What’s your reasoning in preventing two people who want to be married from having that option, as opposed to a heterosexual couple who has the option but chooses not to exercise it?
Would it not be better to let those who want to get married to marry, while who choose not to don’t have to?
Hey, Shodan! How’s it going?
Let me try this again. Given that Vermont has just legislatively-approved same-sex marriage, in numbers large enough to override the governor’s veto, how do you feel about that development?
I’d just like to note that this is the THIRD time I’ve posted this question addressed specifically to you in this thread alone. I’m beginning to assume I’m on your ignore list.
An attached, i.e., combined, desk and chair? This is hardly clever.
Duh. For, like, ever, couples have married being unable to ascertain fertility. In the absence of such information, marriage wasn’t restricted to a demonstration of same. Though it was used to show cause after why a marriage should be dissolved. Still, how long have vasectomies been practical? Something like just over a hundred years? Sheesh, argue on the merits, not the outliers, why don’t you?
And, yes, I’m saying that children born to and reared by their biological parents is of benefit to society at large, and that’s why it’s encouraged and supported. Why is this so hard to you to understand?
I’m fine, thanks for asking. And you?
OK, here’s a little test, and yes, there is a point.
How about if you describe what you think is my reaction? I think it will give us all insight into your, and my, thought processes, if any.
Regards,
Shodan
[quote=“42fish, post:100, topic:492382”]
Nope. I was arguing that the use of the term ‘citizens’ was unduly and intentionally vague, as it really only applies to a small subsect of people. Secondly, I’m arguing that marriage is a right if you mean the requirements. Which gay relationships do not.
Again, you’re arguing the outliers, the exceptions. Laws aren’t made on the margins, they’re made for the norm, the standard, the usual. All the others have to work around that. A simple look at the tax codes ought to demonstrate this.
There is this thing called the common law, look it up some time. (Hint: It’s judge made law.)
I’m prepared to believe that Shodan would hail the decision of the Vermont legislature as a fine example of compassionate legislation through the democratic process, relieving suffering which served no purpose.
A man and a woman can have children. Normally, all things being equal. Correct? Before you start throwing out all the ‘buts and oh, yeahs, and except fors’, am I correct? For, well, ever, there was no way to know, was there? Young, healthy, seems likely. So, marriage it is. Stable relationship, one hopes, so, let’s encourage this couple to remain together. Oh, children? Good. More benefits! Future workers of the world! What? No children? Illness? Disease? Death? Choice? Whatever. You don’t get the additional benefits, but we’re not taking anything away because we wanted to encourage the initial relationship knowing that the odds are, children would result more often than not. It’s a lottery, on the part of the government. Not everyone gets married. Not everyone stays married. Not every marriage has children, though most do. Let’s promote the ideal.
Truthfully, I have no idea. Seriously and honestly. I’m blank on this. I’m genuinely curious to find out if the fact that this was legislated as opposed to judicially imposed makes a difference to you.
No, you’re losing out because you haven’t presented a compelling convincing argument. You’ve explained why society supported marriage in part but your argument is severely lacking on the subject of the OP.
If it makes you feel better, even without emotional appeals, you’d be losing on inconsistency (among other grounds).
Because I disagree with you, I’m hardly ‘picking’ on you.
Have I not said, repeatedly even, that gay parents should be entitled to all the rights of straight parents?
Right.
Wrong. Gay marriage is not a right, and never has been, and isn’t being claimed to be. Try again.
Is it that you really don’t get it, or just that you’re playing a game here?
Perhaps you could demonstrate for us what “new right” you have found described in *any *such legal decision, or any such law. Or perhaps quit pretending that this “new right” thing you keep harping on is at all related to reality.
Yes, that’s part of a court’s job (and it’s based on a little more than “feelings”). Yes, you do get to play a role in picking him, via your elected officials who do the nominating and confirming. Glad to see you accept that.
Do you think they should be able to ignore the Constitution when they feel like it? It seems you do.
So, since I don’t want to put words in your mouth, though Og knows you choose your own so carefully that you can argue them either way, as you’ve demonstrated, let me ask a question of you.
Are same-sex relationships inferior to opposite-sex relationships, in your estimation?
Confound you and your legal knowledge! I bet you think that makes you better equipped for a legal argument, don’t you?
I asked why you’re picking on gays.
Then you do support their right to marriage under the law. Congratulations!
Now, for gay non-parents having the rights of straight non-parents …
You know, post-menopausal women are hardly that freakish an outlier. Since, in your view, the purpose of marriage is to promote (but not mandate) children, why were these women allowed marry?
Yes, let’s. But is it necessary to throw up barriers to situations that are, as you would define it, less than ideal? Does promoting one situation require banning others?
This is simply not true. We are talking about a privilege which is defined entirely legislatively. Legal marriage is whatever the government says it is. Its broader lexicographal meaning neither controls, nor is controlled by a statutory definition.
Only legislatively. Lexicographically it has always had a broader range of meaning. “One man, one woman” is certainly not the Biblical definition, for instance.
Yes it is. Good thing I’m not doing that.