Posted on 03/30/2004 8:10:08 AM PST by Aquinasfan
You have taken the argument to an absurd conclusion. You ignore what I've said about consent and legal contracting. You just can't acknowlege the ignorance of your conclusion. I have nothing new to say on this issue.
As for other adults. Let me first say, that I don't believe government should give out marriage licenses. BUT since it does...............
The governement should justify why certain licenses should not be granted. It is not up to taxpayers to justify their way in.
Your concern about incest is veru touching. My reading says that adult-adult incest is rare. In fact, it's hard to find research because of the lack of significant survey populations. Ig you don't want to allow this type of marriage make your case and go for it. I have no particular interest in this issue and I don't think it's much of a problem.
Everyone here rails about polygamy. Not a big fan, I've had my hands full with one womnan at a time. Unless we run out of mates for one side or the other, I don't see the problem with polygamy. Other than the fact that you don't like it or think it's immoral, make a stronger case and I'll consider it. Again, the government should have a solid reason for not allowing it other than the majority thinks it's bad or icky.
As for homosexuals, who cares. It doesn't affect my marriage and it may be healthy if it decreases promuoscuity. All this ranting is overblown for my money.
There's no more reason for that than there is to require them to be male and female.
Requiring them to be male and female is fundamental to the definition. If you can't see that, your favorite word "ignorance" doesn't apply, but blindness certainly does.
And the real issue isn't that so many of them want to be married anyway. The real issue is they want to use the courts to force acceptance of their disgusting behavior down everybody's throat. There is no more reason their perversion should be legally protected than any other.
Practice it in private ? I don't care. Make me say it's good, moral, a lifestyle to emulate, that it doesn't harm the practitioners, that children raised by such folks aren't handicapped - no way. Two plus two does not equal six.
Why do you think I don't know the fundamental definition of marriage. Some folks just wabnt to change it, so what?
Your statement that someone is forcing something down your throat is both freudian and very telling. I don't know anyone that's forcing you to marry a person of your sex. If they force you to marry. I would think that would be illegal, just like you wanting to marry a llama. Don't be so reactionary. If you don't like it, don't like it, but no one is forcing anything on you. Other people excercising their perogatives doesn't force you to do anything. Stay away from it if you don't like it.
As I said I gave it 4 tries on the human non-human issue and you still say you don't see the difference. Maybe someone else can say it in a way you'll understand.
The only commerce clause justification I have seen for firearm regs was for the fed no guns in a school zone. The idiots said that trade with foreign countries was harmed by allowing guns near schools. That may also have been said about allowing semi-autos also. I don't remember. It's bogus. The com clause doesn't allow such etherial justifications to be conjured up and used.
The com clause and the power to raise taxes for the welfare of the US has been greatly abused. There is no justification for all these omnibus block grant laws and social program creation. It's just not there.
And yet federal courts have upheld these laws time and again. To me that calls into question the courts integrity as a whole and years of legal precedent.
That's correct, whether deliberate, or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.