2 + 2 = 5
Now explain to me in the light of the above why someone can earn two thousand dollars from salary, two thousand dollars from investments, write a check for five thousand dollars, and have it boune.
I am reminded of the attempts to handwave away evidence for evolution by defining cases that are simply too well supported to ignore or deny (e.g. Eohippus –> Equus) as “microevolution” and insisting that the evidence therefore doesn’t count as support for “macroevolution”.
Reiterate above oath about not having seen this message before making the above analogy. It’s like he’s psychic or something.
But records of when a woman has reached menopause or had her tubes tied are inaccessibly buried alongside the Area 51 aliens and the plans for the 200mpg carburetor.
At least, so I gather from Terr’s claim that it’s just too darn hard for the gummint to identify infertile heterosexuals.
No he didn’t. The closest he came was
but that still doesn’t address the fact that if the government draws the conclusion that heterosexual couple = good homelife for children that they would take further steps such as outlawing divorce or requiring couples to get married if they have a child out of wedlock.
There is simply no way that the argument that that marriage is about procreation or having a stable environment for children has any merit because if they did, there would be further laws to implement the government’s policy. For example, California’s family code used to have a specific law that stated that a function of marriage was to have children. OK, fine but it then allowed sterile people to get married if their partner knew they were sterile so the hypocracy is that marriage was a tool for the State to encourage procreation but then it is OK to get married if you can’t procreate and THEN the anti-SSM say gays can’t marry because they can’t procreate with each other.
And don’t forget the other side of the coin. DOMA advocates that claim it’s not about religion hold a postion where two committed adults of the same sex cannot provide a stable relationship for a child (through adoption or a previous hetero relationship for one partner) BUT that somehow single parenthood (through non-marriage or divorce/separation) is. Otherwise there would be a movement to at least outlaw divorce and in the extreme require people to get married to have children.
So secular DOMA supporters, explain how you can support heteros having kids outside of marriage or divorce when children are involved.
So what? When I hire a plumber to fix my pipes, I don’t give a damn if it’s in his interest to inflate the bill. When I hire a government to keep the peace and protect the borders, I don’t give a damn if it’s in its interest to poke into other matters.
Sure it does.
-
You said that children were the state interst. Ergo, extending the privilege to people who do not serve the interest is unwarranted. That’s your argument, mister.
-
You said that the line has do be drawn somewhere other than where your argument says it actually is (fertility) because mapping the line accurately is too much trouble. A breeding requirement elegantly solves that problem – “no kids within X time after marriage” is an easily verified objective fact.
Of course we know it; we’re not the ones advancing the argument that leads inexorably to that conclusion. You and Terr are.
I don’t mind arbitrary and capricious. I do mind inconsistent and discriminatory.
If there is a law against eating pigeons, I expect all persons to be prevented from eating pigeons and not just left-handed persons. Likewise, if there is a law against marriage of persons within a certain degree of descent, I expect it to apply to all persons.
Now, this discussion is not about incestual marriages (although with modern genetic counselling I do not see a compelling logical reason against it and woud be willing to entertain arguments for or against), but about the rights of two non-related competent adults to enter into a marriage contract. Bringing incestual relationships into the euation is muddying the waters, and greasing the slippery slope that assumes all “perverts” are alike.
I saw this on Wiki and had to share. I added the parts in brackets.
It is of course a description of Pace v. Alabama. DOMA supporters, do you support the above statements without the bracketed words? If not, then how does the substitution of the bracketed words change anything.
Either respond to what I actually write, or stop responding. You’re just parroting the same tired lines from one of your playbooks. This is your last chance. I choose my words carefully. Sometimes I write what I don’t mean, then I will concede my error and backtrack. I’ll let you know when that happens.
I did NOT write that children are better off. Obviously, that can not always be the case. I wrote that the instiution of traditional marriage, the state believes, is the best environment to raise children. It is in the state’s interest that as many children as possible are raised in the best environment possible. That’s why we have the divorce laws we have, and many other manifestations of this thinking.
As I’ve written before, whether it’s true or not is irrelevant. The state has assumed since the institution itself was created that this is the best environment to raise children. That is the state’s interest. Regardless of whether or not it’s true, that is the reason for its interest.
.
I don’t understand.
The interest is in preserving the instution that serves the children. I’m not sure how else to put it if you can’t get that.
The state draws the line at preserving/supporting the institution itself, not its issue.
Of course we know it; we’re not the ones advancing the argument that leads inexorably to that conclusion. You and Terr are.
[/QUOTE]
The term for the argument “I assert position X, and on that basis show that X deserves preference” is spelled “circular”.
I call bs on this. Of course you don’t mind inconsistent and discriminatory. People discriminate all the time where you don’t mind. So don’t bother with the pious posturing.
I have to assume you are purposefully being obtuse. The institution itsself is what the state is protecting. Your silly comparisons are… well, silly.
Stupid and ridiculous. allowing interracial marriage does not alter the institution itself. Which is why it was eventually allowed. And it is also why your comparison is invalid.
Actually, this isn’t true. For example, if Joe Blow shoots John Doe because he believes Doe to be an advance scout for a race of invading lizard people, the fact that the belief is untrue doesn’t change the fact that it is indeed his honestly asserted motivation.
It suffices to conclude that the arguments a DOMA supporter, like the arguments of a murderous paranoid schizophrenic, are based on irrationality. 
I don’t address this question from a religious perspective. You are the one who brings it up.
The last refuge of a liberal losing an argument. “If only those bumpkins could be as learned and educated as the rest of us enlightened.”
Not all posts are directed at you. That one was in response to JoelUpchurch on whether consanguity laws are logical. the purpose of my somewaht facetious respose was to redirect his attention to the topic at hand and not get distracted by what might seem to be related topics.
Nonsense. For example, states tend to be uninterested in promoting and encouraging humane treatment of prisoners; if your assertion were untrue, all Eighth Amendment lawsuits would be summarily dismissed.
But at the time, good, right-thinking Americans believed it would alter the institution itself. They were wrong. That is the parallel Saint Cad was making.