No it isn't, because discrimination assumes some sort of equal condition being present, which isn't there.
No, you don't. By you equating this to the "separate but equal" terminology used in times of racial segregation, you see no difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples, when they are different (in terms of gender, the main difference between the two).
But you are comparing two biologically distinct demographics of the parties, so your argument is invalid.
RR7 was pointing out that by your reasoning, interracial marriage shouldn't be allowed because of the "difference" between the two people. I agree with him that this is nutso kind of thinking.
No, he was saying that heterosexual and homosexual couples ARE different, but that shouldn't prohibit them from getting married. Which actually reflects my point of view.
I want to marry 5 women and they want to marry me . . . where are my constitutional rights? I want to marry my sister . . . where are my constitutional rights? I want to marry my best friend who is already married . . . whre are my consititutional rights? I want to marry my 12 year old nephew and the parents agree . . . where are my constitutional rights? I want to marry my deceased grandmother who said in her will she wants to marry me . . . where are my contitutional rights? I want to marry a corporation . . . where are my constitutional rights? Damn it I have the right to pursue my hapiness!
A 12 year old is not a consenting adult. You also have the right to think you made a few points there, even when you didn't.
Man I sure hope those of you spreading this pedophilia bullshit don't know any one who is a victim of child molestation and never have kids.
I said different in the super simple fact that two guys is different than a guy and a girl. Just on the face of it. The same way a black man and a white woman are different than a black woman and a white man, which are different than a black man and a black woman which is different than a white man and a white woman. But all of them should be allowed to be married. I think you're trying to apply some definition of different or add MORE meaning to it, which I am not intending or implying. As for the separate but equal. I am a guy. I should have the same right to marry that this guy over here is, even if that guy is gay. By saying that guy can not be married, it is discriminating against him. By offering him civil unions instead of marriage, and saying they're about the same, you're giving him a "separate but equal" union with his partner.
And seriously, you complain about group think, but then trot out the same tired as slippery slope argument used so often to oppose gay marriage. But then say you aren't opposed. But somehow that's keeping us not opposed in check. Because you think we all think exactly the same,which is really only true in the thought that gay couples should be allowed to marry.
But a homosexual couple isn't "equal" to a heterosexual couple. They are distinctly different, biologically speaking. Perhaps they are equal in the fact that they are two people, but there are very very distinct differences in the dynamic. Recognizing these differences doesn't necessarily make one a bigot or discriminatory, as Denny insinuates is the case.
I'd say recognizing them in the way you do, and putting it on par with pedophilia and beastiality DOES make you a bigot, but whatever. So by saying they're not equal, it's similar to saying a black person and a white person aren't equal, no? They are distinctly different, biologically speaking. And if I then said well, I'm fin with allowing blacks to marry whites, but then slippery slope bullshit, I think it'd be fair to call me a bigot.
A 12 years old can enter into contracts with a guardian ad litem . . . you know when an adult enters a contract on behalf of a child . . . or am I getting too legal for you? Marriage should absolutely be regulated by the gov't . . . having said that I think they should allow gay marriages.
