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.
Donât be silly. â2 humansâ would be just as consistent.
It is or it isnât, if youâre going to raise consistency. 1 or more consenting adults is also consistent.
Correct. I donât care that bad arguments (sub-human/another species) were made for anti miscegenation. Theyâre 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-whiteâŠ
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 âwhat will this lead toâ 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.
Iâm 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. Letâs 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 âone or more consenting adultsâ 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 isnât negated by only having one individual and the state. Ssi recipients, drivers, etcâŠ
Thatâs fine. It is the root of your disdain though whether or not youâd 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 youâre arguing hard now.
I am still curious and donât know why you havenât answered if you believe gay marriage has had an effect on your life and if so why? Iâm curious how your life changed because of the SCOTUS decision.
Do you then answer yes, theyâre the same, to the âsonâ 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 donât believe me being sexually attracted to women is a choice. I canât force myself to sexually desire a man. Gay people canât 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, donât act as if theyâre analogous.