Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Jul 2004 00:31:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1546 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
> > > sisters and horses, etc?
> >
> > If we follow the logic that marriage is a legal two-party contract -
>
> 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 say 1 man and N women. Who is to say which is better?
> The people. Let the people decide.
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 people to choose to freely associate and to enter into contracts.
Keep the state out of defining one sort of contract among freely consenting
adults as superior.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
