tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post115924130326590863..comments2023-05-14T03:44:54.726-05:00Comments on CourageMan: Over on BeliefnetCourageManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13446189695845365897noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-1159406245565719732006-09-27T20:17:00.000-05:002006-09-27T20:17:00.000-05:00Sheesh. You are thick aren't you.For the record, y...<I>Sheesh. You are thick aren't you.</I><BR/><BR/><I>For the record, you should seriously consider getting some professional, not religious, help.</I><BR/><BR/>Winston, you are a guest in my home. I've given you fair warning. Those kind of remarks have no place in honest discourse. And less-than-no-place from guest to host. <BR/><BR/>You are hereby banned, and all your remarks henceforth will be deleted. I'm keeping your current comments for the record.CourageManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13446189695845365897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-1159405975983949092006-09-27T20:12:00.000-05:002006-09-27T20:12:00.000-05:00For the record, and for precisely that reason, I d...<I>For the record, and for precisely that reason, I don't think it's generally a good idea for persons with strong and persistent homosexual attractions, like myself, to marry in the hope of curing themselves that way.</I><BR/><BR/>For the record, you should seriously consider getting some <B>professional</B>, not religious, help. The idea that homosexual attractions somehow require "curing", is symptomatic of someone with severe psychosis and delusion. No reputable medical or psychological professional would diagnose homosexual attractions as something that needs to be "cured".Winston Norris, IIIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12445346651284306568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-1159405628085638242006-09-27T20:07:00.000-05:002006-09-27T20:07:00.000-05:00I've already answered your "gays reproduce" argume...<I>I've already answered your "gays reproduce" argument. They don't.</I><BR/><BR/>Now you're just being ignorant, CM.<BR/><BR/>Gay people have biological children, whether you want to admit it or not. They do.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>And ... "the state does not require a couple to possess the ability to procreate in order to obtain a civil marriage license" ... conflates (1) the reasons for subsidizing the institution as a whole and for setting social norms, with (2) how the institution applies in a given case. We don't require specific proof of ability to reproduce for very good reasons of privacy and state intrusion. There is no need to violate anyone's privacy to know that two men aren't going to reproduce.</I><BR/><BR/>Sheesh. You are thick aren't you.<BR/><BR/>Marriage laws were not and are not created to serve the idea of children, CM. You can say it over and over and over again, but it won't change the truth. Marriage laws exist to support families, not children. Gay people have families, CM. Some have children. Some don't. But either way, they're still families, and still guaranteed to be respected equally by the law.Winston Norris, IIIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12445346651284306568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-1159405239267133362006-09-27T20:00:00.000-05:002006-09-27T20:00:00.000-05:00Without a structural link to children, there is no...<I>Without a structural link to children, there is no reason marriage serves the public good.</I><BR/><BR/>That is incorrect.<BR/><BR/>Civil marriage serves the public good in a plethora of ways. It provides benefits, such as retirement security for couples, wherein when a person dies, their social security, pension, and other forms of security continue to subsidize the livelihood of the surviving spouse. It provides priveleges, in that a married spouse is not required to testify in a court of law against their spouse. It provides responsibilities, in that a married spouse can make medical decisions for their spouse in the event of they are incapacitated. These are just examples of the many rights, benefits, priveleges, and responsiblities civil marriage confers. There are many, many more. <BR/><BR/>In the state I live in there are 588 statutes pertaining to marriage. In the last year or so, the state sponsored a study to determine how many of these statutes could be contracted through legal lawyer-drawn filings. Of the 588 statutes, only 8 could be "duplicated" and at a much higher financial cost than a civil marriage license.<BR/><BR/>Any marriage statute pertaining to children equally applies to those gay couples who are raising children. In other words, whatever reason the protections, rights, responsibilities, and priveleges are conveyed through civil marriage to a married couple with children, the same reason would apply to a gay couple with children...though these statutes are but a very small percentage of marriage statutes in general.Winston Norris, IIIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12445346651284306568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-1159404624449080432006-09-27T19:50:00.000-05:002006-09-27T19:50:00.000-05:00greenengineer wrote:BY WHAT RIGHT DO YOU CLAIM TO ...greenengineer wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>BY WHAT RIGHT DO YOU CLAIM TO DENY A COUPLE EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE OF THE SAME SEX?