"Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham

[Ravenshire]

First, bachelors aren't barred from entering into the legal institution of marriage so they already have equal treatment under the law. Second, by definition, bachelors are unmarried men making a married bachelor a logical impossibility.

Funny how you've used a logical impossibility and a legal impossibility (toasters for fuck's sake) to defend your bigotry against people who are fundamentally just like you except for one little thing.

It is interesting, how similar your arguments against this reasoning (when concerning bachelors) mirrors some of my own.  That in this case, you don't view it as discrimination and bigotry to say that they cannot be married, and that you point out that they are not being denied the opportunity, if they come to change and fall within the definition of marriage.  That you reason to bigotry in one case, and not the other, however seems inconsistent.

Are you really this thick-headed? That I reason to bigotry is entirely consistent given bachelor is a term used to denote a person's marital status. There would be no bachelors if there were no marriage. They don't have to try to change who they are or try to live a lie to get married. It's a simple naming convention that husbands are married and bachelors are not. Nor are bachelors discriminated against in our current society. A gay bachelor, however, was being denied rights unless he was willing to try to change who he is or try to live a lie by marrying a woman. In rare circumstances, the poor bastard would find a sympathetic woman, have a marriage of convenience, and still bone all the guys he wants. Are you really going to continue claiming our arguments mirror each other? Because broadening the definition of marriage to include same sex couples is nothing like making a word who's very definition relies on the word married (in this case, not married). Changing that would make the word meaningless. If you'd like to coin a new term for a person married to themselves, then campaign for that to be recognized, more power to you. Just be sure the definition is inclusive, that way you don't have to make an ass out of yourself defending that when it's challenged because you didn't want gays using your word.

Your argument is asinine, RR. Refusing people equal treatment under the law for being gay is just as bad as refusing it because they're black, or Jewish, or pick your favorite bigotry. Maybe you and Steve really aren't bigots, but when you act like them it's hard to tell if you're not.

---

More nails for the the "no rights denied" argument coffin.

According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138 statutory provisions[1] in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges.

over 1,000 of them.

Source

GAO Link