Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » To those that claim that I'm the only one that makes this argument against ssm (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9   
Author Topic: To those that claim that I'm the only one that makes this argument against ssm
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
SSU's do not provide the same legal immunities and protections.

what you have is seperate and unequal. Again, very familiar.

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
IT is pretty clearly stablished. Especially the slippery slope of the antis of both. Let the nigs marry white women and pretty soon you will have people marrying monkeys.

sound familiar?

No.

Please show me an example of a anti-ssm source that seriously argues that ssm will actually lead to people marrying monkeys.

Surely you comprehend the difference between arguing by analogy and a slippery slope argument.

I've seen people use the animal marriage argument as an example of what it means to change the definition of marriage, as opposed to changing restrictions on marriage. People use arguments like that because some ssm proponents play stupid, and talk as if the issue was about "allowing gays to marry" rather than about changing the definition of marriage so that such an absurd phrase made sense. You draw on other absurd examples. It's not a slippery slope argument.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Um, are you unaware that anti ssm people have arged tat SSM will lead to marriage with animals? Seriously?

Will try to find that link for you.

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And yes, the argument that if you let blacks marry whites (or ssm happen) it will lead to interpecies marriage and necrophilia is a slippery slope argument.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
SSU's do not provide the same legal immunities and protections.

Prove to me that Scandinavian SSUs don't have the same protections as Scandinavian marriages.

Alternately, admit that youve made a foolish and unwarranted generalization.




quote:
what you have is seperate and unequal.
No. Separate and unequal refers to different facilities. SSUS use the same court system as real marriage uses.

What you have is NOT SEPARATE and NOT EQUAL. The state has different interests in same-sex couples than in male-female couples, interests pertaining to reproduction.

But since the 14th amendment applies to individuals, not to couples, your argument is moot as well as faulty.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Then show me specific language in a serious anti-ssm source that specifically uses the words "will lead to."
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
do it. Find the link.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One notices the assertion of weasel words to allow you to keep shifting...

oh, that one isn't serious..."

"Oh, that one doesn't use the specific words."

I suspect you are aware and are merel quibling.

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am aware of non-serious arguments, e.g. argumentum ad absurdem, but anyone who grasps the basics of logic understands the difference between a slippery slope and an argumentem ad absurdem. That doesn't mean that you understand it, so I used the word "serious." That's what I have to do with people who use terms like "weasely" to describe a logical argument that they disagree with but can't disprove.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They do not have the same immunities and protections under US law, now do they?

Again, pointless quibbling to ustify injustice.

And it is individuals who for marriages. Denying some the right is unjust, and unconstitutional under the 14th Ammendment.

The same thing that struck down anti miscegenation laws, btw.

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The bigots who made those slippery slope arguments were quite serious.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No one is denied the right to marry for being gay.

The 14th amendment does not allow you to REDEFINE marriage. That's where people bring in bestial analogies that in your inability to grasp simple logical concepts, you mistake for slippery slope arguments.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Stop bluffing and link me, if you think that these sources are at all relevant to this thread. And if they aren't relevant, then please stick to relevant arguments.

[ January 09, 2007, 01:58 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The 14th amendment only says that all persons have the same rights. No person has the right to redefine marriage.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/01/16/jewish_group_oks_same_sex_marriage/

"The leader of the Orthodox opposition to the Jewish Community Relations Council vote, Rabbi Gershon C. Gewirtz of Young Israel synagogue in Brookline, declined to comment. The Coalition for Marriage referred calls to Rabbi Chaim Schwartz of Agudath Israel of New England, an Orthodox advocacy organization, who said, "This is an issue we believe is bringing about decadence in society." "It's not that we do not believe in the civil rights of gay couples -- we believe each person should be able to live in this great country -- but we don't believe in calling it marriage," Schwartz said. "It's morally incorrect, and what's next? Bestiality? Marrying a dog? Marrying your cat?"

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Um, Pete. I am kind enough to provide you links, attacking me because I do not do so lickety split is assinine. I have a life, and the fact you are unaware of a basic common dnamic of your side of a debate does not make my failure to have readymade evidence a "bluff."

Indeed, if my laundry was not taking longer than I hoped you would not have gotten it today.

When Marriage is defined in a way that descriminates, people not only have a right but a duty to alter the definition to a more just one.

Your statement to the contrary is empty rhetoric. It is a non-sequiter statement. The 14th Ammendment guarantees equal rights under the law, laws which deny equal rights under the law must be ammended until they do.

[ January 09, 2007, 02:03 AM: Message edited by: Tom_paines_ghost ]

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My friend was denied the right to marry his chosen life partner.

Just as, sa, a black man wishing to marry a white woman was denied his right to marry under anti missegenation laws.

