Heterosexual marriages are the ones actually being discriminated against


#21

Philosophical definitions can be flawed, and there is still ambiguity. Furthermore, the definition I gave before was not necessarily philosophical, so leaping off of it as if it were is problematic.

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.

That does not mean heterosexuals are discriminated against. That simply means that homosexual marriages are given the same status as heterosexual marriages.

I still fail to see how a group can face discrimination without being singled out or given different treatment.


#22

[quote="Baelor, post:21, topic:281685"]
Philosophical definitions can be flawed, and there is still ambiguity. Furthermore, the definition I gave before was not necessarily philosophical, so leaping off of it as if it were is problematic.

[/quote]

The definition you gave before wasn't a definition of justice but of discrimination. And it wasn't a "legal" definition, either, you just copied it out of a (non-legal) dictionary. So I hardly see complaining how my understanding of justice isn't a "legal" one in any way invalidates my pointing out that your (equally not a legal definition of) discrimination doesn't preclude the claim that heterosexual couples are discriminated against by virtue of gay "marriage" laws.

To wit, here's the definition you provided: "discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things."

OK, so if discrimination amounts to the unjust treatment of different categories of people, and if homosexual "marriage" is in fact unjust, then the arrangement is discriminatory, especially when you consider what I wrote in the same post:
*
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).*

In other words, we don't have an infinite supply of stuff we can give out for free. We have a limited amount of stuff. Increasing the number of people given stuff decreases the amount of stuff each individual person gets. Given that one group of people (heterosexual couples) have a legitimate claim to that stuff and another group of people (homosexual couples) don't, by decreasing the amount of stuff given the former to give stuff to the latter you have (a) unjust (b) differential treatment of two groups of people. Which is discrimination, by the definition you provided.

Whether the definition you provided is objectively correct is not something I care about. In fact, I don't care about "discrimination" at all. Where discrimination is not unjust, it's not bad. So our main concern should not be whether or not gay "marriage" is discriminatory but whether or not it's just. It isn't just, therefore it's bad regardless of its discriminatory character.

That does not mean heterosexuals are discriminated against. That simply means that homosexual marriages are given the same status as heterosexual marriages.

Again, I don't care whether this arrangement constitutes discrimination. That's pedantic trivia to me. I care about the fact that it's an injustice.


#23

[quote="sw85, post:22, topic:281685"]
The definition you gave before wasn't a definition of justice but of discrimination. And it wasn't a "legal" definition, either, you just copied it out of a (non-legal) dictionary. So I hardly see complaining how my understanding of justice isn't a "legal" one in any way invalidates my pointing out that your (equally not a legal definition of) discrimination doesn't preclude the claim that heterosexual couples are discriminated against by virtue of gay "marriage" laws.

To wit, here's the definition you provided: "discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things."

OK, so if discrimination amounts to the unjust treatment of different categories of people, and if homosexual "marriage" is in fact unjust, then the arrangement is discriminatory, especially when you consider what I wrote in the same post:
*
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).*

In other words, we don't have an infinite supply of stuff we can give out for free. We have a limited amount of stuff. Increasing the number of people given stuff decreases the amount of stuff each individual person gets. Given that one group of people (heterosexual couples) have a legitimate claim to that stuff and another group of people (homosexual couples) don't, by decreasing the amount of stuff given the former to give stuff to the latter you have (a) unjust (b) differential treatment of two groups of people. Which is discrimination, by the definition you provided.

Whether the definition you provided is objectively correct is not something I care about. In fact, I don't care about "discrimination" at all. Where discrimination is not unjust, it's not bad. So our main concern should not be whether or not gay "marriage" is discriminatory but whether or not it's just. It isn't just, therefore it's bad regardless of its discriminatory character.

Again, I don't care whether this arrangement constitutes discrimination. That's pedantic trivia to me. I care about the fact that it's an injustice.

[/quote]

:clapping:


#24

[quote="sw85, post:18, topic:281685"]
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.

[/quote]

But they're not. Certainly not of family-raising. And lesbian couples, provided the requisite medical intervention, can also bear children.

What they're not capable of doing, as couples, is conceive a child in the natural way. And the thing is, your argument would be on firmer ground if you simply made it about the metaphysical stakes tied to that one particular act. Instead, you're trying export your theological standard, and pretend it matches society's standard.


#25

Im willing to admit discrimination wasn't the best of terms. Somebody smarter than me has come along and dine a better job linking the two. I happen to agree that justice is a better term.

[quote="Baelor, post:21, topic:281685"]

That does not mean heterosexuals are discriminated against. That simply means that homosexual marriages are given the same status as heterosexual marriages.
.

[/quote]

They want the same status when it's not the same at all. The very act in and in of it's self is sterile. We are different whether if they want to admit it or not.


#26

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.