Heterosexual marriages are the ones actually being discriminated against

[Odell]

No one anymore looks at marriage between a man and a woman that is open to life to be any more special than any other relationship.

So when homosexual marriage is legalized I’m going to propose that marriages who are open to life and families now get more and better benifits to promote family life. If you say no than you only prove my point that couples who are procreative are the ones discriminated against and that no one values such marriages anymore. In this case you also disprove the point that homosexual marriage harms no one. But no it damages how the world views marriage as a whole which does nothing to help marriages who promote family values.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Of course procreative marriages aren’t going to be given incentives. In fact, with the overpopulation myth and its corresponding movements such as Zero Population Growth, I think we will, in fact, see them being, more and more, discouraged.

 

[Nimzovik]

Yes that would be part of the opposition’s strategy. However it must be exposed and challenged - perhaps by the OP’s assertion.

 

[Odell]

Did I discover a rock solid argument?

I expected some opposition

 

[Baelor]

No one anymore looks at marriage between a man and a woman that is open to life to be any more special than any other relationship.

So when homosexual marriage is legalized I’m going to propose that marriages who are open to life and families now get more and better benifits to promote family life. If you say no than you only prove my point that couples who are procreative are the ones discriminated against and that no one values such marriages anymore. In this case you also disprove the point that homosexual marriage harms no one. But no it damages how the world views marriage as a whole which does nothing to help marriages who promote family values.

discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things

How are heterosexual couples discrimination against?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

No one anymore looks at marriage between a man and a woman that is open to life to be any more special than any other relationship.

So when homosexual marriage is legalized I’m going to propose that marriages who are open to life and families now get more and better benifits to promote family life. If you say no than you only prove my point that couples who are procreative are the ones discriminated against and that no one values such marriages anymore. In this case you also disprove the point that homosexual marriage harms no one. But no it damages how the world views marriage as a whole which does nothing to help marriages who promote family values.

You do realize it is now hip to not have any children to “save the world from overpopulation right”? If you point your “argument” out they will claim that it’s for the best.

 

[surritter]

What’s being discriminated against is nature. While you’re on the right track, I would say that we need to educate people that marriage is, by definition, ordered to procreation.

So it’s not so much about holding up those marriages that are pro-family, but to show people that creating a family is the very foundation of why there is such a thing as marriage. (And this doesn’t require every couple to have kids; notice that I said every marriage must be “ordered” to procreation.)

 

[Odell]

discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things

How are heterosexual couples discrimination against?

Discrimination:

1. The act of discriminating.
2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than ** individual merit**; partiality or prejudice.

There you go there are those who don’t see marriage more than a recognition of mere feeling of love. Therfore anyone whom has a marriage that keeps the procreative and unitive meanings without seperating the two whom values love and marriage more than mere feelings/pleasure. (Catholic marriage) is considered nothing more than a nebulous feeling rather than the** merit** of the marriage that is a mutual and total self-giving, whom strong feelings of attachment, intense pleasure, and the procreation of new life are linked.

 

[Baelor]

1. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than ** individual merit**; partiality or prejudice.

(Catholic marriage) is considered nothing more than a nebulous feeling rather than the** merit** of the marriage that is a mutual and total self-giving, whom strong feelings of attachment, intense pleasure, and the procreation of new life are linked.

That is not discrimination. You have still not demonstrated the way in which heterosexual marriages are the “ones actually being discriminated against.” You are defining “merit” as something inherent, which runs contrary to the definition you provided. You seem to be saying that heterosexual and homosexual marriages are viewed the same, which would be the opposite of discrimination (although incorrect).

 

[Odell]

That is not discrimination. You have still not demonstrated the way in which heterosexual marriages are the “ones actually being discriminated against.” You are defining “merit” as something inherent, which runs contrary to the definition you provided. You seem to be saying that heterosexual and homosexual marriages are viewed the same, which would be the opposite of discrimination (although incorrect).

The issue is that they due not value marriage as I value marriage. They desciminate the value I see in marriage. Yet they want to partake in it?

 

[Baelor]

The issue is that they due not value marriage as I value marriage. They desciminate the value I see in marriage. Yet they want to partake in it?

That is no discrimination. No one is saying that your marriage is less valid, nor are they depriving you of rights.

 

[BillP]

No one anymore looks at marriage between a man and a woman that is open to life to be any more special than any other relationship.

So when homosexual marriage is legalized I’m going to propose that marriages who are open to life and families now get more and better benifits to promote family life.

Currently under the US tax code families with children are given a myriad of tax breaks and incentives to reward them for having those children. So you mission is accomplished and you can move on to some other vitally important social engineering project…

 

[sw85]

discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things

How are heterosexual couples discrimination against?

Hi Baelor,

“Justice” is the principle according to which everything is given that which is due to it. Thus, for instance, “justice” involves giving the righteous their due reward and the wicked their due punishment.

Homosexual unions are entitled to nothing from society, because they contribute nothing to society. Gay sex is simply not a matter of public interest (except insofar as it poses a public health threat). Such unions are infertile by nature. Therefore, giving them anything just for being a homosexual union qua a homosexual union is unjust.