The fact he could marry someone else does not change the fact that his right to marry the person of his choice was denied him.

And her.

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Doesn't sound like he's making a serious argument that this will lead to that. Sounds like a poorly worded argument ad absurdem. His focus is on "we don't believe in calling it marriage."


I don't see anywhere in your first link where anyone says anything like: "It's not that we do not believe in the civil rights of miscegenated couples -- we believe each person should be able to live in this great country-- but we don't believe in calling it marriage."

They were out to actually stop black/white couples from calling themselves married or living together as married. This guy's arguing against the use of a word, not actions. That's not a similar argument at all.

It's kind of a contemptible argument, to say that some rabbi on the other side of the country opposes the same thing that you do, and his argument bears a superficial resemblance to the argument of a bigot. What is this, arguing by six degrees of separation?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Like I said, Weaseling. He sounde perfectly serious to me. And this rabble rousing rhetoric is hardly unique, typical of the dehumanizing rhetoric of the homophobes.

BTW, you seem to have forgotten.

You made a claim marriage was universal. Still waiting for proof.

You claim harms to SSM. I asked you for proof.

Good links, please.

And thanks in advance. By your own standards, you are very slack. Where IS our evidence?

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You can't have a "right" to something that's a contradiction in terms.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I answered that stupid straw man multiple times on page one.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The fact that pro-ssmers can't show more than isolated tribes and castes that don't have a version of marriage that involves those two elements is proof enough. You don't think that's universal? Then we'll have to agree to disagree.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, your not even writing complete posts any more.

A peron has a right to qual protection under the law. In the staus quo that is denied. SSM will solve that, while creating no real harms.

Union does not kick in the equal protection of the law.

And you still havent answered those questions. Where is your proof that marriage is universal? Indeed, you admit exceptions and I have provided others.


Hence, not universal or natural. Just a social construct, meant to enable tranfer of property.

One would note stil no response to the issue of why illigitimacy in the Netherlands is a harm.

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Um, Pete-
you made the positive assertion that marriage is universal. It is your burden to prove it.

So far you have offered the counter exception of Polynesia and New Guneia.

And the Netherlads, it seems.

I added pre-industrial Europe, where Marriage was generally for the wealty landowners and DEFINITLY not a peasent thing. And Iceland.

Now, of course it is not my burden to disprove your claim, but yours to support it. I would note that making a claim of categorical universality maks the first counter examle daming, but I still await your proof otherwise.

Which if successfully supported, would merely amount to argument ad traditio. But do go on if you wish.

[ January 09, 2007, 02:27 AM: Message edited by: Tom_paines_ghost ]

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
A peron has a right to [e]qual protection under the law.

That is true.

quote:
In the staus quo that is denied. SSM will solve that, while creating no real harms.
Please write more coherently.


quote:
Union does not kick in the equal protection of the law.
Please write more coherently.

quote:
And you still havent answered those questions. Where is your proof that marriage is universal? Indeed, you admit exceptions and I have provided others.
It's universal to what most of the world today calls civilization. Every large-scale complex society has had a definition of marriage that included gender diversity (man and woman) and a promise to remain together for life. I'm not interested in going back to the stone age. If that's how you want to live, then paddle your canoe to New Guinea.

quote:
One would note stil no response to the issue of why illigitimacy in the Netherlands is a harm.
The question seems too goofy to answer. If you don't acknowledge that children raised only by one mom aren't generally as well prepared for the world as the children of married parents, then there's no sense in even reasoning with you. I can't be bothered to look up the bloody obvious.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
Um, Pete-
you made the positive assertion that marriage is universal. It is your burden to prove it.

So far you have offered the counter exception of Polynesia and New Guneia.

[Roll Eyes]

WRONG. Despite Margaret Meade's idiotic rantings, marriage has been alive and well in Polynesia since before the first honkies arrived.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
And the Netherlads, it seems.

Wrong again. It will take a couple generations to fully wipe out the idea of marriage as union of man and woman in the netherlands, but the damage is underway, as the marriage/population and illigitimacy numbers show.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Your europe example was a straw man. What the hell do peasands and nobility have to do with "man and woman for life." You aren't even addressing the universal definition that you are pretending to argue against. Do you even understand what a definition is?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Um, sorry I don't see what you aren't following


The law guarantees eaqual protection.

In the status quo, people are denied that. Like my friend, who could ot marry his life partner and who thus lacked the immunities and rights of marriage.

Same sex marriage would end this innequality.

It would create no harms. Certainly you have failed to show any, and this is your big issue and you have had several hours. So until you provide a harm, we must presume no harm exists.

Same sex UNIONS are not marriages.

Thus they will not provide the same legal immunities as marriages do under Federal, State, and Local laws.

