Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars
Really? You're going to cite a 27 yr old Mn case as legal precedent?
|
It's a case in which SCOTUS reaffirmed a state's right to prohibit who can and cannot marry. Seeing as how people like to quote Loving v. Virginia (1967) as establishing marriage as a right, I thought it'd be apt to quote a more recently occurring case which quashes that notion.
Quote:
|
Anyone could easily go back a couple years from then and find any number of cases that prove no one has the right to engage in interracial marriage, laws known as antimiscegenation laws such as Loving V. Virginia (1958.) Since no one had that right, at the time, to engage in interracial marriage, no one could have claimed discrimination then either? In 1967 16 states were finally forced (by the SCOTUS over turning Loving V. Virginia) to remove such laws.
|
...Okay. So you either ignored what I wrote out or didn't understand it.
Rights are (generally) universal. The problem with anti-miscegenation laws is that they took a right which everyone had and restricted it to those people who wanted to marry within their race. Henceforth, discriminatory and why they were struck down. As I said earlier, it'd be the same issue if one group of men, for example, were allowed to marry men while another group was not afforded this same right. That would be discriminatory.
Quote:
|
So there's that hole in your logic.
|
What hole?
Quote:
|
Plus I don't even know what this means-
|
It means that gays and lesbians aren't being denied a "right" as the only right involved in marriage is the ability to marry a person of the other gender (Provided they are old enough and are not directly related to yourself). For example:
A straight male can marry a female. A straight female can marry a male. A gay male can marry a female. A gay female can marry a male.
Conversely, a straight male cannot marry a male. A straight female cannot marry a female. A gay male cannot marry male. A gay female cannot marry a female.
See? No one, regardless of orientation, has the "right" to marry a person of the same gender as them. Thus, no one is being discriminated against.
-----Added 19/12/2008 at 04 : 08 : 49-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
It was implied. By saying their discrimination is categorically the same as the discrimination against those who want to marry children, multiple partners, or animals, but is categorically different than the previously discriminated interracial couples, it implies that you are comparing homosexual marriage more to the marriage of children, multiple partners, and animals than you are to interracial marriage. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
|
I'm not comparing it to pedophilia or bestiality in the whole slippery-slope sense, but I am comparing them in the way that marriage is defined as "one man and one woman", which equally discriminates against people who:
1.) Want to marry multiple men and woman (Polygamists).
2.) Want to marry a person of the same gender (Homosexuals).
3.) Want to marry an animal (Bestiality).
4.) Want to marry an inanimate object (Dunno' what that's called).
5.) Etc.
Simply because you take offense to the categorization doesn't make it any less valid. Homosexuals are NOT being singled out and discriminated again, whereas anti-miscegenation laws were CLEARLY aimed at one group of people.
Quote:
|
Socially and sexually legitimate.
|
But what does that have to do with marriage?
Quote:
|
So "marriage" means "heterosexual marriage." This is what is at issue: this antiquated definition of marriage.
|
Obviously, it's not too antiquated as it still continues to persist.
Quote:
|
Although I'm sure this is a common desire, it is a faulty generalization to assume that this is all they want.
|
So what else to do they want? I'm quite positive in asserting that if we were to remove the privileges involved in marriage that the issue of gay marriage would all but cease to exist.
Quote:
|
Because it legitimizes their families. It allows for the state and/or religious acceptance of their monogamous interpersonal relationships so that they can maintain their families with the same status as everyone else.
|
To me, this sounds like a fancy way of saying "It gives the same legal benefits as heterosexual couples", in which case I really don't see why they should care what it's called as long as they receive the same benefits.