OneThingIKnow #fundie

OneThingIKnow #fundie thefirstgeneration.com

The issue of gay marriage isn't about discrimination of sexual orientation, nor is it directly about sex in general. When a construction manager is looking to hire a new worker, what are the chances that they are going to hire a 5' 0" stick of a woman? The chances are very slim, and it IS discrimination, but it has nothing to do with her gender. If she's not going to be able to perform the job, she's not going to get the job. That's discrimination of ability, and it is an accepted and unanimously practiced form everywhere.

The state endorses marriage because it has a stake in seeing people pair up in sexual unions. Man-Woman pairs are biologically equipped to produce children, a process which is essential to the continuation of government. Therefore, they provide benefits to couples who are likely to head down this path (get married).

Gay marriages provide no such benefit to the state at the moment, and therefore the state has no internal pressure to provide incentives for people seeking gay marriage. Put another way, gay couples do not have the ability to produce the things the government wants from a married couple, so it is less likely to endorse those unions through government sponsored marriage. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation, because everyone of every orientation has the same right: to marry someone of the opposite sex.

42 comments

old comment by Mike

The issue of gay marriage isn't about discrimination of sexual orientation, nor is it directly about sex in general.

It isn't?

When a construction manager is looking to hire a new worker, what are the chances that they are going to hire a 5' 0" stick of a woman?

There are jobs on a site which don't require strength, such as using machinery (like a crane) or making planes for the day.

The chances are very slim, and it IS discrimination, but it has nothing to do with her gender.

Wow, you fail.

If she's not going to be able to perform the job, she's not going to get the job. That's discrimination of ability, and it is an accepted and unanimously practiced form everywhere.

YOU FAIL MISERABLY!

The state endorses marriage because it has a stake in seeing people pair up in sexual unions. Man-Woman pairs are biologically equipped to produce children,

And artificial insemination and adoption don't exist.

a process which is essential to the continuation of government.

Not neccesarily. Remember immigrants? Yeah those people too.

Therefore, they provide benefits to couples who are likely to head down this path (get married).

How dare the government provide benefits to couples that are multi-ethnic!

Gay marriages provide no such benefit to the state at the moment,

Except taxes, job creation, etc.

and therefore the state has no internal pressure to provide incentives for people seeking gay marriage.

*sigh*

Put another way, gay couples do not have the ability to produce the things the government wants from a married couple, so it is less likely to endorse those unions through government sponsored marriage.

Again with the sex... what are you? A pervert?

It has nothing to do with sexual orientation, because everyone of every orientation has the same right: to marry someone of the opposite sex.

It has nothing to do with race, because everyone of every race has some right: to marry someone of the same race. Because you know... the n******.

old comment by GigaGuess

The issue of gay marriage isn't about discrimination of sexual orientation, nor is it directly about sex in general.
Errr...yes it is, but let's look at this.

When a construction manager is looking to hire a new worker, what are the chances that they are going to hire a 5' 0" stick of a woman? The chances are very slim, and it IS discrimination, but it has nothing to do with her gender. If she's not going to be able to perform the job, she's not going to get the job.
So marriage is a job, not a union. Couples that aren't cranking out babies should get fired then. On the fiftieth anniversary, should they get their gold watches and divorce papers?

That's discrimination of ability, and it is an accepted and unanimously practiced form everywhere.
Which is totally different from state sanctioned unions.

The state endorses marriage because it has a stake in seeing people pair up in sexual unions. Man-Woman pairs are biologically equipped to produce children, a process which is essential to the continuation of government.
Again, unless you're going to advocate against childless hetero couples getting married, you better shut up about that. Seriously, the only reason people get married is to crank out babies? Hate to break it to you, but most are capable of that without matrimony involved.

Therefore, they provide benefits to couples who are likely to head down this path (get married).
And those who can't or won't. Which is why there's no reason we can't get married, too.

Gay marriages provide no such benefit to the state at the moment, and therefore the state has no internal pressure to provide incentives for people seeking gay marriage.
We can adopt. Surrogate mothers exist, too. It's not that we're inherently incapable of reproducing, we just have to find other ways to do it, even if it's biting the bullet, closing your eyes, and thinking about the hot IT guy.

Put another way, gay couples do not have the ability to produce the things the government wants from a married couple, so it is less likely to endorse those unions through government sponsored marriage.
Except we can. Not the conventional way in most cases, but we can.

It has nothing to do with sexual orientation, because everyone of every orientation has the same right: to marry someone of the opposite sex.
And once gay marriage is allowed, you'll be perfectly capable of marrying someone of the same sex. Still equal.

old comment by John_in_Oz

I'm prepared to accept your claim that there's only one thing you know, but this isn't it.
Your logic is no different from: "It's not discrimination to force different races to sit in different parts of the bus, because every race has the same right; to sit where they're told."
If my sister has the right to marry the man she loves, but I don't have that right, even though it's the same person, then we don't have equal rights. The fact that you don't WANT that right, does not mean that you have it.
Your 'Governement argument' proposes that the Government should not recognise the existance of a right if that recognition doesn't beneift the Government. Are you SURE you want to support that idea? Including such pesky rights as 'habeus corpus', no imprisonment without trial, the whole 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' thing?

old comment by Swede

Not all construction is manual labor, silly. A 6'2 hulking mass of a woman ought to get a job, following your "analogy".

The state endorses marriages because people in stable relationships are often happy and productive (not in a kid-factory sense, but in a work and revenue sense). Quite a few straight couples are childless, either voluntary or involuntary, and quite a few gay couples have children (surrogate mothers, donor sperm or eggs, IVF, etc.). So, in kid-factory sense, the orientation is of little or no importance, and gay or straight marriage should not matter, using your silly “argument”.

People in stable gay marriages are also often happy and productive, in a work, revenue and tax sense, stupid, which is what the government REALLY wants from a married or unmarried couple.

Your deluded so called "argument" has everything to do with discrimination and bigotry, and nothing to do with reality or equal rights. You also have the same right to marry someone of the same gender, asshole! What’s that, OTIK; you don’t want to? But that’s EXACTLY how gay people feel towards straight marriage, numbskull!