This is especially true when you consider that the things that normally accrue to married couples with families, such as tax benefits, are part of a kind of zero sum pot. If government spending remains constant, expanding the pool of people entitled to tax breaks simply for being married must necessarily either (a) entail a cut in government spending and thus benefits, (b) entail a cut in the size of the tax break, or (c) entail an increase in debt which must eventually be retired by means (a) or (b).

Simply put, the demand that homosexuals be treated exactly like heterosexuals, despite not being exactly like homosexuals, constitutes a demand that justice be curtailed in the name of… well, I’m not sure what exactly. I suppose making homosexuals feel better about themselves?

 

[Eleve]

Homosexual unions are entitled to nothing from society, because they contribute nothing to society. Gay sex is simply not a matter of public interest (except insofar as it poses a public health threat). Such unions are infertile by nature. Therefore, giving them anything just for being a homosexual union qua a homosexual union is unjust.

Be that as it may, injustice is not necessarily discrimination.

 

[sw85]

Be that as it may, injustice is not necessarily discrimination.

I’m not sure about that. To me, “discrimination” is a functionally meaningless word; I just don’t care about it. Discrimination is bad when it’s unjust and neutral or good when it isn’t, so let’s quit talking about “discrimination” and just talk about whether something is just or not. Whether something is good or not is determined more by whether it is just or not, not whether it is discriminatory (or whether it makes someone feel discriminatory).

Obviously I discriminate when I choose to spend my free time with Joe instead of Sally. But it’s not unjust because Sally has no just claim to my time. It would be unjust, by contrast, if Joe were my friend and Sally were my wife, as she has a superior claim to my time than my friend does. Even then, though, the issue would not be “discrimination” against my wife. It would be treating my wife unjustly.

 

[BellsMom]

Homosexual unions are entitled to nothing from society, because they contribute nothing to society.

I think this is false. Family units, no matter what their make up all contribute to society in different ways.

The idea that a union or family made up of people who will not be parents, either because of age, biology or choice doesn’t make them any less a family.

Ted Olson wrote an exceptional piece for Newsweek about this very thing.

thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/01/08/the-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage.html

 

[Eleve]

I’m not sure about that. To me, “discrimination” is a functionally meaningless word; I just don’t care about it. Discrimination is bad when it’s unjust and neutral or good when it isn’t, so let’s quit talking about “discrimination” and just talk about whether something is just or not. Whether something is good or not is determined more by whether it is just or not, not whether it is discriminatory (or whether it makes someone feel discriminatory).

I think this is true. But Odell is trying to claim specifically not just that something is unjust, but that it’s discriminatory. I think that the argument fails and that, while the conclusion may be true, it would have to be true for some other reason than the claim of discrimination.

 

[sw85]

I think this is false. Family units, no matter what their make up all contribute to society in different ways.

Let me rephrase. They are by nature incapable of contributing to society in the manner for which marriage is intended to provide structure, i.e., childbearing or family-raising.

Heterosexual couples who do not or cannot have children because of sterility are only accidentally incapable of such. Homosexual couples by contrast are essentially incapable of it.

 

[Baelor]

“Justice” is the principle according to which everything is given that which is due to it. Thus, for instance, “justice” involves giving the righteous their due reward and the wicked their due punishment.

That is not a legal definition. And note that there is also the prejudicial component to the action.

Homosexual unions are entitled to nothing from society, because they contribute nothing to society. Gay sex is simply not a matter of public interest (except insofar as it poses a public health threat). Such unions are infertile by nature. Therefore, giving them anything just for being a homosexual union qua a homosexual union is unjust.

Again, not a legal definition.

Simply put, the demand that homosexuals be treated exactly like heterosexuals, despite not being exactly like homosexuals, constitutes a demand that justice be curtailed in the name of… well, I’m not sure what exactly. I suppose making homosexuals feel better about themselves?

There is still no discrimination. The legal code does not treat heterosexual marriages in a unique way. I fail to see how a group not even mentioned or singled out by the legal code faces discrimination by the same.

 

[sw85]

That is not a legal definition. And note that there is also the prejudicial component to the action.

Again, not a legal definition.

…So?

It’s the philosophical definition, i.e., the one rooted in rational reflection of the order of being. Legal definitions are second-order derivations of philosophical definitions. To the extent legal definitions don’t fully reflect them, they’re deficient and need to be rewritten accordingly.

So if your argument is that justice the way it’s presently defined by the (Satanic, atheistic, Masonic) present age demands homosexual “marriage,” then that sounds like a really good reason not to give a fig about such “justice.”

There is still no discrimination. The legal code does not treat heterosexual marriages in a unique way. I fail to see how a group not even mentioned or singled out by the legal code faces discrimination by the same.

I’m not interested in defending the OP’s claim that gay “marriage” constitutes discrimination against heterosexuals. I thought that was clear from the post. I am certainly interested in defending the claim that gay “marriage” constitutes an injustice to heterosexual couples.