The interracial marriage and homosexual marriage comparison

[Unrein]

This is not that complicated so by God wouldn't it be a miracle if I only had to explain this one time.

No one is comparing race to orientation. Ok? Is that understood and now that you know this you will never make this mistake again?

Race is being compared to SEX. I would use 'gender' instead but it isn't wholey accurate as 10 pointed out.

Race is not a choice, and neither is sexual/romantic attraction to someone of a different race.

Sex is not a choice, and neither is sexual/romantic attraction to someone of the same sex.

Interracial attraction is being compared to homosexual orientation, not race. Ok?

So in conclusion, saying that gays have the same, equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex as straights do is like saying blacks have the same right to marry someone of the same race as whites do. Or that blacks have the same right to drink from the water fountain labeled with their matching skin color as whites do.

 

[Wessexman]

So in conclusion, saying that gays have the same, equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex as straights do is like saying blacks have the same right to marry someone of the same race as whites do. Or that blacks have the same right to drink from the water fountain labeled with their matching skin color as whites do.

Except it is different because one is about man and women marrying whereas the other is about same sex marrying.

If you want to play the dodgy egalitarian argument and underhanded implications of support for racism then one can reply that gays do have equal rights, they can marry a member of the opposite sex.

 

[Unrein]

Except it is different because one is about man and women marrying whereas the other is about same sex marrying.

Congradulations Wessexmen you found the difference. I said that I was comparing the two not equating them, you understand what that means right?

 

[Wessexman]

Congradulations Wessexmen you found the difference. I said that I was comparing the two not equating them, you understand what that means right?

Of course you are equating them or you wouldn't bring them up.

You, or at least those who argue like you, try and bring up interracial marriage in an attempt to imply that those who against gay marriage supporters of racism as well. It is underhanded stuff, but then again accusations of racism are sadly very common among some subsections of political belief.

 

[Unrein]

Of course you are equating them or you wouldn't bring them up.

No i'am comparing them, I just told you in clear, bolded words in the post you just replyed to that I'am comparing them not equating them. :doh

You, or at least those who argue like you, try and bring up interracial marriage in an attempt to imply that those who against gay marriage supporters of racism as well.

No you are simply misinterpereting it that way. I never accused anyone of being a racist for not supporting gay marriage, I'am accusing them of double standards.

It is underhanded stuff, but then again accusations of racism are sadly very common among some subsections of political belief.

Do you need to convince yourself of this pretentious labeling garbage to maintain sanity or something? I swear it's utterly unwarrented and unrelated to anything but you insist on throwing a paragraph of glib ad hominems at the end of every post now just for safe measure (compensating for objective logic short-commings?)

 

[DarkWizard12]

Congradulations Wessexmen you found the difference. I said that I was comparing the two not equating them, you understand what that means right?

So, you can't equate an apple and an orange but you can compare an apple and an orange? :doh

What you can do, however, is not compare but contrast

 

[Wessexman]

No i'am comparing them, I just told you in clear, bolded words in the post you just replyed to that I'am comparing them not equating them. :doh:

Ah of course I have to take all words at face value, I mean reading between the lines and looking at context is of course completely off limits.

You have never studied literary theory have you?

You are equating them to the degree you are trying to score points of one towards your arguments for the other.

No you are simply misinterpereting it that way. I never accused anyone of being a racist for not supporting gay marriage, I'am accusing them of double standards.

The implication is quite clear. I actually know someone on another board who just made the leap into outright calling those against gay marriage racist. You would not bring it up otherwise, you are trying to score points out of implications of racism.

Do you need to convince yourself of this pretentious labeling garbage to maintain sanity or something? I swear it's utterly unwarrented and unrelated to anything but you insist on throwing a paragraph of glib ad hominems at the end of every post now just for safe measure (compensating for objective logic short-commings?)

**** you whinge a lot because people don't like your ideology.

Ad hominems are against the person not an ideology. If you are going to whine at least be accurate.:roll:

Liberalism is known for making accusations of racism generously. Ask any conservative or here.

Hot Air Blog Archive Krauthammer: Racism “last refuge of the liberal scoundrel”

 

[Unrein]

So, you can't equate an apple and an orange but you can compare an apple and an orange? :doh

Yes....is there something illogical about that???

