Text 9335, 84 rader
Skriven 2006-10-13 10:47:21 av Rob Perkins
Ärende: Re: My Presidential Pick for 2006
=========================================
From: Rob Perkins <rperkins@usa.net>

kruegerb76@hotmail.com wrote:
> Angelika Tobisch wrote:

>>Now, it may not always be wise to go through the judiciary, but it is
>>definitely not abuse.

That idea is actually still in dispute.

> Well put, Angelika.  And one definition at least of "discrimination"
> is:
> 
> "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or
> against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to
> which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit."
> 
> As long as there are benefits in our society to being married (and
> there are), then allowing heterosexuals to marry and not letting
> homosexuals marry is discrimination.  Period.

Yes. But you score no points for saying so.

Time, here, to point out that the law has never excluded discrimination 
or prejudice from the pallette of human behavior. Instead, it makes a 
list of factors upon which governmental agencies, employers of a certain 
size, the legislature, and courts cannot base a decision: race, 
religion, creed, color, national origin, gender, a few others.

The balance of reasons to discriminate are still quite legal. The list 
could fill several pages, but include income (for renting apartments, 
for example), credit rating (mortgages and big ticket purchases), 
physical location of residence (voting, school district)...

And, oh yeah: race, religion, creed, color, national origin, and gender. 
All of which are bases of discrimination, still, in private and 
quasi-private arenas. Some of which (for example, suits against the Boy 
Scouts) are challenged regularly.

If you wish to claim that even any of that is wrong or unfair, you'd be 
right that it's unfair. But the idea that it is wrong is still in dispute.

> I really don't get the anti-gay weirdness.

I do. Mostly because I have direct experience with anti-something 
weirdness, on the receiving end. Mostly it has to do with stuff like 
ignorance->((different OR strange) = bad). That's basic human nature, to 
mistrust what's different or strange.

Out of that, it's still possible to reach a conclusion, after removing 
the ignorance, that the different or the strange is still undesirable.

> Why should you care if a
> guy is declared the husband of another guy?  It's only a legal
> distinction that brings certain rights and responsibilities to the
> married couple.  You don't have to lift a finger, allowing this.  It's
> not hurting anyone (two consenting adults).

I suppose we'll have the State of Massachussetts for the next little 
while to prove unequivocally whether or not those ideas are actually 
true and correct.

> I can think of a lot of fights far more important right now, in our
> country.

Short-term, maybe. I think we're all quite intelligent enough to 
consider more than a few things at a time.

> But, as the member of another messageboard once said
> (paraphrasing) it seems there is a segment of the population that
> really does rally when they hear the cry "Oh, my God!  Gays are
> kissing!!"  So forget about the real problems we have, just keep
> bashing gays and I'm sure yoru God will reward you... eh, in that great
> afterlife, of course.  ;)

Strawman. A subset of people opposing gay marriage do so out of 
revulsion. Most I've met do so for very valid reasons proponents have 
never, ever addressed.

Rob


--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2
 * Origin: *READ ONLY* rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated (3:640/1010)