97 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0
If you think that the definition of marriage is as trivial as your Dennis Kucinich example, it will be difficult to have an intelligent discussion on this. However, many people believe that this Amendment is important (for one reason or the other) and, it is something that clearly concerns people. If the DTH is truly interested in a free market of ideas, it will provide an opportunity for both sides to voice their arguments. Censoring the side the editors oppose is a disservice to the DTH's readers.
As for all of your (curiously un-cited) sociological mumbo jumbo, I don't know if you've noticed, but this country has already had two black presidents. The first, of course, was Bill Clinton. But I don't know if you've noticed that the current occupant of the White House is also a black man, which kind of throws a wrench in your whole white people suck meme.
Also affirmative action is entirely relevant to the discussion on race, as it is nothing more than legal racial discrimination against whites (and increasingly, Asians). When you use race to determine whether to admit a student or not, that's racism, pure and simple. Particularly when it comes to college admissions, white students are at a considerable disadvantage when compared to their "minority" peers, largely because of racist policies like affirmative action. The processor's refusal to address this issue was disappointing, particularly when the Tunnel made such an effort to discourage people from cowardice when they are confronted with oppression.
In short, you've largely manufactured this myth of white privilege. Maybe if you got your head out of the 1930's and rejoined what the rest of us like to call "reality," you'd see that a person's relative success in life is not determined by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character, his hard work, and his determination.
My point regarding the homophobia was that it's pretty easy to feel like you're being victimized when, in fact, you're not being victimized. For example, the orange incident (as unlikely as it is) could simply be the result of drunkenness, rather than malice. There's not really any way to know. As the story was relayed in the Tunnel, there's no way for us to know why the person chose to throw the orange.
Regarding your points about the Asian girl, I honestly don't know how you are able to reach that interpretation based on the presentation in the Tunnel. The girl was wedged in between a black girl and a white girl talking about how (for lack of a better word) race gets them down. The black girl was talking about all kinds of societal racial prejudices and, the white girl was talking about how all the advantages she has because she's white. I didn't see any sort of intention vs. actual impact discussion in either of their monologues or the Asian's. So, if that was the intended message, it wasn't really clear.
And anyone who questions my interpretation of the Tunnel is free to watch it for himself via the video at the top of the post (that's why it's there). I'd also encourage you to read the entire post, rather than just skimming it. I'd be cautious of calling something "ignorant, logically unsound, and downright laughable" before you've actually read it. Who knows? You might just learn something too.
The amendment does allow for contractual relationships between private individuals (in the second half of the amendment). I\'m not exactly a lawyer, but the way I read it, that would seem to allow for a situation where a homosexual couple could effectively have a non-state recognized marriage. I don\'t think the legitimacy of a relationship between two people should necessarily rest on the legal recognition of that relationship by the state. Of course, such legal recognition does convey some benefits, but I would refer to you my point above.
I said that the 14th Amendment lacks a section specifying that the government must \"view all citizens equally before the law.\" That particular amendment does, however, guarantee \"equal protection of the laws.\"
I think part of the issue is that the 14th amendment guarantees \"equal protection of the laws,\" specifically within the question of whether the state is depriving a person of life, liberty, or property, which is a slightly different thing than \"viewing all citizens equally before the law.\" I think it\'s clear that no one is unjustly being deprived of life or property here. You could argue that maybe liberty is being infringed, but again, nothing\'s stopping two people from living together if they want to.
I\'m not saying don\'t do it. Just don\'t ask me to pay for it.