same sex, so restricting them from marrying the same sex is discrimination of their sexual orientation.
Chris.Allen
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 8:50:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 7:53:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
You're trying to get around the issue by focusing, rather obtusely, on genders rather than sexual orientation. The point is that homosexuals are attracted to the same sex, so restricting them from marrying the same sex is discrimination of their sexual orientation.

Are you saying that sexual orientation is what should define a marriage? My opinion is based on a simple understanding that the laws do not ask for nor judge a couple based on their sexual orientation. A gay woman and a gay man may marry under the law. A strait man and a strait woman may marry under the law. A man with absolutely no sexual desire may marry a woman with absolutely no sexual desire under the law. As I said, the law does not discriminate on the sexual orientation of the people involved. The only requirement is that it be just one man and just one woman.
Now I'm going to go someplace now that I have no facts to back it up with. I believe that assuming the law allows for it, that a person may legally change their gender and then it would be legal for them to marry the person that they wished to so long as the law recognized them as the opposite sex. Now I know this argument is way out there but it still points to the fact that the law does not care what their sexual orientation is in a marriage, only that only one man and one woman are the participants of the marriage.

Thank you for your post,
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 8:55:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 8:50:29 PM, Chris.Allen wrote:
At 3/26/2013 7:53:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
You're trying to get around the issue by focusing, rather obtusely, on genders rather than sexual orientation. The point is that homosexuals are attracted to the same sex, so restricting them from marrying the same sex is discrimination of their sexual orientation.

Are you saying that sexual orientation is what should define a marriage? My opinion is based on a simple understanding that the laws do not ask for nor judge a couple based on their sexual orientation. A gay woman and a gay man may marry under the law. A strait man and a strait woman may marry under the law. A man with absolutely no sexual desire may marry a woman with absolutely no sexual desire under the law. As I said, the law does not discriminate on the sexual orientation of the people involved. The only requirement is that it be just one man and just one woman.
Now I'm going to go someplace now that I have no facts to back it up with. I believe that assuming the law allows for it, that a person may legally change their gender and then it would be legal for them to marry the person that they wished to so long as the law recognized them as the opposite sex. Now I know this argument is way out there but it still points to the fact that the law does not care what their sexual orientation is in a marriage, only that only one man and one woman are the participants of the marriage.

Thank you for your post,

It is discrimination against sexual orientation because it prohibits a man from marrying a man, thus not allowing two males whose sexual orientation is gay from marrying (practically, of course. It's silly to make them change gender or marry someone who's not their gender preference). Whether or not it's originally based on gender, the after effects discriminate against orientation.
Chris.Allen
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 11:34:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 7:36:56 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I want to post an opinion of mine for discussion to see if I have it right. My argument is that marriage laws as they are currently enacted do not discriminate based on race. I believe it is a fact that the laws of the land do not have a race requirement in them. In fact I believe the laws don't even have a requirement that the couple considering marriage even be sexually active or capable. The only requirement as it stands now is that only one man and one woman of the same race may be joined into a marriage. I believe these facts are proof that the laws do not discriminate on race.

The argument is nonsense. The unspoken premise is that whatever discrimination which exists is not, in fact, discrimination. The fact that the people being married must be of different sexes is a form of discrimination based on sex, just like the requirement that they be of the same race is a form of discrimination based on race.

Our marriage laws no longer use a modifier like ethnicity, or social status, or religious belief, or our sexual orientation in testing if a couple may marry. The only test that is applied is that there are only two humans and that one be a male and the other a female. At this point what is left to discriminate against?
Let me change the argument some. Let us assume we change the laws to remove gender from the test for marriage. At this point the only test left for the law is if the marriage is between two people. This would stop the discrimination of gender and would satisfy the gay mans desire to have his sexual choice be recognized in marriage, but we would then be questioning the reason why we discriminate against the sexual orientation of other groups of people. A bi-sexual man is in love with both another man and a woman and all three are willing to join in marriage but the law prohibits more than 2 people from marrying. How can the law grant that the sexual orientation of a gay couple is a legal justification for marriage and then deny it to a bi-sexual group? Wouldn't this be in fact discrimination based on sexual orientation?

