Comments on: Loving v. Virginia: Legalizing Interracial Marriage

By: Josh

Josh — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 09:38:51 +0000

Thanks to everyone for explaining that the ability to procreate is a necessary part of marriage and therefore it is permissible to prohibit homosexuals from marriage. But is this really a “reason” or an after-the-fact attempt to justify a pre-existing prejudice? Should we have a constitutional amendment to prohibit post-menopausal women and men who have had a radical orchiectomy from marrying? Hmmm. Sounds to me as if all these “reasons” are suspiciously similar to those of Judge Bazile in Loving v. Virginia — it’s just that we have enough distance from that decision to see that it was PREJUDICE that banned interracial marriage — not a devotion to God’s word. Perhaps we should devote more effort to improving the quality of our own marriages and less on telling others whom they can and cannot marry.

By: tvd

tvd — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 20:31:19 +0000

etc, ad nauseum ain’t *always*.

In any event, my point holds. Taboos aren’t always good things, and the elimination thereof makes this country stronger more often than not.

By: Ian MacD.

Ian MacD. — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 20:23:11 +0000

Actually, I better take Great Ghana off the list.

By: Ian MacD.

Ian MacD. — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 20:12:50 +0000

tvd, you asked for proof and I gave it to you. Want more? Macedonia, Athens, Egypt, Byzantine Empire, Great Ghana, the Zulus, etc. ad naseum.

By: tvd

tvd — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:32:34 +0000

Whoa, Ian, you said it *always* ends up that way. One civilization hardly proves that.

In any event, I’d maintain that American civilization has become progresively stronger through the breaking of taboos, from womens’ suffrage to interracial marriage, all the way up to the economic benefits involved with removing the moral opprobrium on gambling.

By: Ian MacD.

Ian MacD. — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:07:34 +0000

tvd, prove how breaking taboos leads to more breaking of taboos and how that leads to a decline of a culture? I can do that in one word: Rome.

By: tvd

tvd — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 10:42:07 +0000

“Rights donâ€™t require application and subsequent rewarding of a LICENSE.”

That’s just wrong. For instance, authors are guaranteed patent rights as part of the Constitution, but one must apply for patent protection.

The ability to exercise one’s right to free speech in certain circumstances also requires permits on occasion.

By: The Machine

The Machine — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 05:33:17 +0000

Hold on a minute.

There is an assumption that marriage is a right.

Rights don’t require application and subsequent rewarding of a LICENSE.

Marriage requires a Marriage License and the applicants must meet some requirements for the issue of that license, blood test at the least.

Therefore, Marriage, or “Holy Matrimony” as it was originally called, is not a right.

It is a privilege.

Just like the driver’s license.

You do not have a right to drive.

If you don’t believe that, try driving wrong a few times and see what the state can do with your driving privileges.

License can be anulled, revoked, suspended, cancelled even.

License can also stipulate requirements as to qualification.

A right?

Rights are defined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in this country.

Not that present day judges would bother with the distinction.

By: tvd

tvd — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 03:42:50 +0000

“It doesnâ€™t HAVE to be that way, but is always ends up that way.”

Prove it.

By: whereIstand.com/adamelijah

whereIstand.com/adamelijah — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 03:18:31 +0000

The Loving Decision and Same Sex Marriage

LaShawn Barber examined the Loving decision which overturned laws against interr

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:35:47 +0000

Ian,

Actually you are incorrect, but I understand that with that kind of defeatist mentality it might be tough to see things differently.

By: Ian MacD.

Ian MacD. — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 19:08:16 +0000

Jack, study history. It doesn’t HAVE to be that way, but is always ends up that way.

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:25:46 +0000

When one taboo is broken, it makes it far easier to break others.

It doesn’t have to go that way. Life is not always linear.

By: JohnD

JohnD — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:27:55 +0000

‘Slippery slope is not chicken little”

THAT’S what I’m talking about!

Awesome stuff.

By: Ian MacD.

Ian MacD. — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:49:52 +0000

John and tvd, slippery slope is not “Chicken Little”. When one taboo is broken, it makes it far easier to break others.