Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
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.
|
I disagree. I don't see it as quashing that notion at all. I'd say the case affirms the right that adults have the right to marry any other adult they choose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
...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.
|
I didn't ignore it and I understand you. I disagree with you.
And "rights are (generally) universal?" Are there some rights that are not universal? Again not sure I understand your point. Or at least your point as it pertains to this topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
What hole?
|
The hole where you seem to think anti-miscegenation laws were struck down due to discrimination but seem to think discrimination based on sexual orientation are legal and just. Apparently because they're somehow not socially and sexually legitimate. Why or how someone decides what's socially and sexually legitimate for someone else is beyond me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
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.
|
So if gays want to marry they should marry people they don't love or simply not get married? No, that doesn't sound like discrimination at all. Heck that sounds down right socially and sexually legitimate to me.