Silent Hunter
Well-known member
. . . unlikely . . . since we all share the opinion that having children is NOT the reason people get married . . .
. . . and . . .
. . that you are a misogynistic troll.
. . . :wave: . . .
toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
. . . and . . .
. . that you are a misogynistic troll.
. . . :wave: . . .
you really know how to hurt a guy
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
I will try to remember this group
and
your ability to respect different opinions
and
your ability to respect different opinions
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
. . . give it up chrys . . .
. . . no one cares what you believe about marriage . . .
. . . :wave: . . .
well I appreciate the opportunity to present my views
The *points* you have attempted to make are not respectable ones.
Only if you believe life is utility. It's a sterile view and not terribly abundant. You might want to reconsider.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
. . . out of touch as they are . . . :sigh:.
alwight
New member
What you say here applies well to the basics of all life, and the Theory of Evolution.
However, giraffes don't get married, getting married is not part of the ToE as far as I know?
Marriage is simply a part of human culture and tradition not a basic requirement.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
. . . though most of us KNOW that we really . . . aren't.
. . . there will be a "we" when you start thinking . . . instead of asserting.
Excellent, but you reduce marriage to biological mechanics, which is utilitarian and so my comment.
You might want to reconsider your gender bias.
you reduced it to a contract between any two people
except I think you would rule out brothers
or
exactly where do you draw the line?
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
. . . Why not?
. . . for example . . .
. . . animals get along quite well without marriage . . .
. . . few species even bother to be monogamous . . .
. . . some males have multiple mates . . .
. . . and . . .
. . . some females have multiple suitors.
. . . often . . . only one of the parents has anything to do with raising the young.
. . . some species don't even raise their own young.
. . . :nono: . . . you don't.
No. I recognized that the institution, in relation to the state, is entirely that and that there is no legitimate reason to discriminate relative to the OP. I also noted that what people bring to it, religiously or else, is another matter, not a non existent one.
It's a case by case evaluation relative to a compelling state interest in interfering in two adults' right to contract. Make the state interest argument against a given consensual union. In the case of incest there's one regarding genetics and health issues. I'd think there might be a compelling argument against your (so far as I know) purely hypothetical coupling relating to mental health ramifications/inference, but I don't know of any studies...or anyone promoting the practice.
Doesn't help you with the OP though. :nono:
would you have a problem with a human marrying an animal?
- Status