Do you do find gay marriage repulsive?

[nclib]

There is absolutely no justification for gay marriage that does not justify polygamy.

Not allowing gay marriage is discrimination based on gender (men can marry women but not men, and the opposite for women). Not allowing polygamy affects all individuals the same way.

[A18]

It's discrimination based on number.

Not allowing gay marriage keeps every individual from marrying someone of the same sex.

It's either situational or it's not.

[Alcon]

It's discrimination based on number.

Not allowing gay marriage keeps every individual from marrying someone of the same sex.

It's either situational or it's not.

Numbers are not people.

It's not discrimination by gender; it's discrimination by sexual orientation.

[A18]

The number of people in question are people.

No. A gay man can still marry someone of the opposite sex.

[Alcon]

The number of people in question are people.

No. A gay man can still marry someone of the opposite sex.

The number of people in question is not people. It is a figure regarding people.

Yeah, they can. And they can't marry someone they actually love.

[A18]

Um, sex is not a person either. Nor is sexual orientation, or whatever the hell you're trying to argue this is.

If I don't love someone of the opposite sex, I can't get married either then.

[Alcon]

Um, sex is not a person either. Nor is sexual orientation, or whatever the hell you're trying to argue this is.

Sexual orientation is an attribute of people; no person would feel offended because their quantity was discriminated against or something.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In other news, oxygen can be breathed by people.

[A18]

Well, in the one case, they are unable to get married because of the sex of the other person. In the other case, the group can't get married because of the number of the other people.

In other news, you are incapable of understanding basic concepts. I'm not gay, so it obviously isn't exclusive to gay people.

[Alcon]

Well, in the one case, they are unable to get married because of the sex of the other person. In the other case, the group can't get married because of the number of the other people.

Yes, but it's not like being restricted to one wife means they cannot marry someone they are attracted to and love.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you really find the need to add humorously irrelevant attacks like this to the end of your post? Does it ever work to bother people? I'm sorry you are unable to marry a gender you are not attracted to. What a loss.

[A18]

Well, you just changed the standard. Before it was discrimination, now it's because you can't marry someone you are attracted to and love. But that is still discrimination, by number.

You attacked. I defended.

The fact that you don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex doesn't mean you're being discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation. That's your 'fault' for not wanting to.

[Alcon]

Well, you just changed the standard. Before it was discrimination, now it's because you can't marry someone you are attracted to and love. But that is still discrimination, by number.

That is discrimination. It is saying you cannot marry someone you love because they are of the same gender. Discrimination infers that some trait of theirs causes them to be discrimated against. What is that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I attacked? When?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is your first sentence there true?

[A18]

Being able to marry someone you're attracted to isn't non-discriminatory. It is itself a discriminatory standard: one person.

Some offtopic note about oxygen. Very informative, though.

There are plenty of straight people that also don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex. The true 'discrimination' here isn't sexual orientation, but not wanting to marry someone of the opposite sex, which is pretty hard to lump together with generic discrimination.

[Alcon]

Being able to marry someone you're attracted to isn't non-discriminatory. It is itself a discriminatory standard: one person.

I have no idea what this means.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is not a direct personal attack on you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People should be able to marry the person they love.

You're just being ridiculously definitional.

[A18]

You're saying they should be able to marry one person only. That's discriminatory.

And yet, it is an indirect personal attack on me.

Why just the person? That's discriminatory. You obviously have a set idea of what marriage is supposed to be that you want to force upon people. I don't see how that differs from conservatives.

[Alcon]

You're saying they should be able to marry one person only. That's discriminatory.

And yet, it is an indirect personal attack on me.

Why just the person? That's discriminatory. You obviously have a set idea of what marriage is supposed to be that you want to force upon people. I don't see how that differs from conservatives.

You are continuously arguing the same point. It is not that I do not have a valid point to prove against it, but that you have repeated the same content in every single post.

It's not discriminatory. It's limiting behavior. One says you cannot get married multiple times; one says you cannot get married, even once, to someone you actually love. I have my limits, too, but you are giving a slippery slope argument. You can do better than this.

If you have nothing new to say, by the way, don't expect further responses from me.

[A18]

Which is the relevant point, and the one you keep trying to shift the argument away from. There's a difference between whether or not something is dicriminatory and whether or not you can marry someone you're attracted to. Having the option of the latter does not make the former a given.

Make up your mind. Do you want to talk about whether disallowing gay marriage is DISCRIMINATION or whether or not disallowing gay marriage keeps people from marrying someone they're attracted to.

The second I agree with, so quit pretending I'm arguing against it.

The first I would also agree with, except that it is equally true to say that disallowing polygamy is discrimination. You can't just throw out one factor in this relationship, number, saying that is not discrimination, but worry about sex. That is not a neutral policy.

One says you cannot get married multiple times. One says you cannot get married to someone of the same sex. Both are limiting behavior.

You are not being non-discriminatory. We are both limiting behavior. You don't care about the sexes in the marriage, but care about the number.

That is discriminatory.

I have yet to get a response, so it's hard to imagine getting a further response.

[Ebowed]

No/Yes

[© tweed]

I voted No/Yes, but it isn't that clear.

I'd never involve myself in a gay marraige, but if other people are into that, I don't think they should be stopped.

I also believe it should be a state issue.  If I was a state senator in NY, and a gay marraige bill came passing through that would legalize it, I'd vote yes.  But if I was a United States Senator, I'd vote no, as it really isn't any of the federal government's business.

I don't understand people that so vehemently fight this issue.  It doesn't impact their lives at all.

[Democratic Hawk]

I voted No/No. I don't have a problem with gay relationships - I'm tolerantly-minded - and while I don't support gay marriage, I favour civil unions

Dave

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I personally do not care what people do with one another, but I fear the wrath of God, and therefore cannot support gay marriage.

[KillerPollo]

I personally do not care what people do with one another, but I fear the wrath of God, and therefore cannot support gay marriage.

^^^^^^^^^

[Bono]

No/No

[Hitchabrut]

Yes/No.

[MasterJedi]

Yes/No

If it was natural and meant to be men could have children with men. That can't happen, it's not natural.

[Emsworth]

Yes/No

If it was natural and meant to be men could have children with men. That can't happen, it's not natural.

I don't think that this is a logically valid argument. By this reasoning, the marriage of a man with an infertile woman might be deemed "repulsive."