Not to be obtuse but...

When was the last time the US government tortured a gay person for being gay? When was the last time a gay person's rights were limited in comparison to heterosexual rights? I didn't know that ethnic profiling was applied to sexuality. :

On the topic of banning Scientology, in applying the US Constitution to the issue, I believe it is important to look at the intention of the 1st Amendment. Does it really cover a "religion" that was created, by all accurate accounts, as nothing more than a hoax and a money making scheme by a science fiction writer? Can what effectively could be argued as a blatant fraud (criminal activity) hide behind the 1st Amendment to escape its prosecution?

To me it is a chicken or the egg type conundrum. Which should be applied first? Prosecution of a criminal action or elevation to the protected status of "religion"? One certainly negates the other, but how do we determine which is the trump card in this particular hand?

Well when in context with the other posts, torture indicated a systematic attempt to continue an institutionalized second class citizenship. All homosexual rights are limited in comparison to heterosexuals as we do not have the same coupling rights & benefits. Most states lack even a basic parody of these rights. As far as profiling, the newly passed information sharing act indicates that the United States provides and receives information on air passengers including sexual orientation as the information is amassed.

__________________

How exactly are we limited in our rights, in comparison to heterosexuals, when sexual orientation is not a deciding factor in the issuance of a marriage license AND marriage is an optional institution.

In regards to the information sharing act you referenced, before we can jump to the conclusion that this is "profiling" (which I don't find to be such a bad thing at all when it comes to security issues), we have to ask what other information is being gathered and how it is being used, per this act. It's all about context in regards to the accuracy of your assessment concerning that this is actually "profiling" in a way that violates the Constitution.

You say that orientation is not a deciding factor in marriage, but gender is. The argument that marriage is optional is true, but so is voting. The difference is access. If I don't have access I don't have the option.

As far as the security act, I'm of the opinion that sexual orientation has zero to do with terrorism. I've yet to see a drag queen brigade hijack a plane or a group of bears set fire to a forest...

__________________

We do have equal access to the marriage institution with the same privileges and limitations (like marrying a person of the opposite gender) as every heterosexual in this country.

That's not the point. What other information is being gathered? What is the information that is gathered being used for? In context, it may not be discriminatory at all.

And while I appreciate your argumentation, you are arguing around what you know I meant. The institution of marriage, as legally defined currently, discriminates against people who would like to enter into a legally recognized union with a person of the same gender.

Sure, I can go out tomorrow and marry any woman would want to marry me. Hell, I could even pick out an illegal immigrant and solve her situation, but that relationship isn't the embodiment of a marriage. I would have to have separate relationships. My legal relationship and the emotional relationship would not be the same. I could be legally married to a woman yet in love with a man. What good does that do me? In America, heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they love (with reasonable restriction). Homosexuals do not. We both know that to be true.

As far as the issue of information gathering, there is no security reason to gather the sexual identity of a passenger. It's irrelevant to security and I've yet to see an example of how tracking sexuality be it heterosexual or homosexual is a true security necessity.

__________________

It's not discrimination if the restriction applies to everyone equally. It's simply a restriction you don't like. I'd like to not pay my taxes either, but it's not discrimination that I have to pay them.

That is true, but it's still not discrimination. Marriage also is not a "right" much like a driver's license is not a "right". If you want the restrictions changed, there is no reason not to advocate for that, but playing the discrimination card erroneous and, quite honestly, an egregious affront to circumstances of real discrimination. "Just because I want to do it" is not an argument that you are being discriminated against because you aren't allowed to do it.

Well if that is your only argument, it is nullified by the fact that reporting age does nothing for security either. It totally voids the assertion that homosexuals are being "profiled" in a discriminatory fashion any more than they are being "profiled" when we take a census.

Let me see if I get this right. You advocate that there is no discrimination in the marriage laws on the basis of orientation and gender. If that is the case, then why is it that couples of the same gender cannot get married? The law specifically excludes a whole segment of society while it continues to cater to heterosexual couples who marry for love. Because the laws specifically exclude an entire segment of society, they are indeed discriminatory. By using your logic, it would be fine to continue the poll tax and landowners only being able to vote.

As far as your argumentation regarding the collection of data, we have yet to establish any real cause to collect information on the sexual habits of individuals who chose to take a flight in this country. If there isn't a cause to take it, then why bother? Isn't it a frivolous use of resources to collect information that is not pertinent to security? Republicans should be outraged at the waste of federal dollars we have going on here.

__________________

No...voting is a right which grants the voter power to influence government. Marriage has no such direct affect on the shaping of society. With the poll tax and barring any but landowners from voting, you are placing economic restrictions on accessibility. Those unfair practices were also specifically aimed at disenfranchising based on race.

Marriage has no such discriminatory restriction. Regardless of race, creed, color, religion, sexual orientation, or gender, everyone has a right to marry a person of the opposite gender. No discrimination there.


I didn't make any assertion was to whether it was legitimate or necessary. I simply stated that it was not discriminatory. We have yet to see where gathering that information in the course of gathering other information is anymore discriminatory toward homosexuals than any other group. I am stating that it is what it is. What it is not is discrimination.

Well I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree upon our interpretations of words such as 'rights', 'benefits', and 'discrimination'. When a large segment is denied access to benefits and rights (ie. survivorship and the like) on the basis of gender, orientation, race, etc, that is discrimination. While it's true that anyone can marry today, they must do so in a heterosexual format. Confining homosexuals to a heterosexual relationship in order to receive equal treatment is absurd. Demanding that homosexuals marry for benefits instead of love is demanding that homosexuals devalue the concept of marriage which is more than the accumulation of benefits.

__________________