Prohibition of Gay Marriage is Sexist

What if I think Tom Cruise is well fit and I want to marry him. I can't.. Why not? Because I'm a guy. If I were a girl, I would be able to.

If one gender is allowed to do something that another gender is not, then this is textbook sexism.

While the issue affects homosexual couples, it's a matter of institutionalized sexism.

In other words they aren't saying, "you can't get married because you're gay,".. Sexual orientation doesn't appear on any forms as marriage criteria. Not at all. They are saying "you can't get married because of your genders".

Although for all practical purposes, it is the gay people that wind up suffering from the discrimination so for all intents and purposes it is still a gay rights issue; I'm just pointlessly quibbling about a technicality.

 

you can jointly sign contracts, sleep together and anything else you want

where is the "damage" ?

 

Another desparate, faulty argument. Both men AND women can get married. In fact, without gay marriage, an equal number of men and women would be married. Gay marriage introduces a numerical disparity which previously was impossible. But no one is saying "you can't get married because you are a man/woman". They are just saying, "hey dumbass, you're doing it wrong". Yin and Yang, homos. It's the balance of the universe.

 

But gays have to marry smeone they are not sexually attracted to to get that right.

If you fall in love with someone, but the government says you are not allowed to marry them and have to marry someone else, that is a gross overstepping of government authority.

 

I don't need the govt to bless who I sleep with

 

I think everyone should have the right to marry their life long partner, we have thousands of legal same sex marriages in this country and as we can see, it has not been the issue some claimed it would be

 

unless you want to be able to visit your loved one on their deathbed... ect...

 

you can visit all that you want

next fallacy

 

http://www.experienceproject.com/gr...nied-Access-To-Dying-Partners-Death-Bed/11982

not when you have a homophobes denying you access, you need the law on your side to override the idiots

 

My life partner was just layed off, and does not have any health coverage. I can not cover here under my policy at my job, because it is not allowed there. We are scrambling to pay for her blood pressure medicine and her potassium. Fair???

 

My life partner was just layed off, and does not have any health coverage. I can not cover her under my policy at my job, because it is not allowed there. We are scrambling to pay for her blood pressure medicine and her potassium. Fair???

 

I don't think most 'homophobes' will see that as a problem or unfair at all.

 

They have no compassion. Her partner should be covered, the only reason she isn't is because she happens to be the 'wrong' sex.

 

Exactly!!

 

Where's the "damage"? Exactly.. It's nowhere in my post. That's just you making a misquote. I've not argued about any "damage". Try again.

Although in reading the rest of the thread real damage has been pointed out so I wouldn't disagree with someone claiming damage.

 

Also a misquote. Your quotation alters the context and is not my argument and not my quotation.

Quoting people's actual words and responding to things actually said isn't that hard people.

Now, my argument was not sexism due to whether or not men and women can or cannot both get married, my argument was about WHO they are allowed to marry.

Your argument's the faulty one. It's like saying that making black people ride in the back of the bus isn't racist, because everybody's still allowed to ride the bus.

Yeah. Also it introduces women wearing a tuxedo one day, a bit of extra bookings for the banquet hall, and more crumbs of cake on the floor.. I'm failing to see the relevance and/or concern here.. Is your community being overrun by some kind of "disparity" or something? Is this somehow problematic?

It might be more profound to mention the extra instances of exploding birds it might cause.. No really I'm kidding, the birds don't really explode. It's like a little treat for them.

Just out of curiosity though. What is the disparity? Can you show the numbers? I'm guessing it's not very much if there is one at all but maybe you could share. I know it's not relevant but just for sake of knowing.

Also, I recommend research the concept and definition for sexism and what it is. Sexism may affect the numbers of people who do certain things in some cases, but it is not defined by the numbers of people who do certain things. Sexism is defined by opportunities, and a disparity between them for men and women, not disparity between numbers. Numbers can sometimes indicate sexism, like pay grade differences and such. But in that case it would be opportunity to earn that pay grade which is the deciding factor.

The only thing that would be close to sexism based on numbers would be some kind of quota system, like affirmative action for college entrance or something, but even then it's offering different chances/odds of making it in and/or higher criteria/standards/hurdles being applied which again comes back to a disparity in opportunity between men and women.

According to.... ???

Who's the official defining authority who determines the right and wrong way?

So you're trying to balance things out against all the civil and polite people in the universe?

 

btw, your sig, that was a great movie... but the idea you seem to fear is... Same sex marriage

before inter-racial marriage was legalized, some did not like the idea of blacks and white marrying either.. but both blacks and white were "allowed" to get married, just not to the one they loved if they were not the right race

"But no one is saying "you can't get married because you are a man/woman"... back then no one was saying you couldn't marry cause you were black/white either...


.

 

Agreed

we need to dump Obamacare and allow isnurance firms to cross borders/compete so if I want to buy a family plan and place my sister or brother on it I should be allowed..............next case please that has no bearing on how you have sex

 

nope

just because she sleeps with a same-sex person does not mean the problem is limited just to her. Why can't I buy a family plan and place my sister or mother on it? Whoops, I guess it's not just a problem for those engaging in gay sex now is it?

Obamacare is a shill which did nothing for actual issues which could be addressed privately if the cuffs were removed from the wrists of ins companies

 

first, your article doesn't link and anyway, lemme guess, there was no living will or power of attorney was there? We can find stories about anything if we try hard enough and it's not just about those who engage in gay relations.

again, please show me the "problem" which the gay movement claims is so big where there are not already contracts in place to cover the "issues"

or, is this just another veiled attempt at legislating thought and that all important "acceptance"

 

Explaining anything to you is an effort in futility. I taught special education for 34 years so I know when there is no way someone will ever be able to understand a concept. You are not on this thread to discuss, but just to diss. Happy trails.

 

translated- you cannot sway me to see your point of view any more than I can sway you.

other than who you sleep with, please tell me how you are any different than my wife, my daughters, our friends? You cannot. You walk the same, you bleed the same, cry the same and die the same.

But, you pontificate about being gay is somehow different than the 98.3% of the rest of the USA population. How so? If you kill me you will go to jail. If I kill you I go to jail.

Other than what we do in our bedrooms we are all the same. You are not a unique race or gender and that kind lady, is why I fight your movement. There is already way too much govt intrusion and liberals such as yourself want more. No thanks

 

that is the point, if they were married they would not need all that, being married would be enough

 

lol, this is government marriage, of course the government is involved... if it was religious marriage only, there would be no issues as many churches support gay marriage


.

 

Bingo!!!

govt needs to **** of our bedrooms. Liberals want more govt intrusion while conservatives being for equality want less and less intrusion

so, if you are gay, does it not make sense to toss in with the party of liberty vs the party of pandering and big govt?