As is so often the case, I am now aggravated with your attempts at Jesuitical debate.
Did I say that I do not think marriage protects the child? NO I DID NOT!
toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
As is so often the case, I am now aggravated with your attempts at Jesuitical debate.
Did I say that I do not think marriage protects the child? NO I DID NOT!
I am free to make my beliefs known to the politician of my choice. But law is written after much deliberation by our legally elected officials and must pass the scrutiny of the courts as to their constitutionality. So long as I am not forced to commit acts which go against my morality I shall be a law-abiding citizen.
you never said it did
I am not sure why anyone does believe marriage protects the child. Deadbeat moms and dads divorce all the time and either successfully evade all attempts to collect support for their child/children or contribute a very minimal amount.
Again though, not all couples who wish to marry plan on having children. It's about a commitment between the couple.
You never told me I'm pretty either!
I hope they understand your beliefs better than I do
Okay, Mr Grand Poobah of the Interlocutors of America, how would we know your beliefs? All you do is ask questions!:think:
since you did not take the time to read this thread
I will present them again
and
as often as required
the purpose of marriage is to protect the child
and
I think we should keep it that way
So you think that an STD threshold (and who establishes the reasonable level from the rest, I wonder?
) should be the divider of right? lain: :think: Should you lose your ability to contract or drive because people in your age range disproportionately default and speed, endangering the state economically and its citizens physically? Of course not. Not a rational advance, since the state can't compel anyone to give blood and you haven't supported the notion that your artificial context (any idea about age and education and income relative to STD transmission?) or your self interest is a compelling state interest. And you might want to look into what constitutes that at law, or, beans.
So you think that an STD threshold (and who establishes the reasonable level from the rest, I wonder?
Not a rational advance, since the state can't compel anyone to give blood and you haven't supported the notion that your artificial context (any idea about age and education and income relative to STD transmission?) or your self interest is a compelling state interest. And you might want to look into what constitutes that at law, or, beans.
Therefore you have no grounds to say that marijuana should be illegal.
No hang up. I've set out a host of objections relating to its negative impact on the social compact and distinguishing it from alcohol in both purpose and beneficial usage.
:e4e:
A case you haven't made beyond the declaration, while side stepping my objections and inquiry. I see you're attempting to use bybee as a screen and point of recycling.
:nono:
Nonsense. See the thread in question. I've set out a number and none of them rest on my personal, moral objection. There's also a distinction between a question of equality/equity before the law and a matter of privilege.
there are two rather obvious ways in which marriage protects the child
it encourages the mother and father to stay together for the sake of the child
and
it helps to protect the mother who chooses to stay home with the child
it encourages the mother and father to stay together for the sake of the child
and
it helps to protect the mother who chooses to stay home with the child
And that's great. It should. It doesn't follow that the point and purpose of marriage is to do that very thing. I can put a provision in my incorporation protecting minority shareholders. It doesn't follow that the point of incorporation is to protect minority shareholders.
Do you know what percentage of marriages end in divorce?
What did you have in mind?
the same people who are trying to convince us that abortion and divorce are okay
are
also trying to convince us the purpose of marriage is not to protect the child
it is all about not letting the child interfere with your rights
In the beginning God created woman to be an Helpmeet to man. Nothing was mentioned of children.
you're not much help
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Chrys, the purpose of marriage is not to protect a child. People get married because they make a commitment to each other, and your sensibilities notwithstanding not every couple intends to have children anyway. You may think that they should but that's completely irrelevant frankly. You're either being deliberately obtuse by now or you're just not much good at seeing the obvious arguments levelled against you. Which is it?
lain:- Status