So, no problem with two brothers or two sisters “marrying” each other, right? Father-son? Mother-daughter? What are the good reasons that would be prohibited?
Lokobrenna (spelling?) is speaking relatively. ‘One man’s meat is another man’s poison’ sort of thing. However, please let us all remember that this does not work when one is considering something that is evil of itself - ie something that is damaging to the whole human race irrespective of religion, race etc. That is something that is ‘intrinsically’ evil - ie homosexuality, divorce, contraception, euthanasia, abortion. All of these are evils and relativists should learn that they merely spread evil around by denying this truth. God bless you, Scipio
That could be an issue in a hetero couple, where one of the parents are not the biological parent of a stepchild. Still, those gaps can be legislated as part of the learning process.
I looked and found a copy of the OR law. And going over it, I’m not really too clear on what rights are being witheld.
If we were to adopt that as a test for the validity of a law, we would have to abolish all laws because every single one ever enacted was the codification of someone shoving something down everyone else’s throats. Take, for an example, an item in the news of late. Øbama shoved his prohibition of the Keystone XL pipeline down the throats of those who wanted it built. So your argument doesn’t hold water. The only question is whose prohibitions get shoved down everyone’s throats, yours or mine?
As stated previously…parental rights of same sex couples is one of them I am aware of as it has affected a couple Friends in the meeting I attend.
Exactly. Unfortunately, there is far too much ignorance out there, when it comes to the meaning of pluralism. It doesn’t mean “anything goes.”
Well two hypothetical answers to this:
Judge Walker in California actually made a text-book example of the militant-gay response to rational inquiry along these lines. He dismissed the rational basis of procreative interests and generational succession in a mother-father marriage by claiming that no one was required to prove they were capable of procreation to obtain a marriage license.
In the “test case” here in Oregon, the lesbian partners chose to employ IV for one of the partners to bear a child…the “birth mother” refused parental rights to the estranged partner after they “divorced”.
Exactly. I was challenging Lokabrenna’s argument by using the gay rights activists’ procreation rebuttal against her. You can’t discount procreation as important to marriage, and then turn around and use procreation as a reason to ban some people from marriage. It’s hypocritical and exposes the lie they are promulgating.
The very right of marriage, as stated by the Supreme Court has its very basis in procreation:
Come on now. It’s not fair to expect gay-“marriage” advocates to actually read the Loving v. Virginia ruling. They just ignorantly cite it while accusing everyone else of supporting miscegenation laws. This isn’t about truth or proof - it’s about feeling good! It’s not about making the correct argument - it’s about swaying the lazy and apathetic to the path of least resistance.
Well, I’m not chasing this red herring all the way to Offtopic Land so let me try to bring this back to the point I made which is related to the topic:
Perhaps I should have said “Sacramental marriage was ALWAYS seperate from civil union in the United States of America.” But I thought that was clear from the context which is laws being passed in States of the Union.
Don’t be confused, Marty. You stated this as if there MUST be - when what you are speaking of is simply a one measure which a court can consider. No Amendment.Wait. Hold on. You’re trying to conduct an argument about legal discrimination in marriage and you’ve never heard of the Rational Basis Test? Seriously?
That is incorrect. The State does not have the right to impeded private “marriage” unless there is a pressing interest of such you cite. (Lawrence v. Texas) The State also does not have the right to award civil marriage privileges unless there it serves the Public Interest in a way that passes a scrutiny test. (McCulloch v. Maryland)
No. They should not be awarded expanded privileges in either case because the Public has no Interest served by providing incentives for such arrangements.
I know one guy spent several thousand dollars suing his ex-wife for visitation with his daughter.
There are exceptions to everything…but from my dealings, parental rights are secured in divorce…at least in my very limited experience.
That completely depends on your State, your Judge, and your Lawyer.There are exceptions to everything…but from my dealings, parental rights are secured in divorce…at least in my very limited experience.