Thank you very much for this oportunity to talk about this subject.
Chris Allen
Chris.Allen
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 12:02:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 8:55:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/26/2013 8:50:29 PM, Chris.Allen wrote:
At 3/26/2013 7:53:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
You're trying to get around the issue by focusing, rather obtusely, on genders rather than sexual orientation. The point is that homosexuals are attracted to the same sex, so restricting them from marrying the same sex is discrimination of their sexual orientation.

Are you saying that sexual orientation is what should define a marriage? My opinion is based on a simple understanding that the laws do not ask for nor judge a couple based on their sexual orientation. A gay woman and a gay man may marry under the law. A strait man and a strait woman may marry under the law. A man with absolutely no sexual desire may marry a woman with absolutely no sexual desire under the law. As I said, the law does not discriminate on the sexual orientation of the people involved. The only requirement is that it be just one man and just one woman.
Now I'm going to go someplace now that I have no facts to back it up with. I believe that assuming the law allows for it, that a person may legally change their gender and then it would be legal for them to marry the person that they wished to so long as the law recognized them as the opposite sex. Now I know this argument is way out there but it still points to the fact that the law does not care what their sexual orientation is in a marriage, only that only one man and one woman are the participants of the marriage.

Thank you for your post,

It is discrimination against sexual orientation because it prohibits a man from marrying a man, thus not allowing two males whose sexual orientation is gay from marrying (practically, of course. It's silly to make them change gender or marry someone who's not their gender preference). Whether or not it's originally based on gender, the after effects discriminate against orientation.

Please review my reply post below to Skepsikyma concerning changing the argument to allow for the law to eliminate the gender requirement in marriage. My point is that granting only straight and gay couples the right to marry would then constitute a discrimination in the law against sexual orientation. By this I mean bi-sexual and poly-amorous sexual orientations would be denied the right to marry based on their sexual orientation while the law would grant it to gay and straight couples. This would in fact be a marriage law that discriminated based on sexual orientation. It is the gender requirement that is in the laws today that keeps marriage equal for all people regardless of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexual orientation.
kenballer
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 7:34:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 7:36:56 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I want to post an opinion of mine for discussion to see if I have it right. My argument is that marriage laws as they are currently enacted do not discriminate based on race. I believe it is a fact that the laws of the land do not have a race requirement in them. In fact I believe the laws don't even have a requirement that the couple considering marriage even be sexually active or capable. The only requirement as it stands now is that only one man and one woman of the same race may be joined into a marriage. I believe these facts are proof that the laws do not discriminate on race.

The argument is nonsense. The unspoken premise is that whatever discrimination which exists is not, in fact, discrimination. The fact that the people being married must be of different sexes is a form of discrimination based on sex, just like the requirement that they be of the same race is a form of discrimination based on race.

Now you know I have already refuted this claim but yet you continue to act as If this is valid.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 7:43:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 7:30:58 PM, Chris.Allen wrote:
Greetings everyone,

I want to post an opinion of mine for discussion to see if I have it right. My argument is that marriage laws as they are currently enacted do not discriminate based on sexual orientation. I believe it is a fact that the laws of the land do not have a sexual orientation requirement in them. In fact I believe the laws don't even have a requirement that the couple considering marriage even be sexual active or capable. The only requirement as it stands now is that only one man and one woman may be joined into a marriage. I believe these facts are proof that the laws do not discriminate on sexual orientation.

Please feel free reply to this opinion and let me know if I have overlooked any important details.

Thank you,
Chris Allen

Cool. Then it discriminates based on gender, which is still forbidden.