</I><BR/><BR/>CAN THE SHOUTING!!!!!<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Need I remind you that equality before the law is one of the absolute foundation stones of our Republic?</I><BR/><BR/>But the persons in question are not similarly situated (you can't "set aside" the issue of children).<BR/><BR/>Look -- all laws create classifications and then treat unequally on the basis of said classification. One of the reasons I so detest current political discourse is its utter indiscriminateness on matters of discrimination. All "discrimination" means is "unequal treatment" and not all "unequal treatment" is immoral -- only the unequal treatment of the equal. But as sure as the cow's coming home, you make the instant comparison to segregation, as though that settled the matter.<BR/><BR/>Nor is there any denail of any person's right to marry: anybody can marry anybody whom he is eligible to marry (meaning no relatives, only one, opposite-sex, partner-unmarried, etc.); nobody can marry anybody whom he is ineligible to marry (meaning relatives, multiple spouses, persons of the same sex, etc.). A desire to marry a relative, multiple persons, someone of the same sex, etc., no matter how fierce and "inborn" you think it is, does not create a right, any more than a desire for property creates a right to theft.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>secular marriage is (among other things) a mechanism by which one person may choose to reciprocally grant legal rights to another.</I><BR/><BR/>There are mechanisms to do this available to any two (or three or more) persons without reference to sexual behavior.CourageManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13446189695845365897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-1159403820844751932006-09-27T19:37:00.000-05:002006-09-27T19:37:00.000-05:00I've already answered your "gays reproduce" argume...I've already answered your "gays reproduce" argument. They don't.<BR/><BR/>And ... "the state does not require a couple to possess the ability to procreate in order to obtain a civil marriage license" ... conflates (1) the reasons for subsidizing the institution as a whole and for setting social norms, with (2) how the institution applies in a given case. We don't require specific proof of ability to reproduce for very good reasons of privacy and state intrusion. There is no need to violate anyone's privacy to know that two men aren't going to reproduce.CourageManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13446189695845365897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-1159403593922527392006-09-27T19:33:00.000-05:002006-09-27T19:33:00.000-05:00greenengineer wrote:The point of my proposal is pr...greenengineer wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>The point of my proposal is precisely to secularize, not marriage, but the legal civil union.</I><BR/><BR/>Apart from nomenclature, how's that different from the status quo (as a matter of the structure of the church-state relationship; not the definition of who can marry).<BR/><BR/>There is already, formally at least, a state-church division on marriage matters. That is, you must get a license from the state and register, in order to be "married." In most cases, sure, the state simply ratifies pro forma what the church does. But the state already performs some marriages itself -- "the JP in the next county" -- and they are just as good for state purposes.CourageManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13446189695845365897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-1159403070745143372006-09-27T19:24:00.001-05:002006-09-27T19:24:00.001-05:00Homosexuality is inherently, always and by nature ...<I>Homosexuality is inherently, always and by nature infertile, and so the state has no interest.</I><BR/><BR/>Gay people procreate, CM. No matter how much you want to believe they don't, they do.<BR/><BR/>The state does not require a couple to possess the ability to procreate in order to obtain a civil marriage license. Obviously, the state does not think it is of interest. Come on, CM...be honest...it's YOU that cares...not the state.Winston Norris, IIIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12445346651284306568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-1159403056314217722006-09-27T19:24:00.000-05:002006-09-27T19:24:00.000-05:00Why should the government only "subsidize" the mar...<I>Why should the government only "subsidize" the marriages that YOU approve of...<BR/><BR/>Care to answer it, instead of stating what you think it indicates?