hypocrisy of the gay movement

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
[b]what you call second order discrimination and to which i agree it exists i call more "i feel unhappy for not getting what i want".
You are Humpty Dumpty, and I claim my £5 🙂

a gay man wants to marry a gay man, someone he loves. he see another man marrying a woman. he feels discriminated. but wait. there ...[text shortened]... a Monty Python quote:
'Blackmail is such an ugly word, let's use "fish-paste" instead.'

your criticisms deal with the "intent" behind laws. which is irrelevant. a law is a law. if it applies the same to everyone it is not discrimination. even if some will not like it. which is obvious. that is what laws are for, to regulate those that want to do something that society doesn't agree.

i thought i adressed those criticisms in beer for spongebob example. you didn't like that. i agreed to your "second degree discrimination" because it exists, i didn't agree it is relevant to our discussion.

but yes, let us agree we have different views on discrimination and that gay marriage should be made legal, no matter for what reason.

this discussion really is going nowhere.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
your criticisms deal with the "intent" behind laws. which is irrelevant. a law is a law. if it applies the same to everyone it is not discrimination. even if some will not like it. which is obvious. that is what laws are for, to regulate those that want to do something that society doesn't agree.

i thought i adressed those criticisms in beer for spongebo ...[text shortened]... egree discrimination" because it exists, i didn't agree it is relevant to our discussion.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
your criticisms deal with the "intent" behind laws. which is irrelevant.
No they deal with the differential effects on groups and the moral justification for that, which is directly relevant.

a law is a law.
What was that you said about 'mr obvious'? 🙂

if it applies the same to everyone it is not discrimination. even if some will not like it. which is obvious.
The marriage law doesn't apply the same to everyone, heterosexuals are able to marry who they fall in love with, gay people aren't. Which is obvious.

that is what laws are for, to regulate those that want to do something that society doesn't agree.
Ok ok you can have the 'mr obvious' award for this thread you can stop now...

i thought i adressed those criticisms in beer for spongebob example.
And in turn I pointed out why the beer for spongebob example doesn't address them.

i agreed to your "second degree discrimination" because it exists, i didn't agree it is relevant to our discussion.
Fair enough.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
but yes, let us agree we have different views on discrimination and that gay marriage should be made legal, no matter for what reason.

this discussion really is going nowhere.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
maybe one should choose a country that doesn't allow gay marriage, dig up that law and post it here.

if the law sounds a little like "we don't allow gays to marry because we think they are an abomination" then it is discriminatory.

if the law doesn't mention gays and simply says "marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman" it is not disc ...[text shortened]... to marry a 10 year old. the fact that the latter is gross and wrong is irrelevant.

A law can be discriminatory without specifically mentioning gays. It clearly has the same effect and it is the effect that matters.

Originally posted by quackquack
A law can be discriminatory without specifically mentioning gays. It clearly has the same effect and it is the effect that matters.

not gonna go over the same arguments again.
please refer to the spongebob for beer example.