What now?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 8:08:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 11:34:10 PM, Chris.Allen wrote:
At 3/26/2013 7:36:56 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I want to post an opinion of mine for discussion to see if I have it right. My argument is that marriage laws as they are currently enacted do not discriminate based on race. I believe it is a fact that the laws of the land do not have a race requirement in them. In fact I believe the laws don't even have a requirement that the couple considering marriage even be sexually active or capable. The only requirement as it stands now is that only one man and one woman of the same race may be joined into a marriage. I believe these facts are proof that the laws do not discriminate on race.

The argument is nonsense. The unspoken premise is that whatever discrimination which exists is not, in fact, discrimination. The fact that the people being married must be of different sexes is a form of discrimination based on sex, just like the requirement that they be of the same race is a form of discrimination based on race.

Our marriage laws no longer use a modifier like ethnicity, or social status, or religious belief, or our sexual orientation in testing if a couple may marry. The only test that is applied is that there are only two humans and that one be a male and the other a female. At this point what is left to discriminate against?
Let me change the argument some. Let us assume we change the laws to remove gender from the test for marriage. At this point the only test left for the law is if the marriage is between two people. This would stop the discrimination of gender and would satisfy the gay mans desire to have his sexual choice be recognized in marriage, but we would then be questioning the reason why we discriminate against the sexual orientation of other groups of people. A bi-sexual man is in love with both another man and a woman and all three are willing to join in marriage but the law prohibits more than 2 people from marrying. How can the law grant that the sexual orientation of a gay couple is a legal justification for marriage and then deny it to a bi-sexual group? Wouldn't this be in fact discrimination based on sexual orientation?

Thank you very much for this oportunity to talk about this subject.
Chris Allen

I don't think that polygamy should be outlawed either. But that is beside the fact; my argument is not that it discriminates based on sexual orientation, but that it discriminates based on gender, and that such distinction is without adequate justification.

Thank you for being cordial.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Chris.Allen
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 8:13:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 7:34:29 PM, kenballer wrote:
At 3/26/2013 7:36:56 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I want to post an opinion of mine for discussion to see if I have it right. My argument is that marriage laws as they are currently enacted do not discriminate based on race. I believe it is a fact that the laws of the land do not have a race requirement in them. In fact I believe the laws don't even have a requirement that the couple considering marriage even be sexually active or capable. The only requirement as it stands now is that only one man and one woman of the same race may be joined into a marriage. I believe these facts are proof that the laws do not discriminate on race.

The argument is nonsense. The unspoken premise is that whatever discrimination which exists is not, in fact, discrimination. The fact that the people being married must be of different sexes is a form of discrimination based on sex, just like the requirement that they be of the same race is a form of discrimination based on race.

Now you know I have already refuted this claim but yet you continue to act as If this is valid.

Hello kenballer,
I think you are directing your statement to Skepsikyma in this post, is that correct?

It is my understanding that group identity is what Skepsikyma is arguing about in the argument above. I want to prove that the group homo-sexual or for this matter any sexual identity is not being discriminated against in the law. The law does not restrict the rights for one person to marry another person based on their sexual identity. So the group identity of Gay or Straight was not the test of the law. They did however look at your gender. The group identity male is not a sexual orientation, it is a gender classification. I can prove this with the following: Not all gays are men but all men are men. Not all women are strait but all women are women. Your sexual orientation does not depend on your gender. So once again my argument that the law does not discriminate against sexual orientation should be the truth.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 8:26:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 8:13:25 PM, Chris.Allen wrote:
At 3/27/2013 7:34:29 PM, kenballer wrote:
At 3/26/2013 7:36:56 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I want to post an opinion of mine for discussion to see if I have it right. My argument is that marriage laws as they are currently enacted do not discriminate based on race. I believe it is a fact that the laws of the land do not have a race requirement in them. In fact I believe the laws don't even have a requirement that the couple considering marriage even be sexually active or capable. The only requirement as it stands now is that only one man and one woman of the same race may be joined into a marriage. I believe these facts are proof that the laws do not discriminate on race.

