Good questions, Boyo Jim. I have to run now, but when I come back I will address it. Yours, too, LHOD. I’ll just say that you mistook my request of Miller. I wasn’t asking him or anyone to write anything. Since he was insistent that the formulation I proposed contained two sets of statutes outlining benefits and privileges, I asked him to go back to what I formulated and point to those two sets of statutes. Of course he could not do that, because there was only one set of said statutes there. Instead, he formatted a proposal with elements that my proposal did not contain. He had to do that in order to support his plainly wrong claim that what I had put forth had two sets of statutes outlining benefits and privileges. The fact that he, nor you cannot see that is odd in the extreme. And that is putting it mildly, this not being the Pit and all.
I didn’t add any elements to your proposal, I merely rearranged the formatting to show you the logical consequence of your proposal.
This is wrong. In fact, they are included within statutes, for example to define what constitutes a crime. From my browsing of statutes through the years, definition appear be the largest single part of statutes. The law must provide a definition of its terms in order to be enforceable, or it risks being overturned by a court for being too vague.
No, I didn’t, but in any case, I’d like to know what Mary will find when she looks in the law books.
Edit: y’know what? Maybe I did. That’s not important. What’s important is that you show us the part of your proposal that Mary can turn to for advice, since Statute #281 leaves her adrift.
May as well cut to the chase and ask him if his one set of laws contains language that specifically reserves legal marriage for heterosexuals, just to see if he’ll admit it.
That’s Tuesdayer with a capital T. My GPE form says it.
Then your form is an obvious forgery and in the interest of electoral accuracy will be discarded.
Fisrt they came for the tuesdayers, then…
Then they said homosexuals don’t deserve the same rights as “regular” people.
Moronic, right?
Yeah. What’s next? Equal wages?
Even in a society with equal rights not everyone gets the exact same rights, doncha know?
:hums tunelessly, waiting…
Edit: In case you forgot, here’s the scenario that I think will help clarify your proposal:
Mary, the County Clerk in Magellan County, is approached by Bob and Steve, who ask for a marriage license. She wants to know whether to issue a marriage license to them, so she looks to the lawbooks.
She finds post 281. But she’s still unclear: can she issue a marriage license to these two men?
I’m asking you to tell me what she’ll find in the lawbook in Magellan County that can guide her decision. Is there anything in the law book that will guide her decision, or must she guess?
Elaborate, if you please.
Or don’t, as you wish, and I’ll just assume you couldn’t.
The point is, it’s so flawed it doesn’t resemble the idealized version people claim needs defending by continuing to deny equality to thier fellow citizens.
I don’t know what this means. I think there are a few great marriages out there that are as close as real people can be to the ideal, as well as all the terribly flawed ones. What that demonstrates IMO is what I’ve been saying. The quality of the institution of marriage, the love, trust, commitment etc, exists in the hearts and minds of the individuals involved and no where else. Nothing can be damaged by how bad your neighbour’s marriage is or how little they value it, OR, the fact that SS couples can be legally married.
Again, not quite clear on what you’re saying. Is it that your marriage is somehow diminished if your neighbour’s marriage is a something other than the ideal?
I just don’t see how, and there certainly isn’t a shred of evidence to support such a notion. Is it best that kids are raised in a loving stable household by their natural mother and father? Maybe that’s true, but real life is so very different than that ideal. Are loving adoptive parents better than hateful natural parents? Is a wonderful loving step parent better than natural parents in a bad marriage, or an apathetic parent?
According to the real evidence of studies done, it’s the quality of love, commitment and stability of the caregivers, the acting parents, which matter most. SS couples are clearly just as capable of that.
The interracial aspect is important for US citizens because of our history of civil rights struggles and the fact that all the arguments against SSM are 99% identical to the ones used to oppose interracial marriage, including your religious objection.
I was decrying a two tier system that promotes inequality and harms innocent citizens. The significant difference is that the Covenant Marriage is a choice that allows those who feel marriage is some sacred bond that should be elevated and protected to have what they want without harming others by denying them equality. It has the side effect of separating church and state , religious marriage , and legal marriage, which is also a pretty solid principle here.
