T Nation

Hi God. Are You There? Are You Real?


#981

So?,


#982

So, what’s the objection? The individual can petition for marriage based on a consistent 1 or more consenting adults requirement as it does with a multitude of licenses.


#983

And you aren’t even dealing with the poly person aspect.


#984

Because maintaining consistency for issuance of licence would require a valid marriage contract. One individual cannot enter into contract with himself. Exceeding 2 would require different contracts with different statutory provisions governing it. A legal marriage isn’t just about kids and neither is the state’s interests. Are you getting it yet?


#985

Ok, but my arguments are secular.
And, strictly speaking, my motivations aren’t objectively wrong, secular or religious. There is no objective right way for people to base their life on. If we’re being subjective.


#986

1 or more people would be valid if the requirements for marriage were changed…as with the opposite sex requirements/traditions.

You’re being circular. “It’s not a valid legal marriage” is not an argument against changing laws to make it so. Homosexuals couldn’t have valid licences either. Laws changed/reinterpreted.

And poly is still involving more than one person.


#987

And you don’t necessarily need multiple contracts to involve more than 2 people.


#988

But the root of the laws has always been to protect the rights of 2 parties. The fact that the sex of the parties change does not change this.

Oh please. You can’t try to fall back on “All Laws Can Be Changed” after going through this with me for so many posts trying to find a loophole within the interpretation and application of the law.

See? You’re still trying to argue the legal and procedural ramifications. And, no, not multiple contracts. Different contracts and legislation for 2, 3, 4, 5 and so on.


#989

Umm, I was talking about a change in law from the start…I said so repeatedly. I am flummoxed you didn’t recognize it.


#990

No, you were trying to find inconsistencies within my reasoning by arguing the points of law with me.


#991

No, I have been arguing a change in law the whole time. The entire time. Period. My previous posts are clear on this. Changes to include 1 or more persons. Changes starting with the definitional requirements. 1 or more persons.

The state could recognize poly ‘marriages.’

The state could recognize autosexual ‘marriages’ as the state recognizes an individual driver who meets some requirement.

Edit: I am obviously not arguing they could be recognized this very minute. Hence the questions of support to H-factor.


#992

Your arguments were made to nullify my points about the aspects of the law that have to remain consistent with the principles governing marriage, which would produce an inconsistency in my argument that one person cannot marry himself, leaving me only the moral argument which you thought would be easily dismantled, hence the long exchange.

At the end, you fell back on “everything can be changed”.

However, my point was never about the law. It was about the root of the law and the interests of the state when enacting previous and existing legislation, which has never been solely about child birth.


#993

I led with it. I have been talking about changing the law to accomadate autosexual and polyamorous arrangements for goodness sake!

What? If the state accommodates the additional marriages then those types of marriages that pply are now consistent.


#994

I have been blatantly talking about changing law the entire time. What is this “fall back” business?


#995

You had been arguing supposedly viable reasons on how the law can be changed until you ran out of them. Then you fell back on that.

Of course the law can be changed. That’s a silly statement on it’s own.


#996

So, I did argue about changing law. From the start.

I fell back on what I had maintained? What? Ran out of?

Well, gosh, imagine that.


#997

Hey, if you want to weasel out of this, it’s fine. I’m used to this from arguing with zep.


#998

Right. Ok then…


#999

The state can do this with gay marriage being illegal as well. What I don’t understand is how you are definite in the idea that with gay marriage all these other things will come to be (or could) but you dismiss the idea that historically speaking these arguments have already been trotted out with interracial marriage.

What happens if we let them marry? If we let a black and white marry what if someone wants to marry themselves? Marry a tree? It’s the same slippery slope fallacy either way.


#1000

Which led to the auto/poly exchange. Well, all the exchanges.

They should come to be if you support gay marriage.

Race stuff–Answered up above.