Good luck with that. Your *arguments* are not convincing ... or relevant.
Kentucky clerk who refused gay couples taken into federal custody; ordered jailed
- Thread starter GFR7
- Start date
Good luck with that. Your *arguments* are not convincing ... or relevant.
It failed the moment it assumed that every couple is capable OR willing to have children.
Just to be clear here, if you recognize the legal necessity of the Court's conclusion, irrespective of agreeing with the reasoning it used and irrespective of whether or not you object morally to the proposition, would that qualify you as a same sex marriage supporter to your understanding?
Or, short forming, can you agree there's no legitimate legal reason for denying same sex marriage while opposing the idea morally without being considered a supporter of SSM by your understanding?
-the law must sustain the right absent a secular argument that meets the standard.
they all support same sex marriage
does it really matter why they do?
Yes ... I support freedom and liberty for OTHERS.
what about protecting the children?
how can marriage do that?
if
it is just a meaningless contract that protects two guys living together
WHAT children? You are making an assumption that all couples plan to or WILL have children. Since it's not a requirement, the assumption is baseless.
Ah ... herein lies the problem. You have made the universal assumption about the marriages of other people. People you do NOT know.
To *you* ... the happiness of a gay couple is "meaningless". To them, it is every bit as meaningful as your marriage.
That's right. It's not an answer to my question, which is unsurprising. Yes, chrys, you can't just slap a law into being because it advances your particular moral understanding. So good Catholics don't get to outlaw condoms and Muslims can't insist on Sharia standards as the legal norm. Right.
Looks like you're just pulling an aCW homosexualist bit then...unsurprising but still disappointing to see.
so how do you propose to protect the children
if
marriage is not the way to do it?
Should marriages of any couple who cannot or will not produce children be denied?
Should those marriages be dissolved?
no and no
Why not?
how are you going to determine whether or not a man and woman are not going to have any children?
Medical examination.
Time limit to produce children.
Ask them.
Make them sign a notarized statement with the mandate they summit proof of pregnancy.
not cost effective
So marriage ... should be cheap?
Sitamun
New member
Married parents does not mandate or even presuppose that any children will be "protected". Protected from what exactly?
He seems to believe that a heterosexual couple saying "I do" is the equivalent of Ozzy and Harriet.
Jose Fly
New member
Looks like this isn't over yet. One of her deputy clerks has filed a report to Judge Bunning alleging that Davis violated the court order when she changed the marriage licenses to remove the name of the county, add that they were due to "a federal court order", and have them authorized by a notary public rather than the county clerk (or deputy clerk).
You can read about it HERE.
You can read about it HERE.