What you can do, however, is not compare but contrast

I'am not contrasting; if I were contrasting my goal would be to find the differences between the two idea but it isn't my goal is to find the similarities, I'am comparing them.

 

[Unrein]

I actually know someone on another board who just made the leap into outright calling those against gay marriage racist. You would not bring it up otherwise, you are trying to score points out of implications of racism.

Liberalism is known for making accusations of racism generously. Ask any conservative or here.

I think I just figured it out. I'am being trolled it makes so much sense now. You are probably laughing it up right now think "Wow Unrein thinks I'am actually being serious", but it's just a practical joke, I'am being punked.

Ah...well played sir you got me good. No one with a considerable vocabulary range like yourself could possibly be that dense...

 

[Wessexman]

:lol:

If you want to get out of arguing that way, then please do.

Man your posts need to be less whining.:2wave:

 

[Wessexman]

I'am not contrasting; if I were contrasting my goal would be to find the differences between the two idea but it isn't my goal is to find the similarities, I'am comparing them.

Obviously you are equating them to some degree or you wouldn't be able to make any points from them like if you compared gay marriage to door hinges.

 

[Unrein]

Obviously you are equating them to some degree or you wouldn't be able to make any points from them like if you compared gay marriage to door hinges.

There is no such thing as "equating to some degree", equations are complete; I am however comparing them to a large degree.

Now, how about instead of beating around the topic you adress the comparison itself? Would that be too much to ask for?

 

[Wessexman]

There is no such thing as "equating to some degree", equations are complete; I am however comparing them to a large degree.

Now, how about instead of beating around the topic you adress the comparison itself? Would that be too much to ask for?

Now you are just playing semantics. No one is suggesting that you are saying gay marriage actually means interracial marriage but you are equating them to the degree that you are drawing similarities from them, this is an acceptable, vernacular usage of equating.

Really you are bitching about nothing, choose the word you prefer, it changes little.

 

[jallman]

So, you can't equate an apple and an orange but you can compare an apple and an orange? :doh

What you can do, however, is not compare but contrast

I am quite capable of comparing an apple and an orange.

Apples have seeds. Oranges also have seeds.
Apples are round and have a skin. Oranges are round and have a skin.
Apples grow on trees. Oranges grow on trees.
Apples have a core. Oranges have a core.
Apples have a stem. Oranges have a stem.

Gays cannot help who they are attracted to. Interracial couples cannot help who they are attracted to.
Gays cannot marry because of the moral disapproval of bigots. Interracial couples could not marry because of the moral disapproval of bigots.
Gays deserve the same rights to be with the person they love as straight single race couples. Interracial couples deserve the same rights to be with the person they love as straight single race couples.

See how that works?

 

[Bonnie1988]

Desire doesn't make a right.

Interracial marriage and gay marriage aren't the same questions at all. Interracial marriage is specifically on the topic of racism. Gay marriage is specifically not.

Gay marriage is about two of the same gender wanting to be declared identical to a marriage of two of opposite gender. It is a demand for equal definition with an inherent dissimilarity. Gays should go pick their own union word rather than try to legally force others to change their vocabulary to suit them.

Besides, why should I care? I may desire an interracial marriage. I won't desire a gay marriage. So what's it to me?

 

[DarkWizard12]

I am quite capable of comparing an apple and an orange.

Apples have seeds. Oranges also have seeds.
Apples are round and have a skin. Oranges are round and have a skin.
Apples grow on trees. Oranges grow on trees.
Apples have a core. Oranges have a core.
Apples have a stem. Oranges have a stem.

Gays cannot help who they are attracted to. Interracial couples cannot help who they are attracted to.
Gays cannot marry because of the moral disapproval of bigots. Interracial couples could not marry because of the moral disapproval of bigots.
Gays deserve the same rights to be with the person they love as straight single race couples. Interracial couples deserve the same rights to be with the person they love as straight single race couples.

See how that works?

Thats not comparing, tats contrasting

 

[jallman]

Thats not comparing, tats contrasting

Uh, no. I think you need to pull out a dictionary and look up the meanings of compare and contrast.

