Everyone under the Constitution has the same rights. We are all created equal. People have used individual governments to oppress each other. You can use your argument to defend Jim Crow and chattel slavery, which is how you know its not good.

How is homosexuality an unequal situation in an America that isn't hurting for babies? Because that's the one functional difference.

Gay couples have kids all the time though, through either surrogacy, adoption, fostering, or children from previous relationships/marriages.

Interestingly enough, prior to the Supreme Court's decision, many states prohibited unmarried people from adopting. So we had gay couples who wanted to have a family and to adopt, but with no marriage equality it was impossible.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Oct 12 2019 12:24pm

Because you're personally anti-gay. It's pretty simple, and okay.

for example?

the only 'unequal' aspect that supports your 'it's not discrimination because the situations are unequal' talking point is that homosexual couples can't naturally procreate. as i mentioned earlier, neither can infertile people, women after menopause, people who use birth control... so they should also not be 'promoted and protected'?

It is intolerant to not accept it because your position is itself a redefinition. You arent taking every aspect of biblical marriage and applying it, you are cherry picking the man+woman part and ignoring other aspects that are incompatible eith what you've been raised to believe marriage is.

Most people read Scripture and interpret it through the institutions they were raised in, not the institutions as they existed as described in Scripture. And your stance on marriage is a perfect example. A biblical marriage is a property exchange absent of courtship and independent of affection, possibly between siblings or cousins, and possibly with multiple wives if the husband can afford it, and between men and women, etc. But since you were raised in modern america the only one of those things you value is the man + woman part. You arent getting your panties in a twist over marriage being redefined as requiring consent of the woman, not including a dowry, banning it between cousins, etc. Your position is a redefinition of marriage, but you dont see it that way because youve been raised to see it as it currently exists, sans same sex couples.

By your definition discrimination doesnt exist because no situation is truly equal. Slavery of blacks isnt discrimination because them being black is unequal to their white counterparts. Not allowing women to vote isnt discrimination because women and men arent equal. And yes, your examples are discrimination, but they are discrimination based on things that arent arbitrary, but what is arbitrary is a matter of opinion and in every other case you would agree that the sex of an individual is imrtant to whether or not the discrimination is meaningful.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 12 2019 02:53pm

Lol, 9th grade Bible understanding on display again. The Bible besides being a religious book is also a historical and cultural book and reporting on how 3000 years ago marriages happened in Jewish or neighboring societies doesn't mean it's endorsed.



What you derived as the 'logical implication' of his point is nonsense and doesn't follow. X does not equal Y, therefore don't expect Y to cause Z just because X causes Z. This is logic and that's what he's saying, not the dumb shit you wasted time typing.

Damn, I was really considering an "Inb4 void posts something stupid and reflexive" but decided against it. I see now to never underestimate your capacity for idiocy.

What the fuck dude, did you read the part where I literally wrote "equal or functionally similar"?

Of course if one takes out a key aspect of my definition of discrimination, like you just did, then it can, based on this false premise, be mischaracterized as unworkable or illogical or leading to unacceptable consequences.





Nonsense. There's a difference between "civil rights" and "human rights", to name just one simple counterexample.




Bullshit. My definition of discrimination cannot be used to defend Jim Crow since there is no fundamental difference between blacks and whites that could justify such a vastly unequal treatment.




I never said it's a particularly good or convincing point, just that it's a valid one. Also note that the "promoted and protected"-part should be read as "promoted and protected beyond what society already does for any kind of family".