</I><BR/><BR/>I don't approve of the terms of the question, which presuppose a personalist morality and a nihilistic epistemology. It's a "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" question.CourageManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13446189695845365897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-1159401798006188982006-09-27T19:03:00.000-05:002006-09-27T19:03:00.000-05:00As for blended families, and the Brady Bunch analo...As for blended families, and the Brady Bunch analogy (and don't worry, references to trashy pop culture are most welcome):<BR/><BR/>You're conflating two separate issues -- the definition of marriage (which comes first), and how this definition will be applied in given cases. Your Scenario A and Scenario B are different in that the couple in Scenario B cannot marry, any more than the later couples in the "Big Love" situation (Scenario C) can marry.<BR/><BR/>There is also the not-so-small matter than the couple in Scenario B are holding themselves out to the world as engaged in immoral acts, and so participate in the normalization and forced public-subsidy of them.<BR/><BR/>Look, I have no doubt that people live out different arrangements, often in response to tragedy and/or mistake -- the commonest one relevant to this discussion being a person marrying, begetting and then deciding that he's really gay (so now, what happens to the children).**<BR/><BR/>But that doesn't cast doubt on the definition of marriage, or why we subsidize it, any more than the five-legged cow proves it false to say that cows have four legs. And social policy and social understandings have to based on norms, not exceptions, otherwise, nothing can be defined or coherently talked about.<BR/><BR/>Without a structural link to children, there is no reason marriage serves the public good.<BR/><BR/><BR/>** For the record, and for precisely that reason, I don't think it's generally a good idea for persons with strong and persistent homosexual attractions, like myself, to marry in the hope of curing themselves that way.CourageManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13446189695845365897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-1159400445762581822006-09-27T18:40:00.000-05:002006-09-27T18:40:00.000-05:00Winston:Gay people do not reproduce qua gay people...Winston:<BR/><BR/>Gay people do not reproduce qua gay people, as your examples actually prove. Homosexuality is inherently, always and by nature infertile, and so the state has no interest.<BR/><BR/>[blink, blink]<BR/><BR/>I really can't believe I'm having a discussion where it's necessary to point out that only the male-female union creates life.CourageManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13446189695845365897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-1159385954906982172006-09-27T14:39:00.000-05:002006-09-27T14:39:00.000-05:00WE? What do you mean we kemosabe?Well, Tonto, anyo...<I>WE? What do you mean we kemosabe?</I><BR/><BR/>Well, Tonto, anyone with an IQ over 50 could probably figure out that "we", in the context of what was written, meant "the human race".<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><I>I know I didn't come from space aliens, but after reading your comments I can't say the same for you.</I><BR/><BR/>Do you have any conclusive evidence that you didn't come from space aliens?<BR/><BR/>As for me, I don't believe I came from space aliens, but I have no conclusive evidence that I didn't, so I don't completely rule it out. It's possible, I suppose, but probably not likely.Winston Norris, IIIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12445346651284306568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-1159384732234688622006-09-27T14:18:00.000-05:002006-09-27T14:18:00.000-05:00"Winston Norris" said:Do you have conclusive evide..."Winston Norris" said:<BR/><BR/>Do you have conclusive evidence that we didn't come from space aliens?<BR/><BR/>WE? What do you mean we kemosabe? <BR/><BR/>I know I didn't come from space aliens, but after reading your comments I can't say the same for you.JBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03228486535363352996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-1159364379131633992006-09-27T08:39:00.000-05:002006-09-27T08:39:00.000-05:00Ah, but you see, GE...These "Christians" that are ...Ah, but you see, GE...<BR/><BR/>These "Christians" that are so adamant about denying my marriage legal recognition have <B>absolutely</B> no concern whatsoever about the title "marriage".