So I take it its ok to have black people using different restroom from white people, but not ok to not allow interacial marriage?


Is it "trivial" to say that black people and white people can't use the same waterfountain?

How you jumped to that conclusion from what I wrote I don't think I will ever understand. You have a very illogical way of thinking. I think in a fashion that I find hard to communicate sometimes, but what the hell are you talking about?

Unisex bathrooms suddenly becomes black/white segregation? My god, talk about a straw man fallacy!

You said that comparing the legal concepts of gay marriage and seperated bathrooms was somehow mocking the situation. I explained that the legal concepts behind them are similar, and you said that important things don't have the same "cut and dry" legal concepts.

I used hyperboly to show you that a "bathroom" is not void of the same legal concepts as "bigger" issues, and infact those small "minor issues" can become larger than life for certain groups of people.

But why do I even bother to try to explain my self when you work so hard to missunderstand me?

Did I? Go back and reread it. I said in one post that comparing gay marriage to separate bathrooms was mocking. In that post, I mentioned nothing about legal or non legal concepts.

When you brought up the issue of comparing legal concepts, I refuted that argument in and of itself, not pertaining to any individual issue.



The legal concepts behind male/female bathrooms relate more to privacy and issues of possibilities sexual abuse, I would assume, not what constitutes a valid marriage.



I understand that a bathroom and the separation of sexes within them can be an issue for some people, I did not rufute that. I did, however, refute a connection between bathrooms and marriage.



If you argued correctly and did not make false correlations people would not missunderstand you so much.

Hmm, ok maybe your just not getting it.

Supposedly, you can not "segregate" based on Race,Gender, or sexual orientation.

HOwever this is clearly not true, as Men and Women are segregated in the simple issues of using a Restroom or Dorming facilities on a public campus.

Bringing up the issue of "privacy" doesn't really mean much. Why? Because "privacy" is not a valid reason if you were segregating between races. What is it about the difference between a man and a woman that you are allowed to segregate on some "privacy" mattter. A third catagory of person clearly exists, and yet the law only mandates that you have restrooms for Men or Woman, they do not mandate any other group. So to, in the laws of Marriage they mandate that you must have one man and one woman.

So why can you segregate a man and woman in this case, yet not allow them to be recognized as seperate entities in the case of marriage?

So then your only argument against same-sex marriage is the change itself.

As has been clearly demonstrated in other countries, the laws can adapt to include same-sex partnerships rather than exclude them without any negative effects. It does not mean incest or polygamy or paedophilia is suddenly and automatically accepted. Those are separate issues that can be debated individually.

Marriage itself is not being 'redefined' any more than it has been over the many centuries for which it has existed. Laws are altered all the time, and the sky doesn't fall down upon us.

Don't be too concerned about change, it is quite natural.

Why ARN'T those other forms of marriages accepted? They better SHOULD be accepted.

I get it, you are just not considering all the issues involved. Restrooms and dorms are not split into sexes for the fun of it, there are, some people believe, valid legal and safety issues regarding there separation. Anti-discrimination laws are superceded by certain other laws, but that is handled on a case by case basis. I argue that making homosexual marriage illegal is not a valid succession of anti-discrimination laws. I have not heard a good reason (relating to health, safety, well-being or public interest) to convince me otherwise.



This is where your logic falls apart. You make a jump from the valid argument against male/female bathrooms to male/female marriage. I don't see a valid connection and your points, in my opinion, don't make a very strong argument for one.



They are being separated for different reasons, that is why. If men and women were not using the same bathrooms because they can't procreate (just grabbing a random reason used to argue against homosexual marriage) then your leap in logic would not be so outrageous, in my opinion.

I don't know what others think, but that is how I see your argument. I have to leave it here though because I am at work and not getting anything done arguing the correct processes of critical thought.

Maybe, but that has NOTHING to do with same-sex marriage.

It doesn't alter the fact that your only argument against the concept is that laws have to be changed.

I have yet to hear a valid argument for why the state cares about marriage. (relating to health, safety, well-being or public interest)


All I'm saying is that you either pick ONE type of marriage, or you pick ALL types of marriage. Or you get rid of marriage all together. Saying Yes to one but No to another is just descrimination.

