Quote:
Originally posted by Not Me
I brought up this issue only because you (or some other person, you all look the same to me) said why not ban all marriages. I gave a reason why all marriages should not be banned. It is a social institution that was created to facilitate breeding. There you go. There is a reason not to ban all marriages.
Provide a link to which post you are talking about so I will know. TIA.
|
sure. it's easy to argue points if you separate them from the whole.
but let's recapitulate
forget bilmore's distinction/explanation, though. You asked at teh beginning of the day why teh argument for gay marriage doesn't also support polygamy. I asked how it does, when it's based on equal protection: the gender of the spouse should nto be defined. that rules out polygamy immediately and simply.
so you say, but there are reasons to bar gay marriage particularly. Okay, this is the compelling state interest. Or important state interest, or whatever test you want to apply to gender distinctions. You say money. I say, ban all marriages then. Your response?
You say breeding is a reason to distinguish the two.. I say, okay, but then why not also ban impotents. You're response? This is grounds for divorce. But that's no answer, because divorce is elected by the parties, not imposed by the states. Name a single instance in which a state has forced a divorce.
You say, religion. I say, okay, that's certainly why it's so limited, but doesn't that implicate teh state in religion (see discussion with watchtower; search for kosher).
Where are we left? Without an answer from you as to why equal protection doesn't get you to allowing gay marriage, other than a judiciary that doesn't honestly engage the argument?
