You cannot prove she was a mere concubine, as the word could mean either, but there is another word for concubine. Wanna guess which one is used in Gen 16:3?
Yeah, Zakalwe. Negative results from other countries count. Neutral or positive results don’t mean jack.
Not that he has to prove gay marriage is bad. It’s a given that it almost certainly will be, what with causing disillusionment and creating starving orphans and kicking kittens and all. The onus is on us to prove that it won’t be, even if it takes 50 years.
I do not necessarily discount good results from foreign countries.
Got some to show?
I’m the first to admit that the question is about the U.S. and not Holland, and am not childiesh enough to deny all that does not agree with an overall claim.
Data is seldom like that, all agreeing one way and nothing the other.
Even if the original was not a prefatory clause there was absolutely nothing in that decision that indicates the two items are linked and/or inseparable.
Those two words, Marriage and procreation, do not even reoccur in in any other part of that decision, the “fundamental right” they are talking about is to NOT BE FORCIBLY STERILIZED.
Your claim loses more steam if you present more of the court opinion, and remember it was systemic eugenics based forced sterilization!!!
Even if you remove the reference to marriage in the entire opinion it does not change the reading.
But lets look what a common law marriage is,
Yep, still no requirement to reproduce or claim that is the basis of the right.
None whatsoever. If she wants a 55-hour marriage, good for her. It has no effect on people who take marriage seriously - it has a devastating effect on people who make bad arguments about the important of marriage.
But while it lasted, it was indistinguishable from any legal marriage, and she faces no sanctions, no repercussions, no barriers to forming another marriage in future… So why should we pay any mind to how reverent some people think marraige is?
And since the case has nothing to do with marriage, the mention of marriage is there because…
(the supreme court thought procreation and marriage intimately linked in a fundamental way?)
Keeping in mind that this doctrine was developed during a time when illegitimacy was a much greater burden than it is today, I’m wondering how much thought you put into requiring a bastard child before a valid marriage could happen.
I have answered it, and I said earlier that I’ve no interest in what you consider fundamental. Care to show me where reproduction is a mandatory aspect of marriage?
Responsible people who take marriage seriously are not our cause for concern. The ones who think marriage is a joke (but still go on having sex) is the concern. Who takes care of their kids when they don’t?
I don’t have a good idea what to do about it either. I guess we have to live with it.
Because the more that blow it off the more we spend in social programs, courts, etc. and the more we are likely to have crime and drug problems and exponential problems with more and more following the trend of not marrying.
Well we’re not talking my opinions. we’re talking about what the Supreme Court thinks is fundamental.
Those are their words in Loving and Skinner, there, not mine. You’ll note the quote marks and citations give it away.
Care to stop the Strawman? I have never said reproduction is mandatory in marriage. I say that the right to marriage flows from the right to procreate. Having a right to procreate is not a mandate; having a right to amrry does not mean you must.
But since you cannot disprove what I do say, you keep changing it to something you CAN disprove,
Do you want to propose some method of action that during a period where Endogamy was the rule a wife could give a foreign slave girl to her husband as a wife?
Even if we ignore where her offspring are discriminated against later in the book due to their concubine roots.
But it doesn’t matter, the fact that god made her barren disproves your supposed mystical link of marriage to reproduction in that book.
Or maybe they realized that being sterile made finding a wife more difficult, you have absolutely no ground to stand on with your claim, it is not inferred nor implied in the decision.
Well, what it may have, a while ago. But did they say, even then, that procreation was a mandatory aspect of marriage or not?
This is not a hard question. Is procreation a mandatory aspect of legal marriage?
And, I freely admit, the moment you acknowledge the answer is “no”, I have several follow-up statements that demolish any arguments against gay marriage that involve procreation. All you can really do is continue to delay, delay, delay.
In fact, let’s just assume that you admitted “no” and I made my demolishing points. It’ll save time.
Huh? Can you show that the race could not exist without marriage? I know an awful lot of illegitimate people…
Adoption is a fundamental right of marriage: it’s the other way that the next generation receive their heritage and inheritance. And it works just fine with two men or two women.
As I have pointed out umpteen times, you are raising a challenge against yourself. I have never said that procreation is mandatory in marriage.
You keep changing what I do say-- “the right to marriage flows from the right to procreate.”
Every time you do this, every person who understands reasoning (you don’t, obviously with claims such as rational basis can be illogical) looks at your posts and knows you have nothing to defeat my claim with.
Endless changing my claim and endless blanket assertions that I haven’t proven anything. That’s all you got.