Gay marriage and the law

quote:

---

The current definition also is not discriminatory against blacks, you're right. However, that has nothing to do with it not being discriminatory against gays as well.

---

True, but the previous versions of marriage were discriminatory. Blacks couldn't marry period. Then blacks could only marry other blacks. The simplest way to get around this is for marriage to once again become purely a religious event outside the scope of government. All marriages should be reduced to civil unions with no discrimination on homosexuals.

quote:

---

Your gender is not defined by your sexual orientation so you're just plain wrong here.

---

True it's not, but modern marriage has very little to do in practice and in legal sense with that.

quote:

---

Exactly! As marriage, as defined, is afforded to all our citizens and does not discriminate against any group, there’s no reason to change it.

---

Not true. If your spouse is from another country, the marriage tax laws are rather nasty to them. For instance, if you die, they can only get $100,000 free of taxation, where if your spouse was a citizen, they'd get up the credit, which I recall is around several million. That's pretty discriminatory. Furthermore, marriage is virtually restricted to those under the age of 18 without special considerations. They are citizens yet they virtually cannot marry. That's 26% of the citizens in 2000. And it obviously discriminates towards people who want to marry someone other then a non-related opposite sex.How can something not be discriminatory when it clearly is written to prevent, bar, or limit choices and groups from access?

quote:

---

That's all off-topic. I'm not familiar with the laws regarding non-citizens and minors anyways.

---

No it's not. You claimed that Marriage was not discriminatory for all citizens. If I marry a foreign girl, the marriage tax laws are discriminatory to me and her, giving unequal treatment opposed to two citizens. And your statement means that you do not consider minors to be citizens. That is quite legally false.Just suck it up and admit you're wrong. Marriage IS discriminatory.

quote:

---

It doesn't explicitly. Its a consequence of the definition of the word marriage.

---

Therefore you admit it does implicitly. Therefore it discriminates.
Furthermore, you act as if the definition of marriage is concrete.

quote:

---

Every group falls into the categories of man or women. No group is prevented or barred from access. Sexual orientation is independent of gender.

---

Wrong again!Minors are barred and prevented from access. Adults are not barred from entering into the pre-described, narrow definition of what American marriage, which historically has undergone at least four different revisions is. What they are barred from is entering into the broader definition of marriage.

quote:

---

But the legal definition of marriages remains indiscriminatory.

---

Seriously. I just corrected you, giving examples of a foreign spouse and minors!The legal definition of marriage along with its associated legal and tax code is very discriminatory.The legal definition of marriage gives you very few options in your choices. It restricts and limits what you can do. How is something that restricts choices indiscriminatory?

quote:

---

The societal acceptance of homosexuality which perverts the natural order of God's law.

---

But the 450+ species that freely practice homosexuality aren't perverting the natural order of God's law?

quote:

---

Again, how do you expect me to believe that you have good intentions if you are advocating what essentially is a scourge earth policy?

---

By the way, you it's scorched earth policy, not scourge, which means:1: whip; especially : one used to inflict pain or punishment2: an instrument of punishment or criticism3: a cause of wide or great afflictionOr an Zerg Unit from Starcraft.And how is it a scorched earth policy?

quote:

---

Equality in the south weren't achieved by getting rid of the public school system. It was achieved by integrating everyone into the same already existing school system.

---

So by eliminating the legal definition of marriage and replacing it with civil unions open to virtually everyone, how is that not integration of everyone?

quote:

---

If we change the legal laws that refer to marriage in any way to refer instead to humage, then everyone that enters into humage gets the benefit of humage, and there is no discrimination on who can get the benefits of humage.

---

I don't think they understand this concept of less government regulation, interference and dictation = better outcomes...