 | | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) Can I assume that the main knock on defining marriage as the union of 1 woman 1 man is that it discriminates (against gays). But doesn't your proposed definition discriminate against polyspousewanters? Why is your discriminating definition any (...) (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) No, marriage is often used as a way to avoid deportation, which would be a non-issue if only citizens could get married. I don't believe either party has to be a citizen/national, so that a Canadian and a Mexican could meet up in Vegas on (...) (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) Well... If presently: "marriage is defined as the union of one consenting adult male and one consenting adult female" And proposed: "marriage is defined as the union of two consenting adults" (Assuming they're human, US citizens [is that (...) (20 years ago, 10-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) Sure, sure... that's the free rider problem. The pat answer solution is to figure out how to price the task into the costs borne by those to whom it is essential. (note: government is the most common, but not only, mechanism for doing that (...) (20 years ago, 10-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Third time's the charm?
|
|
First it was the crew of the aircraft carrier. Then it was Dubya's advisors. And (URL) now> apparently it's all the fault of Tommy "Abandon the Constitution" Franks: "That's my fault, that George W. Bush said what he said on the first of May of last (...) (20 years ago, 10-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
