Quote:
Originally Posted by lawdude
As a legal matter, Aaron, the case is distinguishable.
I don't understand this sentence. To be "distinguishable" in a legal sense means what?
Quote:
But I think you missed my point. The ARGUMENT form you made is basically not sound. Saying that someone who isn't attracted to women can marry one is not treating him equally to someone who is attracted to women. It's actually saying the opposite-- he can marry the person he wanrs and you can't.
There's a more fundamental question at the heart of the matter, which is the nature of marriage (as either a social or legal contract). Is marriage fundamentally about "attraction" or is there something else to it? (See "arranged marriage".)
The discrimination in the cited case is one of insignificant biological distinction. If I ask a doctor for a hysterectomy, I cannot proceed to sue him based on gender discrimination. The procedure is gender specific, and I do not qualify. If marriage is a contract that is fundamentally gender specific, then the same concept should apply.
(FWIW - I'm actually neutral on the issue of gay marriage. I'm not particularly settled on its role as a legal contract, which is fundamentally what the political debate is about. I don't think I would care if the government issued no marriage licences at all.)
Last edited by Aaron W.; 06-25-2011 at 11:58 PM.