The argument is nonsense. The unspoken premise is that whatever discrimination which exists is not, in fact, discrimination. The fact that the people being married must be of different sexes is a form of discrimination based on sex, just like the requirement that they be of the same race is a form of discrimination based on race.

Now you know I have already refuted this claim but yet you continue to act as If this is valid.

Hello kenballer,
I think you are directing your statement to Skepsikyma in this post, is that correct?

It is my understanding that group identity is what Skepsikyma is arguing about in the argument above. I want to prove that the group homo-sexual or for this matter any sexual identity is not being discriminated against in the law. The law does not restrict the rights for one person to marry another person based on their sexual identity. So the group identity of Gay or Straight was not the test of the law. They did however look at your gender. The group identity male is not a sexual orientation, it is a gender classification. I can prove this with the following: Not all gays are men but all men are men. Not all women are strait but all women are women. Your sexual orientation does not depend on your gender. So once again my argument that the law does not discriminate against sexual orientation should be the truth.

"The law does not restrict the rights for one person to marry another person based on their sexual identity."

It does, because being gay means you want to marry the same sex, and currently, that is impossible in much of the United States.
Chris.Allen
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 9:05:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 8:08:39 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/26/2013 11:34:10 PM, Chris.Allen wrote:
At 3/26/2013 7:36:56 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I want to post an opinion of mine for discussion to see if I have it right. My argument is that marriage laws as they are currently enacted do not discriminate based on race. I believe it is a fact that the laws of the land do not have a race requirement in them. In fact I believe the laws don't even have a requirement that the couple considering marriage even be sexually active or capable. The only requirement as it stands now is that only one man and one woman of the same race may be joined into a marriage. I believe these facts are proof that the laws do not discriminate on race.

The argument is nonsense. The unspoken premise is that whatever discrimination which exists is not, in fact, discrimination. The fact that the people being married must be of different sexes is a form of discrimination based on sex, just like the requirement that they be of the same race is a form of discrimination based on race.

Our marriage laws no longer use a modifier like ethnicity, or social status, or religious belief, or our sexual orientation in testing if a couple may marry. The only test that is applied is that there are only two humans and that one be a male and the other a female. At this point what is left to discriminate against?
Let me change the argument some. Let us assume we change the laws to remove gender from the test for marriage. At this point the only test left for the law is if the marriage is between two people. This would stop the discrimination of gender and would satisfy the gay mans desire to have his sexual choice be recognized in marriage, but we would then be questioning the reason why we discriminate against the sexual orientation of other groups of people. A bi-sexual man is in love with both another man and a woman and all three are willing to join in marriage but the law prohibits more than 2 people from marrying. How can the law grant that the sexual orientation of a gay couple is a legal justification for marriage and then deny it to a bi-sexual group? Wouldn't this be in fact discrimination based on sexual orientation?

Thank you very much for this oportunity to talk about this subject.
Chris Allen

I don't think that polygamy should be outlawed either. But that is beside the fact; my argument is not that it discriminates based on sexual orientation, but that it discriminates based on gender, and that such distinction is without adequate justification.

Thank you for being cordial.

At this point I want it to be known that I also believe that the law should not discriminate against genders or group numbers and for the record Species. (Caveat - I mean this to be between intelligent beings.) However I have to find a justification to make this idea possible and saying the laws discriminate against me because of my sexual orientation does not provide for that justification to change the laws. I am also aware that my idea to open up marriage in this way will create such complexity in the system that it could cause the laws and government programs that are in place that apply to marriage to be un-enforceable or simply un-workable in the extreme. I can also see in the end that with this much freedom to marry, we may end up simply making the whole point of marriage meaningless. We would end up replacing marriage with contracts. I wonder how I could justify this end result?

