Oh, here you go.
You might also find this informative.
I do so hate to distract from this engaging sidenote, but would you mind giving us a straightforward answer to this simple question which, as it so happens, is the actual OP this thread is supposedly all about.
Just this simple question.
That’s all.
The first one doesn’t answer the question posed in the OP.
Neither does the second.
Other than the notion that you followed the analogy to a logical conclusion (which I disagree with), I thank you for this post. By doing what some on your side ridiculously refuse to do—grant simple facts—like the traditional definition of marriage being between one man and one woman, we can get to the heart of the debate: Should we change it? And our culture? Those are fair questions.
I previous threads, I have supplied the logic behind my thinking. The call was for a “rational” argument, and I gave just that. But what was really wanted was “evidence”. So I’m working on that. In the near future (I hope) I’ll be starting a thread with a long-ass OP laying it all out. Rationale and evidence. But it makes nonsense for me to get into that now when there will just be the same cries for more than “a rational (logical) argument”.
Thank you again for this sensible post. Really. It’s breath of fresh air.
Wait. I thought you were done. You even said “Goodbye”. And “Fuck you”.
And I think you might have missed some pertinent info in my links. Perhaps you should study them more.
In fact, yes. Yes, you should.
I don’t think magellan01 can hear me. Can someone else please ask him the following question:
What, specifically, would be the negative consequences of allowing gays to marry?
Actually, the call in this thread was for substantive predictions, but you ignored that.
Please read Post 264.
:rolleyes:For which, I would have been asked to supply substantiation.
In which you say:
So you’re working on the answer to the question:
“What, specifically, would be the negative consequences of allowing gays to marry?”
And we’ll get the answer soon, in a “long-ass” OP, which will “lay it all out”??
Is that about the crux of it?
Yes. That’s it. I certainly hope that meets with your approval.
Never mind… I see that you’re working on this difficult question, and I look forward to the long-ass OP with substantiation.
Wanna hear something funny? Here’s the thing: you have all this clamoring for me to supply what I think these negative effects with be, and people are pulling their hair out insisting, begging, demanding, pleading that I supply them with this information they so hunger for, yet so much could have been satisfied with a little searching. Quite funny. In fact, there was a thread linked to in one of these recent threads last night or today that contained this life-sustaining knowledge so many so desperately seek, and it was simply ignored. Even after I pointed there.
Funny. Funny. FUNNY.
Say goodnight, Gracie.
Thank you for understanding.
Nite.
So still nothing, huh?
Let’s see if I understand this: You have no answer to the OP, other than an unsubstantiated reference to another thread . . . and your intention to answer it in a future thread.
So why are you in this thread at all?
Well, you’re welcome. I only hope it leads to progress rather than more circles.
I hope it’s clear that I see SSM as one more thing that warrants change {correction} among the history of things in our culture that have been changed.
I acknowledge that* for the most part * marriage has traditionally been one man and one woman but the notable exceptions people have pointed out are relevant. I never took it as people stubbornly refusing to acknowledge something about marriage and tradition but rather they correctly pointed out that the absolute of marriage tradition so often pointed to, didn’t actually exist.
Nonetheless, I look forward to reading the post you describe.
If it also prohibited marriage between opposite genders, there would be no EP violation. If the distinction is created without a rational basis (which is the case), that is an EP violation.
Pretty basic material. Were you trying to make a point of some kind there, or just play Socrates?
You might read Goodridge sometime. Fascinating stuff, I quite recommend it.
So when Sean and Robin fill out a marriage license, what obligation does the state have to find out what genders Sean and Robin are, if there is no legal difference?
No, you don’t. You first have to establish that *equal protection of the laws *is a right
Oh, look, there it is, right in the 14th Amendment! How about that, folks? Amazing what you can learn in middle school Civics class if you show up, isn’t it?