Emotional rants personally insults...both irrelevant here, can we please stick to the issue on the thread, I'm not going to speak to comprehension or thinking skills on your part, I trust this will be the last time we hear from you on thiese matter. Leave your emotions at the door.
Backpedaling as fast as Lance Armstrong forwardpedals I see. Cause..."every contract has characteristics that are alike" is certainly a far cry from "marriage is like any other contract"....your retreat noted and appreceiated.
So today it's, characterictics are the alike, purposes are unique?:roll:
And rather than smug, I merely use your argument. That is:
Given the natural tendancy of the human being to choose life-long mates and that being directly tied to the pursuit of one's happiness, the state makes concessions for us to choose one person to be irreplacable to us.
Now...that is quite unique in character, quite unique in purpose, quite unique everywhere but in your unfounded denials. There is NO other contracts based on natural tendencies of the human being to choose life long mates as you put it. Marriage quite unique in that it is tied to one's own happiness...according to you. What other contract........rather than insults and wish wash excuses..merely blow my argument from the water and provide me the contract....any other than marriage....where the State is making concessions based on 'us choosing one person irreplaceable'.
You cannot. We both know it. Rather than admit your mistake here and admit marriage is quite a unique contract with quite unique constituent interest with compelling reasons for society placing rules on it. Now...we may disagree with the rules...let's not disagree with society's right to define it...or that it is quite unique and needing unique definition.
You made the colossal error of defining it yourself, J, I used your exact words above. YOUR definition is quite unique and therefore, I use it to destroy your argument that marriage is like any other contract.
Cause according to you, it's not.