Doesn’t seem much like a debate so far. I suppose Gaudere recognizes the feeling. Perhaps it will be helpful to steer the subject away from its putative topic for a bit. Of course, it may be that the thread title is red-flagging the sulfur-and-brimstone crowd to stay away.
Interesting stuff that’s been appearing here, ladies and gentlemen. It’s unfortunate that there seems to be an air of preaching to the choir (can I have an “Amen” on that? --Hallelujah! Tell the Truth!).
Excuse me, I got carried away.
I’d like to delve a little deeper into AHunter3’s suggestion (implied, of course; I have no wish to put words or intentions into anyone’s mouth or mind – yet :)), that marriage should be de-recognized by the government. Although I have no legal training, it occurs to me that marriage, as it is perpetuated in the U.S. today, constitutes a class of contract which is duplicated in no other type of relationship. It can’t really be considered comparable to a corporation, can it? Of course, it could be argued that the purpose of a marriage is to provide an framework within which children can be brought into the world and introduced into society as citizens, a purpose which is not duplicated by any other type of institution. But then we might also want to question whether this view reduces people within a society, and their children, to resources and commodities. If the institution cannot be defended as having a civic purpose, then perhaps it should no longer be recognized. If, on the other hand there *is[/] a civic purpose for it (that purpose being exclusively one of producing new generations of citizens), it’s difficult to argue that it should be available to persons who choose not to engage in the production of new citizens. If manhattan is following this, perhaps he could enlighten me on the question of whether any corporation is required to have a purpose in order to be legally recognized as such. Interestingly, should government de-recognize marriage as having status in a court of law, that throws into question the concept of criminal courts being enjoined from compelling the testimony of a witness against said witness’ spouse (once again, manhattan, I turn to you: is that actually a constitutional guarantee, or is it simply something we have inherited from the tradition of common law?). It strikes me that in times of antiquity, this limitation on prosecutorial powers may have been limited to preventing compelled testimony from a wife against a husband, but not necessarily the other way around. I have no direct knowledge of whether this was ever so, but it would be consistent with the myriad ways in our history in which the wife in a marriage was considered to be her husband’s property. Should such a development be implemented with any degree of expeditiousness, the folks in Boulder might be able to make use of the removal of such a shield. This might even get Contestant #3 to join the debate over whether gay marriage/adoption should be allowed.
Polycarp, two questions: 1.)Does your screen name signify anything in particular (you know, like poly=many + carp=a kind of fish => the name Polycarp memorializes the feeding of the multitudes)? 2.) In your OP, you wrote:
Would you be so kind as to detail exactly what you disagree with: a)not being averse to
“registered domestic partnerships”, b)opposing gay marriages, or c)their logic? And if it’s not too much trouble, what do you perceive their logic to be?
Hope this helps get things jump started. Now, I’m gonna click on to gaudere’s link.