Thanks again for the conversation.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 9:34:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 9:05:03 PM, Chris.Allen wrote:
At 3/27/2013 8:08:39 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/26/2013 11:34:10 PM, Chris.Allen wrote:
At 3/26/2013 7:36:56 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I want to post an opinion of mine for discussion to see if I have it right. My argument is that marriage laws as they are currently enacted do not discriminate based on race. I believe it is a fact that the laws of the land do not have a race requirement in them. In fact I believe the laws don't even have a requirement that the couple considering marriage even be sexually active or capable. The only requirement as it stands now is that only one man and one woman of the same race may be joined into a marriage. I believe these facts are proof that the laws do not discriminate on race.

The argument is nonsense. The unspoken premise is that whatever discrimination which exists is not, in fact, discrimination. The fact that the people being married must be of different sexes is a form of discrimination based on sex, just like the requirement that they be of the same race is a form of discrimination based on race.

Our marriage laws no longer use a modifier like ethnicity, or social status, or religious belief, or our sexual orientation in testing if a couple may marry. The only test that is applied is that there are only two humans and that one be a male and the other a female. At this point what is left to discriminate against?
Let me change the argument some. Let us assume we change the laws to remove gender from the test for marriage. At this point the only test left for the law is if the marriage is between two people. This would stop the discrimination of gender and would satisfy the gay mans desire to have his sexual choice be recognized in marriage, but we would then be questioning the reason why we discriminate against the sexual orientation of other groups of people. A bi-sexual man is in love with both another man and a woman and all three are willing to join in marriage but the law prohibits more than 2 people from marrying. How can the law grant that the sexual orientation of a gay couple is a legal justification for marriage and then deny it to a bi-sexual group? Wouldn't this be in fact discrimination based on sexual orientation?

Thank you very much for this oportunity to talk about this subject.
Chris Allen

I don't think that polygamy should be outlawed either. But that is beside the fact; my argument is not that it discriminates based on sexual orientation, but that it discriminates based on gender, and that such distinction is without adequate justification.

Thank you for being cordial.

At this point I want it to be known that I also believe that the law should not discriminate against genders or group numbers and for the record Species. (Caveat - I mean this to be between intelligent beings.) However I have to find a justification to make this idea possible and saying the laws discriminate against me because of my sexual orientation does not provide for that justification to change the laws. I am also aware that my idea to open up marriage in this way will create such complexity in the system that it could cause the laws and government programs that are in place that apply to marriage to be un-enforceable or simply un-workable in the extreme. I can also see in the end that with this much freedom to marry, we may end up simply making the whole point of marriage meaningless. We would end up replacing marriage with contracts. I wonder how I could justify this end result?

Thanks again for the conversation.

Marriage is a contract in the eyes of the government. Furthermore, you can eliminate one unnecessary qualifier (gender) without compromising the integrity of that contract. I can see some tricky issues with polygamy (100 people married to each other) but I can't see any with gay marriage, nor can I see any other sort of devastating imminent ramification of extending it. If you want to defend the status quo against such an expansion then there has to be some sort of justification for doing so, and a slippery slope doesn't cut it for this argument.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 10:01:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 7:30:58 PM, Chris.Allen wrote:
Greetings everyone,

I want to post an opinion of mine for discussion to see if I have it right. My argument is that marriage laws as they are currently enacted do not discriminate based on sexual orientation. I believe it is a fact that the laws of the land do not have a sexual orientation requirement in them. In fact I believe the laws don't even have a requirement that the couple considering marriage even be sexual active or capable. The only requirement as it stands now is that only one man and one woman may be joined into a marriage. I believe these facts are proof that the laws do not discriminate on sexual orientation.

Please feel free reply to this opinion and let me know if I have overlooked any important details.

Thank you,
Chris Allen

An easy quick test of discrimination is to flip the categories in question. By your account.

