If marriage laws were discriminatory, are alcohol laws also discriminatory?

1. 61

   nicompposted 8 years ago

   If marriage laws were discriminatory, are alcohol laws also discriminatory?
   
   For example, in most states people under 21 cannot drink alcohol. Isn't that discriminatory in the same way marriage laws were?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 70

   Aime Fposted 8 years ago

   Uhh, no. 
   
   Alcohol affects teens and children differently than adults.  An adolescent's brain is still developing so introducing alcohol can have some incredibly harmful effects at that stage.  Not to mention adolescents already tend to make more spontaneous and uninhibited decisions than adults do, so adding alcohol into the mix increases the likelihood of engaging in dangerous behaviour. 
   
   Tell me how same sex couples are comprising their health and safety by getting married.
   
   Wait a second, I just checked out your profile and I feel like you're being facetious, right?  Please tell me you're being facetious....

   replyreport
   1. 61

      nicompposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Your answer doesn't address my question. You explained why kids should not have alcohol but you did not address the discrimination issue.
      
      The point is that discrimination is not by definition a bad thing, as some people might assert.

      replyreport
   2. 70

      Aime Fposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Sure, perhaps if you're discriminating for the well-being of the people you're discriminating against.  How does discriminating against gays help them?

      replyreport
3. 84

   tsmogposted 8 years ago

   Since your focus seems to be 'discriminatory' I presume based on the provided information the parallel is with being adult enough to marry contrast adult enough to purchase/consume alcohol?
   
   With the 'big picture' - OP question, alcohol laws are discriminatory with public consumption and operating a vehicle. Stepping closer with the detail of age 21 is it is not discriminatory regarding private consumption. That said with the 2nd question comparing marriage to alcohol as discriminatory there will be contrast with public and private since marriage is public knowledge. Vague answer . . . I dun'no.
   
   The TMI for conclusion . . .
   
   Using the word 'were' marriage laws are being considered once was discriminatory and not now? Marriage laws are based on age of consent and is where behavior is considered. Marriage laws were pretty complex to research especially their changes. Also, common law marriage would need be considered. Marriage is a contract most usually requiring a license.
   
   Contrasting with alcohol there is only the 'social contract' as an ideology to consider with respect to behavior. The laws surrounding it are based on those. Any licensing is centric to sales.
   
   With the alcohol question I firstly I considered international laws for a 'big picture' view. The majority is 18 or under - 73%, for consumption while some had no age limit - 10%. Interestingly 8% it is illegal for any age limit.
   
   With a little more research for the U.S. there is the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. That set the law at age 21 nationally. A focus was funding for highways. It's aim is at the purchase and possession of alcohol especially regarding operating a vehicle.
   
   Many states were lower than 21 before that time period common was 19. States followed suit raising it to 21. One example is Arizona lowered it to 19 at 1972. Later at 1985 it was raised to 21.
   
   However, many states have set exclusions for under age consumption such as within parental controls - 29 states. There are a total of 8 different exclusions. Included are medical and religious based too.

   replyreport
4. 82

   dashingscorpioposted 8 years ago

   
   
   Technically one could say any law that has an age, weight, height, or dress code requirement "discriminates" against those outside of that group who would like have those benefits.
   Building that forbid smoking and firearms and so on. 
   However these are generally (commonsense) laws.
   Should a 10 year old be allowed to drive a car? Should a 7 year old be allowed to purchase alcohol? Should there be a cutoff age such as underage sex with adults? Absolutely!
   Essentially when you get down to it (all laws discriminate) on some level I suppose. That's the very nature of a law to forbid.
   When an amusement park lists a certain height requirement in order to ride a rollercoaster it along with the aforementioned questions and requirements I mentioned are designed to protect the individual and possibly keep society from being harmed by their actions.
   There will always be accepted forms of discrimination based around health, safety, and dress codes for business conformance.
   Marriage equality is not a safety issue. These couples have been dating and cohabitating together for years!
   The change in their marital status has no bearing on anyone else's marital choice. The LGBT community makes up less than 5% of the population. Logically it makes no sense for the 95% to be so concerned about their spousal choice.
   It's enough to focus on one's own household, career, and pursuit of happiness. Anyone who is consumed with other people's love life, relationships, and marriage is wasting valuable time and energy.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      nicompposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Plenty of laws that discriminate are not based on safety. Voting laws are discrimitory but have nothing to do with safety. Eligibility to run for public office is discriminatory but is not based on safety.

      replyreport
   2. 82

      dashingscorpioposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I said: "Essentially when you get down to it (all laws discriminate) on some level I suppose. That's the very nature of a law to forbid."
      Also some might argue that letting uninformed immature people vote is a safety issue!

      replyreport
5. 94

   lisavollrathposted 8 years ago

   No, because all people over the age of 21 can purchase and consume alcohol. We don't have laws that say only straight people over the age of 21 can drink, but gay people can't.
   
   As for the age limit, there are plenty of examples of limiting what someone can do before they reach the age of majority. You can't vote until you're 18. You can't get a driver's license until you're 16. You can't get married without permission of a parent or guardian until you're at your state's age of majority.
   
   It's not discriminatory to limit these things by age, because they apply to all people, equally. Marriage laws were discriminatory because there was one set of laws for couples of opposite genders, and another for those of the same gender.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      nicompposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      We never did have the marriage laws that you describe. We had one law applied equally to everyone. There was no discrimination.

      replyreport
   2. 94

      lisavollrathposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Not so. If an opposite gender couple can marry, and a same gender couple cannot, the law treats the two couples differently. That's discriminatory.

      replyreport
6. 49

   bradmasterOCcalposted 8 years ago

   Marriage laws are creations of the states, and originally the states were formed before the United States and then they decided whether to join the US.
   
   The concept of the UNITED was not to be confused with uniformity among the states. The federal government was created to resolve the conflicts between the states, and that was the result of the differences, and not the uniformity of the states to each other.
   
   The federal government was also created to represent the states as a single entity to the rest of the world.
   
   In the last 100 yrs, the federal government has mutated into an obese entity that continually usurps the powers and duties of the states into federal control. They fund this increase in size and scope through the federal income tax, and a no budget type of budget. They increase their scope by making a mole hill in to a federal case using the misinterpretations of the SCOTUS based on bad decisions about the Interstate Commerce Clause.
   
   The SCOTUS is now making every 14th Amendment issue look like discrimination. Remember, that the 14th Amendment didn't get Black men, or Women their Constitutional Right to vote. That was accomplished through two amendments,  55 yrs apart.
   
   This is the route that should have been taken to resolve the issues of discrimination in marriage.
   
   Alcohol was banned by an amendment, and then abolished when it didn't work. The lesson that should have been learned is that the government cannot solve social issues.
   
   Smoking tobacco should have always been an infringements of the rights of the non smokers that were subjected to the whims of the smokers. But there is a pecuniary interest in tobacco and alcohol that trumps the constitution, and the rights of the citizens. Marriage doesn't possess any pecuniary interests, it is purely a social issue that shouldn't be in the control of the government, state or federal.
   
   The discrimination of gender is not the same as the old miscegenation marriage laws based on race because it didn't change the basic construct of marriage.
   
   Gender base for gay marriage changes the requirements of marriage, as would increasing the number of people in a marriage.
   
   The biggest discrimination is from the fed govt because they have taken a state license and used that status to discriminate against single people or couples that are not married for their income tax.
   
   Income tax is the real discrimination violation.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      nicompposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Best answer

      replyreport