1 - 10 Next
If two men can "marry", then marriage can't be about children, but is only about the feelings of adults. Since marriage is not about children and about the feelings of adults, no man should ever feel the slightest bit obligated to marry his knocked-up girlfriend nor stay with his wife because they have minor children together.
Let's assume your statements are true. How does that justify coercing people to violate their convictions, convictions based on universal human history?
In response to:

Answering Ted Olson

Ken the Playful Walrus Wrote: Oct 14, 2014 11:32 AM
OK, so what happens if they disagree on how to split their assets? 1) Physical struggle/fight for the assets OR 2) Court orders. Courts are part of the state, right?
In response to:

Answering Ted Olson

Ken the Playful Walrus Wrote: Oct 14, 2014 11:30 AM
The argument isn't that all marriages must produce children, It is that the gender-inclusive union is the only kind that naturally can, and most do. The state simply does not have the same interest in an union that excludes one of the sexes. Our birth certificates note whether we are male or female, and they are government documents. Therefore, no invasion of privacy is needed under the bride+groom requirement. However, if you want to ask intention to have children or fertility, you are invading privacy.
In response to:

Answering Ted Olson

Ken the Playful Walrus Wrote: Oct 14, 2014 11:27 AM
If two men can "marry", then "marriage", as a public policy, can't be about children. It is solely about the feelings of the two adults. If that is going to be our public policy, we should drop default paternity designations for a husband of a woman giving birth. We should also never, ever pressure a man to marry a woman he knocked up, nor stay married and work out problems for the sake of raising children. Business partners should sue for the benefits of marriage (immigration, immunity from testifying against each other in court, etc.) After all, marriage is no longer a conjugal relationship, and we MUST treat all pairs the same, right?
Never compare same-sex "marriage" to incestuous or polygamous marriages. It's insulting, because the latter two forms of marriage have actually been historically recognized as actual marriages, unlike brideless or goomless unions. ;-)
Although I'm a conservative Christian, my main arguments against judicial imposition of the neutering of state licenses are based on biological facts, separation of powers, and freedom of association. 1) Men and women are different. Even most of the people who try to deny this demonstrate that they understand this to be true. After all, if men and women were not different, all, or at least three, of the terms in "LGBT" would have no meaning. 2) The pairing of a man and a woman is different than the pairing of two men or two women. It is the only kind of pairing that is able to naturally produce new citizens (who, unlike the adults, do not consent to the relationship), even if not all do. This alone is enough to give the state more interest in the pairing of a man and a woman. 3) Men and women are different in personal relationships. If that difference matters enough to someone in picking a lover, how can it not matter when it comes to the parent-child relationship? 4) State licensing of bride+groom pairings provides children with a role model, guardian, and bonding partner from each of the two sexes that comprise all of society, legally bound to each other as well as the children; generally, this is good for children. 5) It is constitutional, moral, common, and necessary to treat different kinds of relationships differently. One need not believe homosexual behavior, relationships, or people to be harmful, sinful, or inferior to accept any or all of #1-5.
Ugh. Let's try that again: The problem is, we've long ago decriminalized fornication and then have done just about everything to defend the freedom of people to fornicate without consequences or moral judgment, and so we're supposed to support "consenting adults", both men and women equally, in their freedom to engage in CASUAL sex. And so people do it. And then we have to come up with things like sexual harassment laws and NOW this "affirmative consent" law that, let's be real, will be used overwhelmingly against men. We do NOT need more women engaging in casual sex and then later, when they realize he enjoyed it more than she did and he's just FINE moving on to another woman while she has a harder time feeling good about the situation - claiming it really wasn't consensual.
The problem is, we've long ago decriminalized fornication and then have done just about everything to defend the freedom of people to fornicate without consequences or moral judgment, and so we're supposed to support "consenting adults", both men and women equally, in their freedom to engage in consensual sex. And so people do it. And then we have to come up with things like sexual harassment laws and how this "affirmative consent" law that, let's be real, will be used overwhelmingly against men. We do NOT need more women engaging in casual sex and then later, when they realize he enjoyed it more than she did and he's just find moving on to another woman while she has a harder time feeling good about the situation - claiming it really wasn't consensual.
In response to:

The Lord and the Courts

Ken the Playful Walrus Wrote: Oct 07, 2014 12:44 PM
Public policy applies to all. Marriage laws apply to all. You are naive if you think WHAT has been one (declaring there's no difference between bride+groom unions and other kinds of pairings) and HOW it has been done (fascistic tactics, judicial overreach, bad new precedents, elected and appointed leaders abandoning their oaths and obligations) will not have a larger effect, some of it negative, of it things YOU don't like.
1 - 10 Next