As I said, it’s one thing to assert the analogy without argument, but it’s quite another to put forth a defense of it. Mere assertion isn’t argument – though marriage equality opponents seem to have trouble distinguishing between the two.
Except neither observation negates the purpose of marriage as described in post #441. A purpose same-sex couples are naturally excluded from.
indeedMy post … went unanswered, but feel free to either (a) pretend it doesn’t exist or (b) dismiss it without a response. Responding to substance can be difficult, and both (a) and (b) seem to be your best alternatives.
Neither observation was intended to negate the so-called “purpose of marriage,” but they illustrate that that purpose - what it is - has never been a requirement for a marriage license. You seek to exclude same-sex couples from marrying because, according to you, their marriages cannot fulfill purpose P. What you forget, however, is that P has never been a requirement for a marriage license. Therefore, if fulfilling P is not a requirement for opposite-sex couples, then fulfilling P cannot be a requirement for same-sex couples – otherwise, you endorse a blatant double standard.
They have never been a requirement because they occur after the fact. It would be irrational for man to require information they could not have; and not being able to fulfill this requirement has been grounds for annulment, because it was never a marriage. We know that two people of the same sex could never be married before the fact; therefore no double standard and no marriage.
I think that you are demonstrating an inability to think in the abstract, spencelo.
There has never been a requirement that procreation occur after the fact, and the inability to procreate is generally not grounds for annulment (it depends on what the parties agreed to beforehand). Since there is no “procreation requirement” for opposite-sex couples, it is a blatant double standard to impose such a requirement on same-sex couples.
:yup:You mean “irrational,” PR?
Opposite couples do not need to prove what is self evident. Same sex persons cannot be married as they lack complementarity.
Absolutely it has.
The in-equal that you allude to is the different way in which society treats married and single people. If you want to truly fight for reasoned equally; that is your fight. Also it has been shown that same-sex marriage proponents don’t want equality; they want to be called married.
Sterility is grounds for divorce, something natural to same sex couples and pedophile couples.
A license being a requirement for marriage is a very recent requirement. Marriage is naturally human, not an invention of the state.
Define “complementarity” for me.Absolutely it has.
I am astonished that you would even try to assert such a thing.
Complementarity has always been a requirement for a marriage license.
What proof do you have of such an assertion? Up until about 5 minutes ago if two men walked into a courthouse to apply for a marriage license they would have been laughed at or sent to the hospital for evaluation.
You mentioned “annulment,” not divorce, and sterility may be grounds for divorce (again, depends on what the parties’ intentions and knowledge beforehand.)
A relation between two opposite states or principles
A distinction without a difference. Raising children is the purpose. No children, no marriage. Same sex couples and pedophile couples can never have them.
That’s very broad and vague. If Mike is smart and Roger is dumb, then I suppose they can get married then, huh?
Not so: there is in law.
And raising children is not a requirement for a marriage license, and yet, you would impose a non-existent requirement on same-sex couples. Forgive me for not understanding why your position more rational than mine.
Same-sex couples can and do raise children. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption_in_the_United_States