Which is why I support civil unions for everyone.
Elimination of marriage as a legal contract, leaving it solely a religious one.
Which, in my mind, will likely eliminate the whole issue in the secular political arena.
Religious political arena is a whole other story.
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller
We're talking about a hypothetical legislator voting to change the law that would affect contracts...And you don't want this to be a legal issue? Unreasonable.
There is no part of the contract that binds the couple into making children. To assert so is to ignore reality. An impotent man marrying a woman whose tubes have been tied are just as 'married' as a man and a woman who have 8 children.Originally Posted by Jerry
Impotent man + Woman w/tied tubes: Children as Man + Man : Children.
I would have no problem with this solution either.Originally Posted by The Mark
Last edited by NortheastCynic; 07-21-09 at 04:47 PM.
Last edited by Singularity; 07-21-09 at 05:52 PM.
The sociological institution is primary, taking all priority over legality in every incident, in every way. The law is secondary because the law is meant to reflect society, not society the law.
Legally gay-marriage is like woman's right to vote was: the right does not exist. Women took their issue all the way to SCOTUS who ruled that the constitution did not give them the right to vote. Hence the need for an amendment to create that right.
There never was any right to marry someone of the same gender. No one has this federal right today. No one. In this way the pro-gm case is weaker than woman's suffrage.
One could argue that the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause would extend the right to marriage to any consenting adults that would like to partake in it. I, however, haven't made that argument, I've specifically said that I believe that marriage should be a right enjoyed by gay couples. I've not said that it is their right. By passing legislation 'giving' them that right, we create a positivist right based upon the belief that there should be equal access to the privileges and immunities afforded to married couples.Originally Posted by Jerry
This is a non-sequitur, I've never called it a civil rights issues. Civil rights pertain to rights from government oppression. Gays are not being 'repressed' by not being allowed to marry each other, they're being denied a legal right that they should be entitled to.Originally Posted by Jerry
It's not so much a 'thought' as a statement of fact. A couple with no children and no plans to have children signs the enters into the same agreement as a couple who are ready to have twins. So, in reality, the government's stance on marriage is no where near as absolute as your statement, and I'm paraphrasing, that without children, the gov't has no interest in marriage. That is simply not true.Originally Posted by Jerry
It's an analogy, that is how they are written.Originally Posted by Jerry
Within the context of child-bearing capability (which is the government's reason for interest in marriage, according to you):A man and a woman incapable of having children are to marriage what two men are to marriage.
Whether or not you think that the government should only be interested in the child-creation aspect of marriage is irrelevant as our government, in reality, shows 'interest' in the marriage of individuals incapable of creating children. It is inconsistent, therefore, to prevent gay couples from marrying, as the government's interest in marriage is very clearly not limited to its child-creation function.
Essentially: Society has no interest in preventing gays from marrying. It gains nothing from doing so.
Last edited by NortheastCynic; 07-22-09 at 12:52 AM.
I can see that you're a person who puts thought into your posts. Please continue to do so. So far I'm not seeing any new information in your posts that I haven't already come across in my 3 years on DP, but I'm sure that in time you could become a real player here.
Last edited by Jerry; 07-22-09 at 01:22 AM.