Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next »
Reply To Thread

Obergefell v. Hodges: Get your bets inFollow

#252 Jul 01 2015 at 5:02 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Samira wrote:
So, in 1868 it was also unthinkable that a white woman would want to marry a black man, or vice versa. There were, eventually, explicit laws on the books prohibiting such degradation of pure white blood, based on "it's icky", incidentally the same reasoning that went into prohibiting homosexual relationships and, when it occurred to them to do so, marriage.
Interracial dating was completely 100% thinkable. As you mentioned, it was done intentionally to preserve the white blood, not because it was icky. While there was homosexual bias, I'm sure the open homosexual population was taboo to the point that it was unthinkable.

I said it before and I'll say it again. Marrying a white woman is not a privilege. So, unless you're only attracted to people outside of your race, people were still able to marry someone that they potentially could love. That isn't true with the ban on SSM. A ban on SSM prevents any homosexual from the ability to marry someone that they might realistically love.
#253 Jul 01 2015 at 7:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
All good points, although I would argue that "icky" is in the mind of the beholder.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#254 Jul 01 2015 at 7:40 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Exposed brain matter is a little icky, yeah.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#255 Jul 01 2015 at 7:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Mmm, spongy.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#256 Jul 01 2015 at 8:02 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Samira wrote:
You know, unlike you I read Scalia's dissent. Here's the quote in which he declares that the 14th Amendment cannot be interpreted more broadly than it was intended when ratified (also the Amendment upon which Loving is based, but I'm absolutely sure you know that):


Legislative will is pretty obviously a crock of ****; to impute any kind of shared intention to a group of hundreds that goes beyond the meaning of the words they actually agreed upon is fundamentally dishonest. It's a useful legal fiction if you want to justify a departure from literalism where it produces a stupid, unworkable result, but no-one should actually take it seriously. It's just one of those transparent smokescreens for judge made law. Scalia is guilty of exactly what he accuses the majority of doing.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#257 Jul 01 2015 at 8:03 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
You know, I don't know why I wrote that as a reply to you, it is meant almost purely for gbaji's benefit.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#258 Jul 01 2015 at 8:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Because you enjoy educating me.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#259 Jul 01 2015 at 9:28 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Samira wrote:
All good points, although I would argue that "icky" is in the mind of the beholder.

Given that slaves were often raped, it was definitely less about "icky" and more about the sentiment that blacks were beneath whites and producing biracial children would taint the white race. These are two completely different scenarios and should be treated as such.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 303 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (303)