Seems like most 'intellectuals' have been brainwashed to believe you can't discriminate because they have been fooled by 'black and white' logic.
Some discrimination is both logical and correct. There is a positive side to most all things.
Well, even homosexuals discriminate ! You don't find homosexual men marrying homosexal women, now do you ?
Seem like the definition of 'marriage' is based on the biological differences between men and women, and even the gay community discriminates on that basis.
The Rainbow of Truth.
http://www.jesuschristcode.com
2006-10-05 17:22:08 · 12 answers · asked by Caesar J. B. Squitti 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Who will be the husband who the wife ?
Can we not call same gender couples what they are ?
They are different are they not ?
2006-10-06 02:41:09 · update #1
ya know, i was told once that crossing one line just makes the next line that much closer and easier to cross.
if two men (or women) can get married, than why not one man and three women? why not one man and a rabbit? why not let a 35 year old man marry a 12 year old girl (or boy)?
Because it just dont make sense.
Just for the sake of argument lets assume that there is no absolute truth (I do not hold to this idea, my God is the Author of Truth)
OK for example lets say that a man marries 5 women fathers 8 children by them and dies unexpectedly at the age of 45. 3 of the wives worked while they were married and 1 wife was childless.
who gets how much social security? what about life insurance?
are the women still contractually bound together?
what a mess
i know that this may seem pretty far fetched, but wow, we need to think things out a little bit.
if we redefine marriage, then it is no longer marriage
just my thoughts,
possum
2006-10-05 17:56:03 · answer #1 · answered by hillbilly named Possum 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Sorry but your argument doesn't hold water and is far from logical.
Why would a homosexual man marry a homosexual woman? Look up the word "homosexual." As far a biological differences go, the biological differences between men and women ensure that there is some way to continue the human race. However men and women don't have to marry to produce children, and men and women who marry do not have to produce children if they choose not to do so. Therefore "marriage" is not based on biological differences nor should biological differences define marriage. Marriage is society's construct, which began in olden times as men's "ownership" of women and a contract that said he would take care of her and pay her family a dowry.
Marriage has been and always will be a contract. There has been much ceremony added to it over the ages, but no matter what it remains a contract between two people. That being the case there is no reason why two people of the same sex cannot enter into this contract..
2006-10-06 00:38:38 · answer #2 · answered by nquizzitiv 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
To construct your question on the bases of the notion of discrimination is quite misleading. Discrimination in itself is a neutral term! What I choose to wear tomorrow will be a discriminating choice. A person with discriminating tastes is a common upper class or cultural plus. Hence discrimination only obtains a negative quality when the consequence stereotypes and represses access.
As for the question of Marriage,the averred discrimination is not rooted so much in definition as it is the concept of marriage. Heterosexual relationships or even intercourse has the implication of confirming Humanity as a whole and this concept is even more apparent in traditional arranged marriages where sexuality and love are clearly secondary issues. The act of Marriage therefrom confirms publically that confirmation and so is akin to an act of faith or religion.
A so-called Gay Marriage cannot do that and thus can only confirm a presumption of Love or sexual orientation. That has nothing to do with the family of Humanity and so would change the implications of the institution of Marriage and formally make sex and love publically social political issues which in turn compromises the idea of sex & sexuality as a privite right!
2006-10-06 03:07:49 · answer #3 · answered by namazanyc 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Discrimination is not necessarily wrong. There are very practical reasons that some discrimination is good. For example, who you decide you want to marry should be a "discriminatory" act. You don't give everybody equal consideration.
But 'intellectuals' don't think anything as silly as that all discrimination is wrong. You're setting up a straw man by saying they do.
The fact that we discriminate legitimately in some cases doesn't make discrimination right in all cases. Discrimination is wrong when it is done unnecessarily. For example, if you don't hire somebody because they can't do the job, thats discrimination, but its necessary or legitimate discrimination. If you don't hire them because they are black (and race is unimportant for the job in question) that is unnecessary discrimination.
Current marriage laws are discriminatory, as you admit. The question is whether it is necessary or unnecessary discrimination. that is a question of the social consequences. If its necessary to only have heterosexual marriages in order to avoid a total collapse of civilization, then it is a legitimate discrimination. If discriminating against homosexuals isn't done to protect against a social collapse, then its unnecessary discrimination. Frankly, if a person believes that discriminating against homosexuals is necessary to prevent the collapse of society, they are insane. Discrimination in the definition of marriage is not based on a social necessity, but rather on bigotry and intolerant attitudes.
Comparing the discrimination one does in choosing a marriage partner with discrimination by the government is just silly. Its like saying that because you personally don't find blondes attractive (and discriminate against them in romance), thats equivalent with a legal discrimination against blondes, making them unable to marry at all. Not all discrimination is equal.
And if "marriage" is based on biological differences, then why is polygamy outlawed? "Marriage" is based on the christian tradition of heterosexual monogamy that this country inherited. Its only a cultural norm, no different than the marriage norms of other cultures.
2006-10-06 00:38:52 · answer #4 · answered by student_of_life 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That's a good one. LAUGH
So marriage is based solely on biological discrimination? That is the most absurd excuse I have ever heard! Whatever happen to in sickness and in health and til death do them apart? Should people be discouraged form making commitments and taking responsibilities?
In modern society, a marriage is to certify a legally binding monogamy as well as financial unity.
I wonder why some are so dishonest in disguising their homophobic reason for opposing same sex marriage. Is it because they were told not to judge others and they could not follow that instruction?
2006-10-06 01:25:21 · answer #5 · answered by : ) 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, the definition of marriage is based on people declaring their love for each other, and forming an agreement to be faithful to each other. There is nothing to say that marriage need be limited to people of the same age, race, religion, or of different gender.
But tell me: are you also against interracial marriage? Because I can't help but notice, that the same arguments used today against gay marriage are almost exactly the same ones used just a few decades ago against interracial marriage:
* it's an abomination against god
* the bible forbids it
* it's filthy and unnatural (translation: "It really grosses me out!")
* it will lead to pedophilia and bestiality
* it is the result of depraved morality
* it will be the moral and biological downfall of mankind
As I see it, those who wish to restrict whom others can marry are simply engaging in blatant tyranny. How two consenting adults want to live their lives is nobody's business except theirs.
2006-10-06 01:06:04 · answer #6 · answered by R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The definition of marriage does not discriminate--depending on how you read the definition and perceive the definition.
Anyway "definition" is an inanimate noun and is incapable of discriminating. Definitions don't discriminate, people discriminate.
Quit worrying about what other people do to get off--perve.
2006-10-06 00:26:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Which definition? Religious ones always discriminate. Legally marriage is a contract that exsists between a man and a woman, a quid pro quo arrangement.
2006-10-06 00:48:48 · answer #8 · answered by Sophist 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Sure, if you want to be gay then that's up to you, but you don't have to be married. Marriage is between a man and a woman--that's it. No one is saying that you can't be with who you want, just that you cannot marry them and there is nothing wrong with that. It's no different than the fact that one could date 10 people at the same time, but it is not legal to be married to 10 people at the same time.
2006-10-06 01:37:28 · answer #9 · answered by Gonzo 1 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Your "logic" is not logical. Try again.
Why would a homosexual man want to marry a woman? By defination he likes other men. I could go on, but it is just not worth it.
l
2006-10-06 01:01:56 · answer #10 · answered by lcmcpa 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