<BR/><BR/>I mean, why else do you think every single constitutional amendment that has been proposed and/or passed includes something to the affect of:<BR/><BR/><I>Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status <B>or the legal incidents thereof</B> be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>You see, these "Christians" aren't in any way concerned about "protecting marriage"...they are ONLY concerned with discriminating against those they find "abominable". They only wish to codify their religion-based prejudice towards gay people with these amendments. Not one of these "Christian" claiming "family" organizations that has sprung up over the last decade or so is proposing any legal protections for gay couples. Every one of them is proposing <B>the complete denial</B> of the legal recognition of the marriages of gay couples.Winston Norris, IIIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12445346651284306568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-1159333951065615502006-09-27T00:12:00.000-05:002006-09-27T00:12:00.000-05:00Winston,Oh, I'm not stuck on the name. Whatever y...Winston,<BR/><BR/>Oh, I'm not stuck on the name. Whatever you want to call it, it's the legal rights that matter in the secular domain. My relinquishment of the word "marraige" is really just effort to respect their boundaries of the sacred (which makes more sense in the context of the original discussion, over at CCons). You know, it's like not dissing Mohammed to a Muslim. :_)GreenEngineerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11805839027881984170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-1159329601505699072006-09-26T23:00:00.000-05:002006-09-26T23:00:00.000-05:00Well said, GreenEngineer.But what I don't get is w...Well said, GreenEngineer.<BR/><BR/>But what I don't get is why you think the name needs to be changed. It's a civil marriage. It's clear to me that there is a distinct difference between civil marriage and religious marriage. <BR/><BR/>I am married. What differnce does it make if my marriage is not recognized by a church? All that matters is that it be recognzied by the state. I am married. What's wrong with calling the legal recognition of my marriage a "civil marriage"?Winston Norris, IIIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12445346651284306568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-1159326012003017872006-09-26T22:00:00.000-05:002006-09-26T22:00:00.000-05:00But such a move would be one more step in the desc...<I>But such a move would be one more step in the descralization and demystification of both sex and marriage</I><BR/><BR/>The point of my proposal is precisely to secularize, not marraige, but the legal civil union. You can keep your sacred marraige: that's between you, your priest, and your god. But the secular legal construct that is currently called marraige conveys some very specific, and very important, legal rights to its participants.<BR/><BR/>Ignoring the issues of children for the moment, legal marraige is a way for an individual to choose another person as their commited partner. Among other things, it includes a designation as next of kin, and an effective power of attorney. Granted, these legal implements can be had without marraige, but the process is expensive and difficult and the result generally has less legal standing than a marraige, if only because it does not carry the same weight of precedent.<BR/><BR/>So, secular marraige is (among other things) a mechanism by which one person may choose to reciprocally grant legal rights to another. Both parties are free adults, equal before the law as citizens of the United States.<BR/><BR/>BY WHAT RIGHT DO YOU CLAIM TO DENY A COUPLE EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE OF THE SAME SEX?<BR/><BR/>Need I remind you tha equality before the law is one of the absolute foundation stones of our Republic? Any idea, principle, or ethic that denies it is not compatible with the principles on which this nation was founded. <BR/><BR/>I would also point you to the precedent of American history. Denying a citizen equality before the law for the sake of maintaining social order has a long and shameful history in our country. By holding the position that you do, you are aligning yourself with some of the worst aspects of our past. Most notably and clearly, the Jim Crow laws of the South.GreenEngineerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11805839027881984170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-1159324130674758262006-09-26T21:28:00.000-05:002006-09-26T21:28:00.000-05:00WNIII: Gay couples already reproduce...CM: Um ... ...WNIII: <I>Gay couples already reproduce...</I><BR/><BR/>CM: <I>Um ... I may have gotten the facts of life wrong, but I think that is by definition untrue.</I><BR/><BR/>Um ... gay people have the same equipment straight people do, CM. There are all kinds of ways that gay people reproduce. I have a friend who has two children. She is a lesbian. The father of her children is a gay man. They planned their children together. They did it "the old fashioned way". They are raising their children together. The father has been happily married to another man for 18 years. The mother lost her partner a few years back. I have other friends that are a lesbian couple. They had their daughter through in vitro fertilzation with an anonymous donor through a sperm bank. They're raising their daughter together. They are a family. As you can see, CM, gay people do, by definition, reproduce. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>WNIII: <I>they're already raising the next generation.</I><BR/><BR/>CM: <I>Only under two circumstances: (1) adoption, which is to say, only with the encouragement of the state trying to force-feed its discriminationphobia (in other words, this not a natural fact, but a circumstance created by the state); and (2) as left over from other, fertile unions (like previous marriages, say -- McGreevey being one example). But the natural relationship between the child and the parent has nothing to do with the parent's gay partnership.</I><BR/><BR/>The natural relationship between <B>Mrs.</B> Michael Brady and Greg, Peter, and Bobby had nothing to do with her relationship to <B>Mr.</B> Michael Brady, but they were legally married, were they not? (and yes, I know its just a tv show...but similar situations do exist in reality...and they are quite common).<BR/><BR/>And obviously, given the fact that gay people <B>do</B> reproduce and <B>already have</B>, wouldn't you say that there are a number of different ways besides the two you've mentioned where gay couples <B>are</B> raising the next generation?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><I>It is thus not an argument for subsidizing gay unions, per se.</I><BR/><BR/>Is it an argument to subsidize remarried widows (Carol Brady) and their widowed spouses (Mike Brady)? <BR/><BR/>Scenario A: A widowed woman with one biological child marries a man with no children. The childless man legally adopts the child of his wife as his own. <BR/><BR/>Scenario B: A gay woman with one biological child marries a woman with no children. The childless woman legally adopts the child of her wife as her own. <BR/><BR/>Based on your argument that "The secular state subsidizes marriage because it wants to encourage it as an institution -- for reasons having to do with reproduction and the raising of the next generation", why would the government subsidize the marriage of the couple in scenario A, but not the marriage of the couple in scenario B, given that both circumstances are identical in regards to "reasons having to do with reproduction and the raising of the next generation"?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Your last paragraph indicates that there is really skepticism about whether it is ever just to approve X and not-approve Y on any basis other than personal prejudice.</I><BR/><BR/>Here's the question I asked in the last paragraph:<BR/><BR/><I>Why should the government only "subsidize" the marriages that YOU approve of, when gay couples are already fulfilling that which you claim the government wishes to encourage through legal marriage?</I><BR/><BR/>Care to answer it, instead of stating what you think it indicates? It's a question...an expression of inquiry...it indicates that an answer or response is invited.Winston Norris, IIIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12445346651284306568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-1159314101877891312006-09-26T18:41:00.000-05:002006-09-26T18:41:00.000-05:00Gay couples already reproduce...Um ... I may have ...<I>Gay couples already reproduce...</I><BR/><BR/>Um ... I may have gotten the facts of life wrong, but I think that is by definition untrue.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>they're already raising the next generation.</I><BR/><BR/>Only under two circumstances: (1) adoption, which is to say, only with the encouragement of the state trying to force-feed its discriminationphobia (in other words, this not a natural fact, but a circumstance created by the state); and (2) as left over from other, fertile unions (like previous marriages, say -- McGreevey being one example). But the natural relationship between the child and the parent has nothing to do with the parent's gay partnership. It is thus not an argument for subsidizing gay unions, per se.<BR/><BR/>Your last paragraph indicates that there is really skepticism about whether it is ever just to approve X and not-approve Y on any basis other than personal prejudice.CourageManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13446189695845365897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-1159312570109845702006-09-26T18:16:00.000-05:002006-09-26T18:16:00.000-05:00The secular state subsidizes marriage because it w...<I>The secular state subsidizes marriage because it wants to encourage it as an institution -- for reasons having to do with reproduction and the raising of the next generation.</I><BR/><BR/>THAT is an error in thought.<BR/><BR/>Gay couples <B>already</B> reproduce AND they're <B>already</B> raising the next generation.<BR/><BR/>Why should the government only "subsidize" the marriages that YOU approve of, when gay couples are <B>already</B> fulfilling that which you claim the government wishes to encourage through legal marriage?Winston Norris, IIIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12445346651284306568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-1159312316877913062006-09-26T18:11:00.000-05:002006-09-26T18:11:00.000-05:00Scientology is a "religion" too, I suppose and the...