Clear enough, or shall I pull out the speak and spell?

My question of what harm illegtimacy demonstrates stands. So kid are illegitimit. So what?

What is the harm?

What is the Dutch rate of child abuse, teen suicide, violence against children, drug use, teen pregnancy, illiteracy, and infant mortality? How many Dutch children live in poverty? How many are homeless per capita? How many experience hunger, per capita?

Want to bet how they compare to the USA?

so, what is the harm? Or in Iceland?

Many civilizations have not had what you call marriage. Several do not today. You still dodge providing proof of your claim.

[ January 09, 2007, 02:36 AM: Message edited by: Tom_paines_ghost ]

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
Um, sorry I don't see what you aren't following


The law guarantees eaqual protection.

To persons.

Any person can marry.

No person can change the definition of marriage.

No equal protection violation.

You can't make judgments about what Loving v. Virginia meant without reading the case. Have you actually read Loving v. Virginia or did you read some gay cliff notes version?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Saying "wrong" is not proof. Proof, Pete. Proof.

Proof that there was "one man/one woman" as the dominant form of pair bonding? The fact is that marriage per se did not exist exept amongst the upper classes.

also, could you explain how it is a straw man, even if ot correct? I don't think you know what a straw man is.

Marriage in the modern success is a social construct, hardly universal in the past or today.

Proof that this amounts to marriage in the sense we are talking about-which is the sense of laws, codified immunities and protections which you choose to deny to one segment of society.

Unjustly and without reason.

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Repeating a refuted argment without noting it's refutation is rather weak.

Allow me again.

A person denied the right to marry the prson of his choice is denied the right to marry.

As when marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman of the same race.

The fact that a black man wanting to marry a willing white woman could marry a person of his own race did not change the fact that he was illegally denied the write to marry...

Hence, the 1th Ammendment violation that was used to dismantle anti missegenation laws.

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Many civilizations have not had what you call marriage."

Irrelevant. I said that all civilization (as defined above) have had a definition of marriage that involved a man and a woman and a livelong commitment (the universal definition), and also involved other elements (regional variations on the universal definition).

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
A person denied the right to marry the prson of his choice is denied the right to marry.

Wrong. You can't redefine a legal term for the convenience of your argument. The Supreme Court has NEVER accepted the arguement that a person has a right to marry "a person of his choice." Lots of pro-ssm people pretend that is from Loving v. Virginia. It's not.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
The fact is that marriage per se did not exist exept amongst the upper classes.

Straw man. The universal definition of marriage has nothing to do with social class. The fact is that the society had a definition of marriage that included the two elements that I call the universal definition. People knew what a real marriage was.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As when marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman of the same race.

[DOH]

WRONG; see Loving v. Virginia, where marriage to someone of another race was PUNISHED by a prison sentence. The law had to recognize that the marriage existed in order to punish it.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Still waiting for your answer.

I don't think you know what a straw man is. Your like Vacini in the Princess Bride with is one five dollar word.

Marriage is a social construct, and has existed in many forms, types, names, and variances throughout human history-or not existed at all, under your definition.

One notes that many other combinations of pairing exist in our society alone. That defining them as not-marriage does not make them less real or less alid, it merely perpetuates descrimination.

But to come back onto point, you have failed to provide evidence that marriage is in fact universal as a human practice.

You have failed to show a harm for same sex marriage.

And secondarily, you have failed to show a harm per se for "illigitimacy," or children born outside of marriage.

Just dancing in circles.

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Your argument about loving V Viginy is not sound.

The law punishes a person who marries a dog. That does not legitimate the marriage between a man and his dog.

Indeed I think you will find that Virginia not only punished the marriage-it also exempted the people in such a marriage from the protection of laws related to marriage, and the legal immunities rights and duties related to it.

Familiar, isn't it?

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Or for another example-when punishing people for rachateering, the illegal organization is not thus recognized and legitimated.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Look up the words legitimize and recognize, and see if you can tell the difference.


quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
Or for another example-when punishing people for rachateering, the illegal organization is not thus recognized and legitimated.

Thank you. If you think harder about the example you just provided, you'll see that you proved my point. If not, get help.

The law has to recognize the organization, but this does not legitimize the organization.

For years, Brigham Young escaped prosecution for bigamy because his numerous marriages did not fit the law's DEFINITION of marriage (which required a legal ceremony in addition to other elements I mentioned).

To prosecute mormons, the feds had to pass laws that recognized marriages without a legal ceremony as marriages for the purpose of prosecuting them.

That's the difference between something not marriage by definition, and something that's an illegal marriage. It's the difference between going to jail, and just being left alone.

Is that a difference you can grasp?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1