Upholding Traditional Marriage is Not “Discrimination”
Discrimination occurs when someone is unjustly denied some benefit or opportunity. But it must first be demonstrated that such persons deserve to be treated equally. For example, FAA and airline regulations rightly discriminate regarding who is allowed into the cockpit of an airline. Those who are not trained pilots have no rightful claim to “discrimination” because they are not allowed to fly an airplane. On the other hand, discrimination would occur if properly credentialed pilots are refused hiring simply because of the color of their skin. In this case such individuals have been denied employment simply because of their race. When gay activists and their supporters cry “discrimination” they conveniently avoid the question of whether homosexual relationships merit being granted equality with marriage. Yet this question deserves our close examination, for the danger posed to our society by redefining marriage is no less than permitting unqualified individuals to fly airplanes.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
What you get when you have c is a unqualified person doing the job that another well qualified person should be doing. A really clear example of Affirmative Action is Barack Hussein Obama. He is a do nothing politician, a street thug from Chicago his list of accomplishments is all but non existent. He is good at getting himself elected and that's about it. He served 143 days as a U.S. Jr. Senator, a position bought and paid for by the DNC, again he was just a place holder, do nothing, he never called his committee into session. His books spell it out, he hates American and especially white Americans , he is nothing but a hateful man who is educated far beyond his intellect and abilities. Obozo should apologize to the American people for being a flat out liar, a fraud and a liar. This man has one of the most corrupt administrations in recent history. He is a Mulatto, and as much a white man as he is a black, again he lies and hides the truth. I damn him to himself. testking | ccie | ccna | ccnp | ccvp | ccna wireless | ccda | ccna voice | ccip |
The argument that taking marriage rights from gays is "upholding traditional marriage" is extremely hypocritical. Traditional marriage, in reference to biblical times, consisted of one man, usually middle-aged, and as many young, teenage girls as the man could procreate with. Since these times, marriage has evolved to a more moral, romantic state between only two people. Arguing that gay marriage is not "traditional" goes against the basic concept of marriage, which has been changing since the dawn of time.
First of all, Plessy vs. Ferguson ruled in favor of the superior white people of America long before the Civil Rights Movement, am I correct? They said segregation was legal , until it went too far as to go beyond the phrase, "seperate but equal". Re-read the last part of that phrase... but equal. Is limiting the rights of the American people treating them equally? No. It's not. The color of your skin, your race , your appearance, your religious beliefs, your sexuality, your personal morals are all just things that people are going to judge you on. Denying people the opportunities due to these traits is not treating them equally, therefore you are illegally segregating them, which you could be fined for.
Therefore, it is discrimination . Denying someone the right to marry whomever they would like, regardless of their gender, is discrimination because you are denying them an equal opportunity to marry another homosexual; which is hypocritical because a heterosexual couple is legally able to marry someone else.
Again, it is disctimination.
Please re-read your argument and listen to how stupid you sound.
This is a poor argument since it presumes that traditional marriage would not be upheld and that there are no obvious instances of discrimination. First of all, the value of traditional marriage is in no way reduced by extending this right to other parties. Second of all, people who are not married face a myriad of issues which their married counterparts do not face such as access to one's partner when in hospital, access to healthcare, insurance, and more. While more and more companies are adapting their policies, it requires an act by government to extend the same rights across all, and the only reasonable approach is to recognize same sex marriages as no different from 'traditional marriages".
Certainly the argument that it somehow trivializes 'traditional marriage' would be a flawed one, the argument that same sex relationships face no discrimination is easily laid to rest by pointing to some self evident facts to the contrary.
And so far I have failed to hear any good reason why marriage for same sex couples should be kept illegal?
"when gay activists and their supporters cry “discrimination” they conveniently avoid the question of whether homosexual relationships merit being granted equality with marriage."
yet with this statement you create a circular argument: they cannot be married, therefore there is no way in which to evaluate fairly the question of whether homosexual relationships merit being granted equality. which of course would be necessary in order for them to be married. ad nauseum, ad infinitum, yes?