<I>Scientology is a "religion" too, I suppose and they think people came from space aliens.</I><BR/><BR/>Do you have conclusive evidence that we didn't come from space aliens?Winston Norris, IIIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12445346651284306568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-1159312110144904242006-09-26T18:08:00.000-05:002006-09-26T18:08:00.000-05:00jb:I don't remember specifically what Susan may or...jb:<BR/><BR/>I don't remember specifically what Susan may or may not have said about her religious background. But I remember some in those discussions said they were Christians, and I generally think it best to take someone's word on that narrow point.<BR/><BR/><BR/>engineer:<BR/><BR/>What you suggest might make a plausible end-game settlement in the event that five justices decide that the penumbras and emanations include a right to marry someone of the same sex.<BR/><BR/>But such a move would be one more step in the descralization and demystification of both sex and marriage, plus another step in the decoupling of sex and children (and thus the trivialization of life).<BR/><BR/>These processes, BTW, are what really irks me about homosexual "marriage" (I honestly couldn't care less what goes on at the Metropolitan Community Church or behind Dupont Circle doors). And yes, I therefore also detest divorce and heterosexual rutting — the latter two being far more damaging because by definition far more widespread (gays are, after all, only 2-3% of the populace).<BR/><BR/><BR/>winston:<BR/><BR/><I>If you were to look at each individual statute that pertains to civil marriage, what purpose do you think each one generally serves?</I><BR/><BR/>That's an error in thought.<BR/><BR/>The secular state subsidizes marriage because it wants to encourage it as an institution -- for reasons having to do with reproduction and the raising of the next generation. There is no need for subsidizing or privileging same-sex relationships (or heterosexual hookups with no intent of permanence; yes, I oppose civil unions and common-law "marriage" for that reason).<BR/><BR/>But that doesn't mean that every detail of marriage law, and the privileges and immunities therein, needs to be narrowly tailored to that specific end, or be sex-specific.CourageManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13446189695845365897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-1159311810458431712006-09-26T18:03:00.000-05:002006-09-26T18:03:00.000-05:00jb,No, now you're a narrow-minded person with a wi...jb,<BR/><BR/>No, now you're a narrow-minded person with a wide sarcastic streak.<BR/><BR/>How about you address my more substantive comment/suggestion?GreenEngineerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11805839027881984170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-1159305983157697752006-09-26T16:26:00.000-05:002006-09-26T16:26:00.000-05:00Greenengineer,Oh please. Enough with the we-need-...Greenengineer,<BR/><BR/>Oh please. Enough with the we-need-to-consider-all-positions, postmodern, everything-is-relative nonsense.<BR/><BR/>Scientology is a "religion" too, I suppose and they think people came from space aliens. <BR/><BR/>We need to invite Tom Cruise to this discussion. <BR/><BR/>Now I am open-minded?JBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03228486535363352996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13338143.post-1159300948102048852006-09-26T15:02:00.000-05:002006-09-26T15:02:00.000-05:00Everything turns on the definition of marriage.Tha...<I>Everything turns on the definition of marriage.</I><BR/><BR/>That's correct.<BR/><BR/>I'd like to ask a couple of simple questions, Courage Man.<BR/><BR/><BR/>If you were to look at each individual statute that pertains to civil marriage, what purpose do you think each one generally serves? <BR/><BR/>Do you think each statute pertains to the maleness and femaleness of the couple at hand, or do you think that each statute pertains to the couple itself, and the needs of the couple as a couple?<BR/><BR/>Are the legal protections, legal priveleges, legal benefits, and legal rights associated with legal marriage pertinent to the sexes of the couple?<BR/><BR/>Does the legal definition of marriage turn on whether or not a man and a woman are present in the marriage? It is my belief that the court would consider the intent of the laws when determining the constitutionality of such a case. In fact, it is part of the decision in the Goodrich case in Massachusetts. What intention did the legislators have in creating the statutes pertaining to marriage? Were the statutes intended to provide legal protections to a married couple or to a man and a woman as a married couple?Winston Norris, IIIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12445346651284306568noreply@blogger.com