Because of maintaining consistency of requirements across the board.
Which is no longer an argument. All marriages must involve a man and woman was consistent.
Consistency of requirements for issuance of a licence.
Don’t be silly. “2 humans” would be just as consistent.
It is or it isn’t, if you’re going to raise consistency. 1 or more consenting adults is also consistent.
Correct. I don’t care that bad arguments (sub-human/another species) were made for anti miscegenation. They’re different qualities with different arguments. "The races are clearly reproductive, therefore, part of the same exact species, and fit perfectly into the male/female bio unit. Something the state has an interest in providing an orderly institution for.
Not to mention the comparison is silly. I think pretty much everyone acknowledges some fundamental differences.
If son says he will never date a non-white…
Son says he will never date a non cishetero female. If you act with the same disappointment to both, I will grant that you at least can act as if the 2 quantities can be compared.
And yet the “what will this lead to” slippery slope is the exact same. And the religious being against it (although maybe to a lower extent than gay marriage) because of the Bible.
Do you personally feel as if gay marriage has had an effect on your life (other than losing time debating it on t-nation of course!)?
Here, to be clear.
I’m making solid secular arguments. Not interested in bringing in the bible, Jesus, or totem spirit?
Edit: Ultimately, though, we can live however we can live.
Alright. Let’s go with 2 humans, then.
Not at all when it comes to a marriage contract.
Because of the present definition of marriage. Could be changed and would be consistent.
Is “one or more consenting adults” a consistent statement? It is. Change the law, it is now self consistent.
No, because of the protection of rights of the parties to the contract.
Which isn’t negated by only having one individual and the state. Ssi recipients, drivers, etc…
That’s fine. It is the root of your disdain though whether or not you’d like to admit I believe. And it is important to point out the exact same arguments being used to keep interracial marriage from happening especially the slippery slope which is what you’re arguing hard now.
I am still curious and don’t know why you haven’t answered if you believe gay marriage has had an effect on your life and if so why? I’m curious how your life changed because of the SCOTUS decision.
Do you then answer yes, they’re the same, to the ‘son’ scenarios?
Issuance of a marriage licence would require a marriage contract between 2 parties. If the state is a party to a marriage contract, the state would be the one suing for breach of said contract.
It could certainly revoke the license.
We discussed this already up there further when you first asked it. I don’t believe me being sexually attracted to women is a choice. I can’t force myself to sexually desire a man. Gay people can’t either. When did you decide to be straight? What age? Can you decide to desire members of the same sex?
Then why repeat it? They are fundamentally not the same. If you are going to say and act as much, don’t act as if they’re analogous.