Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars
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.
|
But the ruling doesn't say that and, even if it did, that ruling was clarified four years later. So, either way, adults do not have the right to marry anyone of their choice.
Quote:
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.
|
Rights can be rescinded, such as a prisoner's right to vote. That's why I said "generally".
Quote:
|
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.
|
There is no law which stops gay people from marrying on account of being gay. Rather, the law stops people from marrying who do not fit into the "one man, one woman" category which targets more than just gays. Now, I do know of one law which specifically mentioned gays, and that was struck down as being discriminatory as it singled out on group of people (Homosexuals), which was the same reason y which anti-miscegenation laws were also structk down.
Quote:
|
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.
|
What's with the mention of legitimacy? No one is protesting gays and lesbians right to exist or to be gay. Rather, they're protesting gays and lesbians wishes to want to be married (And marriage has nothing to do with establishing a relationship as legitimate, unless you're talking about legal privileges).
Quote:
|
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.
|
Well, society could always just stop gays from marrying period. Now THAT would be pure discrimination.
-----Added 19/12/2008 at 04 : 44 : 51-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Will you demonstrate how it's a non-sequitur?
|
Because, once again, your comment didn't have anything to do with what I've been writing out for the past-- I dunno'-- At least 40'ish minutes, almost like you're intentionally misconstruing what it is I'm writing to make it seem as if there's a crusade against the gays and lesbians when, in fact, this is wholely untrue.
Yes, most of the stuff going on now is in response to the GLBT movement, but it is not aimed at marginalizing gays and lesbians to the point where most people claim.
Quote:
|
Okay, so homosexual relationships aren't as good as "normal" ones, eh? Nice.
|
Even though that's not exactly what I said and was written in a way to make what I said worse than how it was actually intended, yes.
Quote:
|
I sincerely doubt the typical gay couple would view marriage as the only way to legitimize the relationship, especially since (even to this day) many of them can't even marry in the first place. The effect, however, is that by denying them that access, it sends the message you've already sent: You aren't as good as us because you're gay. Which is utter bullshit.
|
So, anyone who doesn't hold the same "right" as another person is considered inferior? I can't become U.S. president. Does that make me inferior to a person born in the U.S.? Your argument doesn't make any sense.