For what? The license predating the social institution? It doesn't. The founding fathers did not have to ask government's permission to get married (which is what the Marriage License really is, and what it was originally intended to be). I don't know what you want me to argue for. But whether the chicken came first or not is inconsequential to the current debate on hand.
No you're correct, you caught me. I, and the American Psychological Association, were wrong.
I promise to use more credible sources like NARTH in the future.
None of which is in the least relevant. Which came first means nothing. What matters is that it is not a social institution, it is a legal one currently.
no, it remains a social institution. churches are tax exempt. that doesn't mean that all they are is tax shelters; they remain social institutions which perform a host of roles. similarly marriage remains a legally recognized social institution.
so let me get this straight
YOU post links to Websters that did NOT support YOUR claim. I point out that what YOU posted you obviously didnt read and did NOT support YOUR claim.
So now YOU come back with NEW sources in an attempt to gloat?
LMAO
thats rich, you again fail. lol
Fact is what you posted before did NOT support your claim.:lamo
Can anybody tell me how marriage is legally recognized?
you guessed it, by a LEGAL CONTRACT.:lamo
i thought this thread was "what is same-sex marriage". in which case you have to discuss the institution. and the government is involved in the legal aspect only to the degree and with the means by which society directs it to. the people are free to change it on the government, government is not free to change it on the people.
our representative branches work (theoretically) as we direct it, however, let's not pretend that government in all it's functions works as society directs. it is, in fact, precisely for that reason that the homosexual marriage advocates have been seeking out the least "directed" or "responsive" branch of government.
Now you are just spinning. We set out a set of rules for our society(us) that even we cannot in theory break and are under the jurisdiction of the courts. They are still safeguarding our rules
Government does not just work for us, it is part of us. This flies in the face of those who try and set government up as the enemy, but that concept is obviously retarded.
it certainly is not. since the legal system stems from that social institution, it remains bound to it.
similarly marriage remains a legally recognized social institution.
that is absolutely incorrect. government is a seperate entity from society.
That is not nearly the whole reason. It isn't even the biggest reason.
I set you up :2wave:
Don't troll a troll
Considering the poll options, it would be about marriage as a legal construct. Rights in this country are recognized and protected by the laws of this country. Government is a tool of society and works as society directs, therefore your last sentence is meaningless. It's like saying the body changes where the hand goes, the hand is not free to change where the body goes. It's nonsense, they are both part of the same whole.
:applaudThat was true up until the point in which the Marriage License came into existence. At that point, it left social institution behind and became contract. And the individual has right to contract.
No you're correct, you caught me. I, and the American Psychological Association, were wrong.
I promise to use more credible sources like NARTH in the future.
except that substantive right to contract hasn't existed (thank you supreme court!) since the 1930's. your argument is 80 years out of date.
Well, your first attempt was an utter failure...you're second is better, from a medical stand point. However, neither really touch on legal definition which is the only one that would truly matter.
Please explain how it is NOT gender discrimination even given your cherry picking of what definition you wish to take.
It may be sex discrimination, but discrimination can be multi-folded. IE, someone discriminating against black teenagers would be discriminating based on race and based on age.
Also, please explain how marriage would be sex discrimination, not gender discrimination in your mind.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?