dis·crim·i·na·to·ryadjective /disˈkrimənəˌtôrē/1. Making or showing an unfair or prejudicial distinction between different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
- Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience
- – English prejudice against foreigners
- – anti-Jewish prejudices
- Dislike, hostility, or unjust behavior formed on such a basis
- – accusations of racial prejudice
- Harm or injury that results or may result from some action or judgment
- – prejudice resulting from delay in the institution of the proceedings
I figured prior to my post, I would give the definition of “discriminatory” to help this along. Please refer back to this if you have any questions about the word or feel free to also Google it for definitions if that would make you feel better. I don’t necessarily care if you agree with the point of view, the world would be a boring place if we all agreed. This is more of a discussion of a topic than a “that’s morally reprehensible” argumentative piece. Also, I figured giving the definition of “prejudice” would also help us move along here. Also, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/22/pentagon-push-to-extend-benefits-to-same-sex-couples-stirs-debate/ to give background to my post.
An uproar seemed to have occurred when the discussion to allow domestic same-sex couples to have the same benefits as married couples, despite unmarried straight couples not having this right. Some groups have called this “discriminatory”, why should gay couples have this but not straight ones? It’s 100% wrong to allow one group of people something and not others, I absolutely agree. One group shouldn’t be given preferential treatment over another, otherwise that is discriminatory. This is a fact, I can’t deny facts.
Also a fact: Most states do not allow same-sex marriage. (I hope my prior paragraph didn’t scare anyone away and set me up for hate mail.) This is also discriminatory, since not allowing one group the same rights as another. Then does that make the previous argument null and void, since they said it wasn’t right because that act was “discriminatory” and it should be equal for everyone? Interesting how the argument turns when you see it from the other side. So, what makes one “discriminatory” and the other not. Hint: they are both discriminatory.
Though I do offer an interesting point: most states don’t allow gay marriage. I know, I used that point as a starter to the last paragraph. I use it as a different argument here. Straight couples have the right to choose to get married or not, where gay couples don’t. So why shouldn’t a domestic partnership of a gay couple of 10 years get the same benefits as a married couple for the same? It isn’t a discussion of morals, it’s one of logic. You can’t ignore this part of the argument as if by pretending gay people don’t exist they will go away. It doesn’t work quite like that, unless you’re at the cognitive level of a toddler who believes “out of sight, out of mind”.
This isn’t an argument of whether gay marriage should be legalized or not, even though I definitely believe it should be. The argument is about if it’s discriminatory to allow domestic partners that are gay the same benefits as married couples but not allow it for domestic straight couples. I don’t think it’s really fair to say, since the playing field isn’t level. If both groups were allowed to get married, then yes it would absolutely be discriminatory to allow one the benefits and not the other. However, straight couples choose not to get married and gay couples often don’t get that choice but still want to commit themselves entirely to their partner as a straight married couple would. In which case, the fact that one group of people is allowed marriage while another isn’t is truly what’s discriminatory here. You can decide.