Gays can't marry, but how is that discrimination?

[Russian Crushin]

Thank you for responding, but I wish you would have been more clear. You quoted me when I said "two people are treated the same." I assume you mean that two people could mean any man woman or man and man, cause after all they're people. But the law recognizes marriage as between a man and woman, just like the law says alcohol is legal and heroin is not. Both are mind altering substances, just like all marriages are a marriage whether gay or straight, but under the law a heroin not legal, while alcohol is. Likewise two men cannot marry, a man and a woman can.

Like I've said I support gay marriage, I just don't like the route of discrimination they've taken.

Heroin is illegal, gays getting married (in most places) is "not legal'', not "illegal", there is a difference.

The point of the the supreme court taking up the gay marriage issue is to see whether the law of marriage discriminates against gay marriage

[Sweet Pea 50]

So OP, you are comparing two gay law abiding people getting married, to a crack head stealing your car, and leaving it on cinder blocks?

I'm just asking. Maybe I'm misreading your train of thought.

[White_Knight]

Is there any other rational decision-making that the government could make? Denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?”

Not allowing them to phuck each other in the butt without a condom. That would have slowed down the AIDS epidemic in the West by about 300,000%.

[pacmanis1]

Well if you take the discriminating portion of discrimination from the situation, then its not discrimination, is it.

I'm glad you're responding to my thread, and if I've said anything to offend you I'm sorry. This thread wasn't about the benefits of marriage, it was simple examination of the law. No two men, regardless of their race, religion, or sexual orientation can marry a person of the same sex. I wasn't asking if they should be able to marry, cause quite frankly I think they should. As another poster said they have a much, MUCH, lower rate of divorce. If anything, gays actually hold marriage to a much higher standard. My problem isn't with the act, my problem was with the legal and philosophical definition of discrimination, and people falsely claiming discrimination.

[Russian Crushin]

Not allowing them to phuck each other in the butt without a condom. That would have slowed down the AIDS epidemic in the West by about 300,000%.

So would cutting off everybody's genitals, lets start with you

[White_Knight]

I think what the dude is saying is that denying them something that by definition didn't include them in the 1st place can't be discrimination. They would only be discriminated against if they met the criteria entitling them to something but were denied it anyway.

Is this right?

[White_Knight]

Nevermind.

[Russian Crushin]

I'm glad you're responding to my thread, and if I've said anything to offend you I'm sorry. This thread wasn't about the benefits of marriage, it was simple examination of the law. No two men, regardless of their race, religion, or sexual orientation can marry a person of the same sex. I wasn't asking if they should be able to marry, cause quite frankly I think they should. As another poster said they have a much, MUCH, lower rate of divorce. If anything, gays actually hold marriage to a much higher standard. My problem isn't with the act, my problem was with the legal and philosophical definition of discrimination, and people falsely claiming discrimination.

Well thats a huge part of the discrimination

I'm glad you're responding to my response, and if I've said anything to offend you I'm sorry, but again taking away the discriminating part from discrimination doesnt make any sense. I've already stated how its discrimination.

[pacmanis1]

So OP, you are comparing two gay law abiding people getting married, to a crack head stealing your car, and leaving it on cinder blocks?

I'm just asking. Maybe I'm misreading your train of thought.

Not at all. Like I said I don't believe anything should be illegal unless there is a victim. I admit I have a very liberal thought process when it comes to drugs, and frankly a lot of other things. I don't care if someone wants to smoke crack, but when they steal my car they have made me a victim of their actions. Two gays getting married has no victim, therefore I support it. I am simply stating that under the law gay marriage isn't recognized, no matter what your sexual orientation is. As a straight man I can't marry another man, just like a gay man. We are both treated the same under the law. I'm not asking if morally you think gays should be able to marry, I'm simply asking how is a gay man being treated differently than a straight man when the rules are the same to both?

FYI I'm about to go to bed but I really appreciate all the responses and how everyone has kept it civil. This is a nice change from the usual hating from mindless boxing fans who only care about one fighter and bash everyone else. Thanks.

[Russian Crushin]

I think what the dude is saying is that denying them something that by definition didn't include them in the 1st place can't be discrimination. They would only be discriminated against if they met the criteria entitling them to something but were denied it anyway.

Is this right?

Yes and what the supreme court is looking at, is if that definition is discriminatory.The fact that those who marry are given rights and benefits by the government that gays dont. Thats in itself is discrimination. Then it still took 71 more years until discrimination against interracial marriage was eradicated.

Its like saying blacks cannot get married because the definition was created that didnt include them, and it fact thats how it was before 1896. The law still discriminated against blacks