Who cares why the state recognises marriage?

You're presenting what is known as a false dilemma.

For instance, your same argument applies to interracial marriages. Either marriage is only between a male and female of the same race, or you have to say marriage is open to everyone who says they want to marry something. If you grant interracial marriages, then you have to accept ALL types of marriage. Right?

Of course not. You can include one type of marriage without including others.

Thus, you have no logical opposition to including one interpretation of marriage, you just don't want every possible crazy interpretation allowed. Guess what, none of us do! And we don't have to either. One change doesn't mean every possible change has to follow. It's not that slippery a slope.

Huh? Who cares why the state recognizes marriage? And yet you want an argument as to why it won't recognize some of them?

I am very much against changing the meaning of things for the sole purpose of making one group of people "feel better." It happens enough in other areas, with people constantly rewriting history, and you can't even know whats true or not anymore. (WMD issue for example)

The issues of equality are obviously not the real issue, because otherwise you would be perfectly willing to accept equality for ALL people, not just the ones you happen to like.

Its reacuring theme of changing what everything is so that you don't know what or why people do anything. This is the same reason why communist countries want to outlaw god. Any sense of a strong opinion is thrown aside and only those who are the self proclaimed "enlightened" ones are allowed to make decisions for the rest of society. And I feel bad for anybody who can't see history repeating itself.

We live in a world where "fake news" and "fiction" is given more weight and respect than reality, and this type of issue just makes it worse. Why does it make it worse? Because History and Tradition is given the label of "baseless faith" and logic gives way to emotionalism.

If you don't even know why marriage as an instution exists, then how can you claim to say that something will or will not harm that purpose?


Take it or leave it, but I'm not going to comment here anymore. Because I'm sure you won't even understand what I just wrote and are going to twist it with silly questions that serve no purpose.

We could endlessly debate why the state initially recognised the sacrament of marriage, why it does so now, and what purposes that serves... but what would it prove?

I will repeat, your only argument against same-sex marriage is that you don't want laws to change.

You argue that something shouldn't be changed just to appease one minority group, much like those that argued against slavery, apartheid and suffrage.

That's fine, but don't pretend that you are merely doing so for the sake of equality or rationality.

Edit:
And I think we can all see quite conclusively that your unwillingness to continue this discussion is because your arguments were revealed for what they are.

I finally understood Daganev. He wants to be able to sleep in girls dorms and go to the female restrooms because usually they're more clean, and smell better, and in teh case of dorms there's no alien life in the fridge usually.

Well, Daga, sorry that laws discriminate you, if you push a political move to grant you those rights, same as gay people have been publically fighting and trying to defend their rights, I'll consider lending you my support.

I must say, though, that I find unsettling that you would be interested in the aproval of a law to marry deceased people, as taht could be quite shocking for society in general. Maybe you should first start by asking to be allowed to share your dorm with a dead person.

Ironically, I saw an episode of CSI last night that I felt would not have been possible if you were allowed to marry a dead person.

So what happens is this guy is engaged to a woman, and his ex-wife doesn't like her, and she doesn't want her to get have access to his money. So the ex-wife kills the man.

If this guy's fiance's entire finacial situation was based on being with him, then she just got royaly screwed, Both because she lost the man she loved AND because now she has no recourse to getting the means with which to support herself. If she was allowed to get married to the man, even though he was killed it A: would have solved problems in case of his death and B: might have even prevented the first woman from killing the man. Clearly the act of engagement to the woman was enough sign that he wished to marry her. Just as some statement you say 10 years ago can be used to decide medical treatment when your not able to acvitly say yes or no.

Jus thought it was an interesting and modern way of using that concept.

And then, if the guy was so in love he wanted all his money to go to his fiancee, he just could have written some legal papers (I think it's called a will) in front of a lawyer saying that all his money was going to go to her when he was dead. That would indeed be the same cause as euthanasia being based on what you said in front of a lawyer 10 years ago (and not in what your family says you said).

What prevents me to say my bf who is now dead (Hypotetical case) was engaged with me and my family supporting that? Do you sign any paper to say you're engaged? I am sure here they don't. The only clue you have is a happy couple inviting you to a wedding in a year advance, that might as well be cancelled due to modern couples loving to split up.