JuanCarlos
New member
Marriage is ancient. Show me the atributes of monogamous sodomy that bring to humanity/society those of marriage.
I don't need to. Not for equal protection (among people, I need not equate the relationships) under law to apply. It's kinda cool that way. It's on the opposition to show the harm in order to deny it.
If marriage were a civil right, then a divorce would have to be mutually agreed on or it would be a civil rights violation.
Man, what? I don't think anybody is advocating marriage when one party doesn't consent. (EDIT: Or more specifically to your argument, continue to consent.) This argument is ludicrous. Maybe you really don't read your posts before you hit "submit" if that made it through your filter.
EDIT:
You see the point yet. CALLING it marriage doesn't make it so.
Out of curiosity, what's your position on creating a legal status with all the same rights and privileges of marriage? Civil union, domestic partnership, call it what you want.
EDIT: Actually, I really don't care. I just realized that if you don't get the fundamental difference between a relationship/arrangement shared into by two consenting parties, and one in which only one consents, I really have been wasting my time. I'm done with you. If something that basic is beyond you (whereas your characterization of marriage as "ancient" isn't beyond me, I just don't agree that it has any bearing on an equal protection argument) then there's really no point.
I mean, seriously.