Sorry, my mistake. Since a living will doesn't require the testator to be declared brain dead, whether Mrs. Schiavo was declared brain dead is irrelevant.
So entering into marriage means your spouse can decide to kill you--actively destroying a living being? That's news to me, and I'd wager to most married people.
Your abortionists analogy would have some merit if an unborn baby could chose his or her mother AND could exchange vows with the mother of his or her choosing AND could have the option of drawing a living will.
See above.
Are you saying that a married couple have MORE rights to decide whether the other person lives or dies than does a person who has another person actually growing inside them? That a contract is more binding than is biology?
I thought in a debate, analogies were supposed to be analogous to the situation at hand. Then, when you attempt to compare my ethics to those of an abortionist, I'm obviously going to respond by telling you how your comparison doesn't work. However, if your objective here is not to debate but to prove how clever you can be, by all means, you win. High fives all around. Emotion trumps reason in yet another Terri Schiavo discussion.
Are you saying that a married couple have MORE rights to decide whether the other person lives or dies than does a person who has another person actually growing inside them? That a contract is more binding than is biology?
Yippee, another strawman ("a contract is more binding than is biology?")! A marriage—remember, what God has joined together, let not man put asunder—is more binding than biology. Besides, as I said before, babies don't get to choose their mothers.
If marriage is just "a contract," homosexual 'marriage' is no problem, right?
Assuming debate is your reason for being here: