Well, I did offer one of my supporting reasoning in post 106Originally Posted by DIO
But it wasn't sanctioned because it was failed, people didn't want it that is a failure of that system
"It's like if you are trying to sell a gaming system and no one buys it.. that is a failed gaming system. It is most clear that it is a failed gaming system by contrasting it to the success of others. Like Nintendo selling a billion systems, and you can't sell on just shows how badly you failed."
So, I am attempting to support my point in this thread. You rejected my support, and was asking for me to show an example where it failed according to your perimeters. IE being tried and then rejected.
Which is a different form of argument and I dispute it as the only valid form of support for the claim that it is a failed system.
I believe this line of debate stems from me pointing to procreation being a part of marriage that has made it successful as a system.Originally Posted by DIO
You have argued that procreation is not "necessarily" a part of marriage.
but I don't think you have reasonably shown that marriages strength in procreation is not part of its' success.
Or that Procreation and marriage are some how separate ideas.
You are correct in the most strict sense that a couple doesn't have to give birth to children or have them in order to be considered "married", but that doesn't negate the fact that their "marriage" has allowances in the idea of marriage itself to deal with that event should it occur even unplanned.
evidenced of course by every surprise pregnancy ever, which didn't require a change in their terms of marriage.
Again, i refer back to my unused drivers seat, or back seat if you wish to demote it's importance. The point is it's still part of the larger institution.
Now, about showing that if procreation is removed from the definition of marriage altogether.
I think it is pretty clear that such a divorce of ideas in this case would be very problematic, and would be such a vast change so as to make those from history who could look upon this new idea seeing it as something totally different.
First, getting married would not imply a desire to procreate. As it is, that issue is something that individuals must clarify between themselves. In other words, if you get married and your spouse gets pregnant, you are damn unreasonable to say "I never agreed to have children with you" because that is part of the current marriage concept.
So as we divorce those ideas, the converse would be true.
You don't think religion has driven people to get married?Originally Posted by DIO
You don't think that removing the religious connotations from the social/legal term will cause people to no longer feel religiously compelled to get it?
I mean, it would become no different to the religious than a LLC. Zero religious implications.
I have a hard time believing you can't see the connection. .. especially as I am pointing it out several times.
I think you are correct, I just see them as the same context.Originally Posted by DIO
I think I see my error.
When you spoke of "access to fundamental rights" you weren't speaking about a "right to be married" but the rights that marriage currently gives access to.
If that is the case then, I apologize for the mix up on my part, and point out that if that were the real argument they were offering, they would be content with another word being applied to them which conveyed the desired rights (of which I am a proponent of that solution).
---------- Post added at 09:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:48 PM ----------
But it's not. People aren't voting on how the gov uses it, and in teh suprem court the ultimate desicision for how the gov uses the term is going to be about how it squares with the const.Originally Posted by mican
So I don't see your point holding any watter here.
Same goes for the past changes, even if the gov has been using it X way for the past Y years, that change wasn't driven by the peoples change in use. As it is many people are just asleep on the issue and will just wake up to the term being used different than they are used to and being forced to accept it on penalty of law.
the secret is, they accepted it for two different reasons all this time. Christians have been accepting it on religious reasons and understanding.Originally Posted by MICAN
The result has been read as something much different then what they were intending.
So let it be written, so let it be done.Originally Posted by MICAN
Originally Posted by MICAN