And the right to marry is the issue at hand, removing the right to marry the person you love is not analogous with your choice to smoke weed. I firmly believe you should be able to smoke weed all you want; however, you are not having a right removed that others have ... there's a big difference there.
But one is not a right bestowed upon another class of citizens arbitrarily. If those with blonde hair could smoke weed, and everyone else was SOL ... then maybe I'd agree with you.
This is a very odd sentence.
I think I get what you're asking ... and the answer is you are not devalued on the same level because you are not stripped of a right another person has, in the same manner.
Yes sorry for that sentence structure, you're getting my point in any case, and to me the "level" of devaluation isn't meaningful to me. Seems like a matter of accounting.
Essential to my point is the idea that gay people are allowed to marry--just to marry people of the opposite sex, same as straight people. Obviously that means little to gay people and is not material to the actual
gay marriage debate. However, for my purposes in this point, gay people aren't stripped of that right. They're not removed of a right that others have. The law offers marriage to gay people in a manner they're not interested in, but only appeals to straight people. The law offers smoking to weed smokers in a manner they're not interested in. Laws that restrict smoking marijuana apply unequally to marijuana smokers as to cigarette smokers and non smokers.
I think it's the same point stated differently; I'm arguing semantics mainly. As it stands I'm a straight non-smoker in favor of marijuana and gay marriage legalization, and I was just curious as to why Troy thought marriage was a more fundamental right than smoking. And the point you're both making is something I'm picking up on, but briefly stating "one or the other devalues somebody as a person
" just seemed overemotional and not up-to-mustard for me, because I'm being an insufferable brat for no reason.