 | | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) If we follow the logic that marriage is a legal two-party contract - then union of woman and horse is disallowed because horses can't engage in legal contracts. Neither can dogs, turtles, mice, or chimpanzees. If this groups of animals were to (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) This is exactly my point-- by what reasoning do you choose to define marriage soley between 2 parties? On what basis do you make this discrimination? I have chosen to define it as 1 man and 1 woman. You choose "two-party". Someone else might (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Are you feeling ok, John? This is precisely what I've been arguing all along. Let the parties to the contract (or the private contracting/sanctioning organization) define who can participate. Keep the state out of interfering with the right of (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) BUT, does the state have a vested interest in promoting certain contracts above others? Marriage and families are pretty efficient at raising the next generation of citizens (at least as compared to the state). What is wrong with giving these (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Group marriages are pretty efficient at it too. More so, by every measure I can think of. The only stumbling blocks they suffer are legal challenges. Maybe if the nation were under threat of not reproducing enough, it would be in the interest (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
