Replies

wanted to get married at 25 but now I am 35 and still have not found anyone that I want to spend the rest of my life with, despite trying hard.

"Hey but it is MY RIGHT to get married...where is my woman? Bring her here so I can down on my knee and propose, dammit!"

That's a strawman. Just because you have a certain right, doesn't mean that anyone or anything has to facilitate your enjoyment of that right. You have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean anyone has to listen to you.

It is up to a woman to agree to the marriage; thus it is not a right to marry, but a distinct priveledge with conditions

Rights have nothing to do with the interactions between private individuals. When we talk about a constitutional right, we're talking about something the government cannot take away from you. In this situation, just because you can't find someone to marry you doesn't mean the government has violated your rights.

ModernPunk: "That's a strawman. Just because you have a certain right, doesn't mean that anyone or anything has to facilitate your enjoyment of that right."

Ah, but a right is a right. Strawman is a convenient tactic when you cannot retort effectively. Maybe you should ask your bartcop.com buddies for another kind of filibuster.

"You have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean anyone has to listen to you."

But a right is defined as "something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature."

"Due" is defined as "Payable immediately or on demand."

Now do you see why YOU are the one with the flawed arguments?

"Rights have nothing to do with the interactions between private individuals. When we talk about a constitutional right, we're talking about something the government cannot take away from you. In this situation, just because you can't find someone to marry you doesn't mean the government has violated your rights."

Oh, that is hilarious, pony boy! You make it "can't find someone to marry you." No, little boy, I merely as of yetr met anyone who I think will be right for me. I could go for it and possibly be in a situation which is not beneficial. But I love how you construed my statement in order to insult me (however lame and hollow as it turns out).

You are just an angry, bitter little liberal man with snide comments which only buffet your fragile little immature ego.

No rights of gay people have been violated ever in matters of marriage. The law is uniform for all Americans who are not restricted judicially by incarceration: any man can marry any woman, and any woman can marry any man of a mandatory minimum age. Not "*some* men can marry *some* kind of women"...that is what Love vs. Virginia corrected.

Society as a whole can and has a right to measure how important civil and legal events are conducted and recorded. The majority of people do not want this at all; a backlash will be imminent and I will be proven right.