LBGT TerrorismFollow

Yes we do.

No thanks. If you have a point, make it.

He was asking for it, really.

Edited, Sep 5th 2012 2:38pm by Eske

I pop in to see if this thread went any place weird since I left, and apparently it's gone exactly nowhere.

I did.. It was the following sentences. I just gave you a reference for further details.

Hence the reference to the argument. If you don't want to read it, then fine, but that doesn't take away from the argument.

Because you're simplifying the argument down to one easy to refute phrase. Since not all rights are infringed based on the age of the person, then age alone does not determine why we're doing it. Get it? If it was just about age, we would strip all rights from everyone until they reach the age 18. But we don't, do we? We infringe a set of rights. Not all of them.



Yup. So why did we decide that this was a wrong assessment for women and minorities, but not for minors?


The point I'm slowly and painfully trying to get you to grasp isn't about voting rights Joph. It's that it's possible for the same rationale for something to be correct when applied in one case, but incorrect when applied to another. In the same way that we can say it's wrong to deny women the right to vote, but ok to deny minors that right, we can say that it's wrong to deny marriage status to interracial couples, but ok to deny it to same sex couples. Obviously that doesn't prove that position. It merely disproves the argument that since it was wrong to deny that status to one group, it must be wrong to deny it to another.

I've presented arguments for my position, explaining how same sex couples are not the same with regard to marriage as interracial couples. But the counter position just repeats the same argument that since it was wrong for X, it must be wrong for Y as well.


Which is why I went this way. I'm showing that the logic being used for same sex marriage is flawed and hoping that someone might actually one day present something else. Hasn't happened yet though, so I'm not going to hold my breath.




For radically different reasons though. And I wouldn't use the phrase "good enough to marry". More "there's no state interest in them marrying". Let's not forget that one of the key arguments made in Loving (on both sides) was that of children. The state argued that mixed race children would be at a disadvantage in society, so preventing interracial marriage was justified. The plaintiff argued that not allowing mixed race couples to marry would doom their children to illegitimacy (among other arguments). The point being that the issue of procreation has always been at the heart of decisions regarding the "right to marry".


I think it's relevant when discussing a set of couples who can't procreate (as a couple) to observe that perhaps the same arguments no longer apply. They are under no great burden if not granted that state recognition of their relationship as an interracial couple is. And the state is under no great burden or cost if they don't either. Which is ultimately the point here, isn't it?

I'm actually surprised that this isn't or wasn't ever in practice.

@Alma Same sex marriage is not legal (recognized by the government if you will) so no one has ever made the argument "they have it so we should to" when talking about same sex marriage. Therefore, no one has ever gotten upset by the scenario you presented.

Are you saying that there are no places in the United States where SSM is recognized by the government?