Malchik Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 Firstly, don't confuse equality with homogeneity. Of course you can't have a homogeneous society. Equality is not what people are but how they are treated. Equality of treatment may have been what the US was once about (an arguable assertion). Whether you agree with that or not it is undoubtedly clear that it is getting increasingly parochial and narrow. The so called 'rights' are being eroded. But anyone who has seen my posts on the subject before knows that I don't agree that there are such things as general 'rights'. Legal rights can be changed (or ignored) as we are seeing in the US, so they could not have been rights in the first place. Moral rights are often very personal and conflicting views and cannot be 'rights' because they are not generally accepted by all members of society. As for the US letting people in from all over the world I'll think you'll find there are some pretty big area where they don't let people in from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indoril Nerevar Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 Therefore the US contradicts itself in providing a safe haven for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchik Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 If I understand your post - you are correct in saying that the US does not automatically grant a right of access to all. Whether this is a contradiction with its stated intentions I don't know. I'd have to study the US constitution in more depth to be sure of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indoril Nerevar Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 i'm not sure it is in the consitiution. it's probably a foriegn relations treaty or something like that. Darn this government is confusing. i think the made it confusing so that we commoners can't do anything about it. I'm not sure even our politicians know what exactly their job is and how to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThetaOrionis01 Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 A politician's job is to get elected - and it would seem that 'anything goes' in the US election process. Even promoting discrimination against homosexuals to get a few more votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indoril Nerevar Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 Again, they don't really have a job. All they do is just get a popularity vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 What concession? It would be wise to cease trolling. I think he was saying he had read my point and now understood and agreed. Don't think is was malicious. Oh, it definitely was. He's mocking my "concession accepted" posts I've made when he's failed to provide anything resembling an intelligent reply, and saying that you're conceding to him. If they can't accept that they're homosexual and people are going to call them homosexual then perhaps they should rethink their existence, or atleast their choices. I see no problem with providing homosexuals with a matrimony that is not the same as a man/woman's matrimony. I don't think they should either as long as they gain the same rights. Separate but equal was rejected long ago. Giving them "marriage" with a different name is still discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark0ne Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 Separate but equal was rejected long ago. Giving them "marriage" with a different name is still discrimination. Discrimination would suggest it is unfair, it's not. They ARE different, just like a white person is different to a black person and vice-versa. If they get the same rights then there is no discrimation...maybe discernment, but not discrimination. EDIT: Lets also not forget that there are already two types of marriage...a Christian marriage and a state marriage. Pastors, reverends etc. are allowed to deny couples from getting married in their church if they so wish if they don't believe the couple are Christian (and there are non-christian couples who want to get married in a church) -- is this discrimination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 In case you don't remember your history very well, "separate but equal" was rejected in the case of separate schools for black and white kids. Separating them makes it inherently unequal, because the mere fact that there is separation makes one a lesser form of the other. It doesn't matter if you can claim some kind of difference, it's still discrimination. By your standard, that discrimination would have been perfectly acceptable. After all, they have different skin colors, so there's no problem in treating them differently. And they aren't given the same rights. Marriage has a significant amount of prestige and good image that goes along with it. Your proposed new kind of marriage would not have this, and would be unequal. EDIT: Lets also not forget that there are already two types of marriage...a Christian marriage and a state marriage. Pastors, reverends etc. are allowed to deny couples from getting married in their church if they so wish if they don't believe the couple are Christian (and there are non-christian couples who want to get married in a church) -- is this discrimination? No, because last time I checked, churches were private organizations, not the government. But the government has to operate by different standards, including much stricter limits on discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark0ne Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 And they aren't given the same rights. Marriage has a significant amount of prestige and good image that goes along with it. Your proposed new kind of marriage would not have this, and would be unequal. Makes sense. Gay marriage under a different name would be tarnished and have no prestige or good image. So instead we'll just bung them altogether and tarnish the name of marriage in general. Are you then not discriminating against the people who got married previously as 'straight'? Either way we look at it it will affect one side, it's a lose-lose situation. Do we not then play the Democratic Utilitarian role of saying "Greatest number for the greatest good"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.