Not as old as you think I suspect. Marriage has seriously changed form. That’s a historic fact.
I absolutely did not. I’m saying religious beliefs must compete on equal footing, evidence, facts, decent reasoning, no more, no less.
Wow, we’ve discussed it repeatedly and encouraged anyone to present arguments. Because it’s Great Debates, rather than “This is how I Feel” or “This is what my Church Teaches” we ask for facts and arguments that have some foundation of consistent reasoning. So far, none have been offered and Tom’s description of what they consist of is accurate. You certainly have offered NADA to change that.
I’m sure discussions must be much easier when your sharing ideas with people who agree with you. At least one poster here has the nerve to express and defend his position.
I happen to be a fan of decent and reasonably clever sarcasm, but when it’s apparent that’s the only thing you have to contribute, in Great Debates, it’s pretty unimpressive.
This is way more charitable than I was prepared to be.
There are many rules that don’t apply equally for everyone, e.g. maternity leave.
Assume as you may please.
I agree, marriage now is a shambles. Far, freaking far from its ideal. SSM would be its death.
Yes it does. If my neighborhood start having lots of nudie bars, their actions affect the value of my house. It doesn’t per se make my house worse.
Yes, because we share the same club. If members of my club start being arrested for drug trafficking, the value of my club is diminished through no fault of mine,
Are the worst examples of something I like better than the best of the other group? Sure.
We’ve got at most 20 years of SSM to check on versus a couple of milennia for marriage.
Sure, but it’s a blip in the history of marriage. The thread isn’t about the US.
The ones changing the statu quo shoudl be the ones inventig new stuff.
One man married to one woman seems pretty clear for a gigantic period of time.
Polygamy has not been more than a very minor thing for a loooon time.
Equal footing, sure. Facts and so on, sure, but that assumes, wrongly, that the public square is dominated by them. SSM is feeling first. Most people would still favour SSM if shown less good than marriage.
Sorry, in these threads pro-SSM I’ve never seen the slightest evidence of askign for facts and arguments. You don’t come here to understand, you et here to repeat the same arguments a preach to the choir.
Actually, not. They are not called discussions.
Yeah, he does.
Feel free to engage to function v-bulletin has so that my unimpressiveness doesn’t make you milk curd.
Bull.
How many countries recognize same sex marriage? 14.
How many countries recognize polygamous marriages? 47
Afghanistan
Algeria
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Brunei
Burkina Faso
Cameroon
Chad
CAR
Comoros
Congo
Djibouti
Egypt
Ethiopia
Gabon
The Gambia
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jordan
Kuwait
Libya
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Mauritania
Morocco
Myanmar
Niger
Oman
Pakistan
Palestine
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Singapore
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Syria
Tanzania
Togo
Uganda
UAE
Yemen
Zambia
I assume you see the dividing line being pregnancy.
What’s the corresponding objective element in gay marriage?
With respect to learned colleague stpauler; not merely bull, but bullshit.
Yeah, suuure it would. Nothing kills an institution like people wanting to join it. :rolleyes:
No; marriage has changed multiple times far more drastically than just extending who is eligible a little. Not so long ago marriage was for most purposes a master-and-slave contract, with the woman as the slave. There’s the recognition of marital rape, for another example.
Marriage is not remotely the unchanging monolith you are trying to pretend it is.
The ones advocating change don’t need to invent any “new stuff” here. It’s the anti-SSM people who are busy trying to invent excuses and means to write their bigotry into the law.
Nonsense; the pro-SSM side virtually always asks for facts. They just don’t get those facts because the anti-SSM side is so utterly wrong that it has no facts to offer.
Yeah, western countries all of them.
[QUOTE]
Glad that you agree
The same. Different rights even with equality.
OK.
Why?
How?
Were you posting to your mirror? What “facts” have the anti-SSM side presented beyond the fact that it is not currently practiced?
(You, of course, have posted nothing but sniping and snide remarks. At least steabo and magellan01 have presented ideas to be discussed.)