View Single Post
Old 05-16-2008, 03:04 AM   #5
Colly Wolly
Senior Member
 
Colly Wolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,281
Colly Wolly is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Coug View Post
I don't understand your logical chain of thought here. Why is it that saying marriage is NOT one thing necessarily means it is everything else?

Saying marriage is not just a marriage between a man and a woman is not tantamount to saying marriage is all other relationships.

If marriage is defined as a state recognized relationship between two people (except as specifically noted by statute, such as marriage to a minor or to a close relative), that encompasses a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, and a man and a man. It also doesn't require that the state recognize a marriage to a little child or to a goat. How do you get from Point A to Point B on this one?
It's basically this: if the definition of marriage is going to change to make a certain constituency happy, why not change it to make all constituents happy? Or atleast more than just one certain type of constituency happy?
Colly Wolly is offline   Reply With Quote