See...comparing pulls together similarities. Contrasting pulls together differences. I used nothing more than similarities. Try again?

 

[Monk-Eye]

Rep Petition

"Rep Petition"

To restate the issue ad-nauseum, civil unions are generally termed marriages; two or more individuals may form a civil union which is a marriage.

Even corporations, represented as individuals, can construct a civil contract which is termed a marriage.

The formation of civil contracts is a negative right, a first generation right, a deontological application of libertarianism seeking to establish individualism, and may be equally protected.

Therefore by the public-state contract, the government is obligated to abstain from prohibiting the formation of civil contracts, civil unions, aka marriages.

The state does not disallow the formation of civil contracts (civil unions), which are marriages, and the state has not made marriage in any form of legitimate civil contract illegal.


The public-state contract also allows the formation of civil contracts between the state and the public, termed positive rights, which establishes positive obligations for both the state and the public.

Positive rights are second or third generation right, a consequentialism application of authoritarianism to establish collectivism, which may not be equally endowed.

A petition for positive rights benefits is conducted via a registration process.

Further, a public-state contract for positive rights may discriminate as to which civil contracts, civil unions, aka marriages it wishes to form positive obligations with, and that discrimination may include race, gender, creed, income, literally anything.

 

[Thorgasm]

I am quite capable of comparing an apple and an orange.

Apples have seeds. Oranges also have seeds.
Apples are round and have a skin. Oranges are round and have a skin.
Apples grow on trees. Oranges grow on trees.
Apples have a core. Oranges have a core.
Apples have a stem. Oranges have a stem.

Gays cannot help who they are attracted to. Interracial couples cannot help who they are attracted to.
Gays cannot marry because of the moral disapproval of bigots. Interracial couples could not marry because of the moral disapproval of bigots.
Gays deserve the same rights to be with the person they love as straight single race couples. Interracial couples deserve the same rights to be with the person they love as straight single race couples.

See how that works?

I agree.

But I will not stand for interracial gay marriage! :2razz:

(I also don't eat apple-orange hybrids)

 

[Thorgasm]

Desire doesn't make a right.

Interracial marriage and gay marriage aren't the same questions at all. Interracial marriage is specifically on the topic of racism. Gay marriage is specifically not.

Gay marriage is about two of the same gender wanting to be declared identical to a marriage of two of opposite gender. It is a demand for equal definition with an inherent dissimilarity. Gays should go pick their own union word rather than try to legally force others to change their vocabulary to suit them.

Besides, why should I care? I may desire an interracial marriage. I won't desire a gay marriage. So what's it to me?

Seperate but equal, huh?

 

[Unrein]

Now you are just...

Yup, it was too much to ask for I knew it would be.

 

[Jerry]

This is not that complicated so by God wouldn't it be a miracle if I only had to explain this one time.

No one is comparing race to orientation. Ok? Is that understood and now that you know this you will never make this mistake again?

They stopped calling it "GAY-marriage"?

Race is being compared to SEX. I would use 'gender' instead but it isn't wholey accurate as 10 pointed out.

Ohhh ok...well, in that case, please link to groups who support the sex equivalent of white-supremacy and racial purity.

Race is not a choice, and neither is sexual/romantic attraction to someone of a different race.

Sexual attraction = sexual orientation, please link to the racial equivalent of sexual orientation...is it something like "racial-orientation"...where we can link studies demonstrating that, say, a demographic of Mexicans are only attracted to blacks?

Sex is not a choice, and neither is sexual/romantic attraction to someone of the same sex.

You're talking about sexual orientation again...I thought you were leaving that out?

Interracial attraction is being compared to homosexual orientation, not race. Ok?

Interracial attraction is not being compared to race? You’re not making any sense here.

So in conclusion, saying that gays have the same, equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex as straights do is like saying blacks have the same right to marry someone of the same race as whites do. Or that blacks have the same right to drink from the water fountain labeled with their matching skin color as whites do.

You do know that Loving found that since backs and white were each under the same restrictions, that equality under the law was achieved, right? You do know that? Just checking :2wave:

***
So, if it's truly about sex and not orientation, where is the demographic of heterosexuals looking for a same-sex marriage?