If we made a requirement that a marriage has to be to a person of the same gender...
1. it would not discriminate against people who wanted to marry the opposite sex...
A. because we are not discriminating against sexual orientation....
1A. Because heterosexuals could still marry a person of the same gender and still be heterosexual.

If that works for you then it is an easy fix. We just need to pass a law that marriage can only be between a man and man or woman and woman because straight people can still marry.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 12:51:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 7:43:45 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/26/2013 7:30:58 PM, Chris.Allen wrote:
Greetings everyone,

I want to post an opinion of mine for discussion to see if I have it right. My argument is that marriage laws as they are currently enacted do not discriminate based on sexual orientation. I believe it is a fact that the laws of the land do not have a sexual orientation requirement in them. In fact I believe the laws don't even have a requirement that the couple considering marriage even be sexual active or capable. The only requirement as it stands now is that only one man and one woman may be joined into a marriage. I believe these facts are proof that the laws do not discriminate on sexual orientation.

Please feel free reply to this opinion and let me know if I have overlooked any important details.

Thank you,
Chris Allen

Cool. Then it discriminates based on gender, which is still forbidden.

What now?

YES! I've always wanted to be able to use the women's restroom.

With this argument I'll ban gender separated bathrooms... and changing rooms... and locker rooms... and clubs... wow there are a lot of gender separation we can get rid of Dafter, lets do thissss! #leggo
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 7:12:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 12:51:29 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 3/27/2013 7:43:45 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/26/2013 7:30:58 PM, Chris.Allen wrote:
Greetings everyone,

I want to post an opinion of mine for discussion to see if I have it right. My argument is that marriage laws as they are currently enacted do not discriminate based on sexual orientation. I believe it is a fact that the laws of the land do not have a sexual orientation requirement in them. In fact I believe the laws don't even have a requirement that the couple considering marriage even be sexual active or capable. The only requirement as it stands now is that only one man and one woman may be joined into a marriage. I believe these facts are proof that the laws do not discriminate on sexual orientation.

Please feel free reply to this opinion and let me know if I have overlooked any important details.

Thank you,
Chris Allen

Cool. Then it discriminates based on gender, which is still forbidden.

What now?

YES! I've always wanted to be able to use the women's restroom.

With this argument I'll ban gender separated bathrooms... and changing rooms... and locker rooms... and clubs... wow there are a lot of gender separation we can get rid of Dafter, lets do thissss! #leggo

You're being facetious but there really is no reason to have separated facilities other than some sort of social hang-up regarding sexuality which, interestingly enough, also underpins the anti-gay thinking as well.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 12:20:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 7:12:39 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/28/2013 12:51:29 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 3/27/2013 7:43:45 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/26/2013 7:30:58 PM, Chris.Allen wrote:
Greetings everyone,

I want to post an opinion of mine for discussion to see if I have it right. My argument is that marriage laws as they are currently enacted do not discriminate based on sexual orientation. I believe it is a fact that the laws of the land do not have a sexual orientation requirement in them. In fact I believe the laws don't even have a requirement that the couple considering marriage even be sexual active or capable. The only requirement as it stands now is that only one man and one woman may be joined into a marriage. I believe these facts are proof that the laws do not discriminate on sexual orientation.

Please feel free reply to this opinion and let me know if I have overlooked any important details.

Thank you,
Chris Allen

Cool. Then it discriminates based on gender, which is still forbidden.

What now?

YES! I've always wanted to be able to use the women's restroom.

With this argument I'll ban gender separated bathrooms... and changing rooms... and locker rooms... and clubs... wow there are a lot of gender separation we can get rid of Dafter, lets do thissss! #leggo

You're being facetious but there really is no reason to have separated facilities other than some sort of social hang-up regarding sexuality which, interestingly enough, also underpins the anti-gay thinking as well.

Yeah I know, lol, wait so are you saying we should have co-ed facilities for everything? Even if it makes people uncomfortable?