Debate : 24893


Off-Topic / Debate / 24893	24892 \| 24894

Subject:	Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Tue, 20 Jul 2004 06:29:02 GMT
Viewed:	1529 times

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:

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.

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 contracts some special protections?

JOHN

Message has 1 Reply:

		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)

Message is in Reply To:

		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)

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

Custom Search