quote:

---

Originally written by Synergy:

...Often no matter how much I try, words fail me. My main conclusion is that qualities of my personality type, generation, and interests are all in a minority here, so it is frequently like trying to communicate in a different language to be understood. I do not have this problem in other environments in a similar way. If I did, the logical conclusion would be that it is entirely my own disconnect occurring. As Alex pointed out intuitively early on in my appearance here, "you're an NF, aren't you?" I am largely not amongst my kind in an environment full of people whose preoccupations are the hard sciences. This becomes extremely frustrating, irritating, or discouraging at times...

---

quote:

---

your entire line of work is allowing people whose experience has made them miserable to hide from it in some selective way. Medication changes the experience. That's why it is ideal, in the long run - it doesn't involve trying to reconcile contradictory experience, or trying to file away what one experiences as irrelevant when under certain conditions.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

Google diseases common to sodomy and vaginal-oral sex if you think these things are good. There are doctors that specialize in treating homosexuals for this reason.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:

A woman is allowed to do something that I'm not: namely, marry a man. That's sexual discrimination, and if you want to justify it you're going to have to do better than claim it isn't discrimination.

---

How did it take you all so long to hit on this? Every single post I was waiting for it.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Fernication:

it's false to suggest that you can prejudge a group on the basis of its composition without also prejudging its members…

[1] Individuals have races.
[2] Marriages do not, so you can't discriminate between marriages based on the race of the marriage.
[3] Therefore, it would be perfectly reasonable to pass a law recognizing only marriages that include both a black person and a white person.

Do you agree with that statement as well?

If you substitute "gender" for "race" and "a man and a woman" for "a black person and a white person" this is your exact logic.

---

No it is not. This is discrimination against individuals, more along the lines of what Thuryl is arguing above, only with genders. While the government is making a distinction on the nature of the marriage based on the sexes of its partners, it’s not prejudging to say a male is a male, a female is a female, or that a union of these two is different from any other.

---

quote:

---

It certainly lacks the meaning in differentiating between male and female because the very existence of humanity is tied to the uniting of the two sexes. And it’s becoming less and less meaningful as the world becomes a smaller and smaller place and more and more “interracial” babies are born.

---

quote:

---

By the way, I’m completely open to the possibility that my views on homosexuality affect my view of the logic inherent to the arguments for legalization of homosexual marriage. That’s the very reason I challenged you all. I’m a skeptic and I try to be intellectually honest and logical. I’m really trying to see your perspective and I am in some ways. But, are you open to the possibility that your views on what is moral and what is not color your perception of logic?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

quote:

---

[1]Individuals have races. [2]School districts do not, so you can't discriminate between school districts based on the race of the school district. [3]Therefore, it would be perfectly reasonable to pass a law giving millions of dollars in educational spending only to school districts that are predominantly white.
Do you agree with that statement as well?

---

Statement 1 & 2 are cool. But, if school districts don’t have races, then what do you mean when you say in 3, “ school districts that are predominantly white”? It sounds as if you’re saying the school districts can have a race so that one could discriminate on that basis. So a “predominantly white” district is a misnomer in this context even though we get the implied meaning which is ”school districts that are comprised of more white individuals than non-white.” So what they are really doing is favoring individuals on the basis of race. Non-white individuals would be discriminated against just because they’re not white. It's just individual discrimination that your wording makes appear differently.

---

quote:

---

Restricting recognition of marriage to opposite sex pairs is not like this. Since everyone has a sex, they are free to pair with anyone of the opposite sex. The government doesn’t treat a homosexual that does or does not want this any differently than it treats a heterosexual that doesn’t. It's saying, "Anybody, regardless of race, sex, or sexual orientation that pairs this way will be recognized."

---

quote:

---

But even if a couple don’t have sex or children, the government still recognizes them as married for whatever reasons. If you are making an argument for a different type of union to be recognized, make it a logical one.

---