Re: Supreme Court takes two gay marriage cases...
posted at 12/12/2012 4:10 PM EST
In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
"My biology comment was clearly tied to the gender of the person"
Which means absolutely zero, for the reason I gave:
Biology also determines skin color. If "biology" provided a justification to discriminate against people, then it would provide a reason to discriminate against black people.
Do you think the government should discriminate against black people?
(This really isn't hard. You just have to come to grips with the fact that you are insisting that there is zero harm or discrimination in sending gay people to a different water fountain).
"My only issue with marriage equality is that I'm a traditionalist"
"Tradition" is a poor veil for bigotry. The "tradition" you so lovingly cling to was born from judeo-christian doctrine written in times when women were property and gay people were to be tortured to death.
"So what about equal opportunity for women in sport, your position actually seems to support a position that based on physical differences women should not be fire fighters, police officers nor hold any other traditional occupation that requires physical strength."
If you want to smear me you might pretend that. I'm not sure how you would honestly draw that conclusion, seeing as I said repeatedly that if women can meet the same physical standards as men, they should be able to take combat roles in the army.
You know I was referring to gender. Even though I grew up in a Mass town that was 99% white, I hold no prejudices towards others. When I moved to the south in the 70's I was shocked by so many oldtimers prejudices against blacks. My neighbors at the first home I owned were a great black family. Being an engineer I've worked with engineers of all races; it gets a little dicey at times when a Pakastani and Indian are in the room at the same time but we all think like engineers; logic trumps feelings.
Your water bubbler scenario is just that a fabricated scenario. Equal access to bubblers and everyplace else is the law of the land.
Jeudeo-christain doctrine is what gave the world humanity and democracy. Yeah acceptance of those that were different took awhile; the world is a work in progress. That still doesn't mean I need to change the definition of marriage but I sure want to provide committed same gender couples the benefits of marriage, because after all the fight is about equal rights isn't it?
As you said, "There is no rational basis for denying them the same right as anyone else." This is just about rights isn't it, or does success requiring upending the traditional definition of mariage. Should we change the marriage application for to be traditional marriage and nontraditional marriage? If the bigotted and evil Jeudeo-christain doctrine gave us the definition of marriage why would those that feel wronged by it want it? I'm 100% for equal rights.
You went into your abstract discussion on sports all on your own I was just drawing a corallary to your position as stated.