Washington State set to become 7th state to legalise SSM

Well, if you would simply answer the question, "What statement?" it might be before my eyes, but you are too busy being coy.

 

See, it's annoying isn't it? lol. I meant the statement you made directly above the place where I said "that statement"... This one, in particular:

This statement I understand you to be defending and supporting with quotes of the laws of presumption of paternity.

 

No logical disconnect and it makes my point just fine, so I cant imagine what you are going on about.

 

Alright...

So premise: In law, there are laws that establish the husband of a wife who has a child is presumed to be the father.

Conclusion:

And you accept this as having no logical disconnect. Ok, well there's nothing more I can say on the subject. Cheers.

 

I hate to say it but your wasting your time. Dixion is firmly planted in his delusion.

 

True that... No one is going to change his mind. Can't teach an old dog new tricks as they say. We only hope that no one lurking in these forums actually thinks he has a valid point to make. That's why we respond.

 

Well, the trick being this belief that marriages limitation to heterosexual couples is motivated by animus towards homosexuals. The limitation and its motive is as old as the institution itself, which seems to predate human civilization. A "new trick" wont change that fact.

 

Legal marriage predating human civilisation?! What a load of tripe. Marriage is a civil institution; a mere construct of human society which differs significantly to any "natural" order. Marriage is in fact anything but natural as it promotes monogamy and generally hinders breeding.

When the government decided to get involved, it became subject to limitless scrutiny, and any amount of change. Nothing, and I mean nothing is set in stone when it resides only in the law... Laws themselves are "virtual" social creations that can be modified. No one is saying it was created with the intent to discriminate against gay people, but the effect is unmistakable. Repeated scrutiny is to be expected and it will inevitably be examined and re-examined as more and more people join the ever-growing majority of society who question why it should be limited to just heterosexual couples. For that 53%, your argument clearly doesn't cut it.. They simply aren't buying into this ridiculous idea that the status quo should continue because heterosexual couples are the only ones who reproduce together. Especially when the only difference is the word used to describe the union.

 

Opponents seeking to overturn Washington’s newly signed same-sex marriage legislation may not have the governor or the Legislature on their side, but they do have history.

It’s a matter of record that voters always have rejected gay marriage whenever the issue has appeared on state ballots. Days after Gov. Chris Gregoire, a Democrat, signed a bill making Washington the seventh state to recognize same-sex marriage, opponents this week launched campaigns for two proposed ballot measures aimed at overturning the law.


The first measure is a referendum to repeal the gay-marriage law. The other is an initiative that defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

Joseph Backholm, executive director of Preserve Marriage Washington, which is sponsoring the repeal effort, said in an interview that he is optimistic about the measure’s chances

Read More here- http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-same-sex/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

When reminded that Washington State has a civil union law for gay couples, 57% of voters say it is not necessary to redefine marriage. 72% of voters think state lawmakers should work on other issues rather than same-sex marriage. A nearly identical number -71% of voters—believe the people should decide the marriage issue; only 9% think legislators should decide the matter.
http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=omL2KeN0LzH&b=5075189&ct=11608247

Its not over yet, The law still could be dead in November

 

Yet I remember reading that 54% would vote to uphold the law. It's all a matter of who has more money and who better demonizes the opposition. Then again Washington state has done this dance before and the anti-gay crowd lost... it's the only state to have upheld all the rights of marriage for same-sex couples by a popular vote.

 

actually, here in the US, marriage has only been legally limitted to a man and a woman since the 1970's.

 

Notice how you didnt contradict a thing I said. Leaving us to wonder, just what it is you think is tripe. "society" evolved sometime before "civilization"

Sooooo just WTF do you disagree with? My statement was that marriage is

 

Don't slice and dice my posts, as much as you like to pounce on the first line of a post and decide it has nothing to do with yours, you should really read the whole thing and put it into context. Some of those statements were general affirmations to counter the idea that the argument from tradition holds any weight... Which is completely on-topic I might add. That it "predates civilisation" (which it does not) is wholly irrelevant. There's my point.

 

1872 CALIFORMIA

Any unmarried male of the age of 18 years or upward and any unmarried female of the age of 15 years old or upward are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage...

As well as similiar statutes in all the other states. 1970s is simply the first time gays began challenging the limitation. First time courts had to point out that by definition, "marriage" is limited to heterosexual couples.

 

My only argument from tradition is to show that the tradition has always been to limit marriage to heterosexual couples, because they are the only couples to procreate and NOT because they are not homosexuals.

 

It is time for the laws to change in America, dixon. Many know this, and you don't accept it.

Don't expect homosexual people and their advocates to give up on the fight.

 

Slavery is as old as marriage. (some might have even called marriage a form of slavery)

On the other hand, the concept that polygamy is bad, women have equal rights, no-fault divorce is legal, and the world is round are rather new.

The whole idea that the state sanctions marriage, granting special state rights for it is also rather new. If marriage was just a religious thing, we would have far less ground to stand on. But it's been incorporated into the state with special rights attached... it's a whole new ballgame now.

Your appeal to tradition does not grant validity to the claim in any event.

 

You still havent yet even grasped my point.

 

Nowhere was marriage limited to a man and a woman.

 

Again, no one is saying that it was CREATED to discriminate. But it is inherently discriminate in its current form and imposes a double standard between elderly and sterile opposite sex couples and same-sex couples.

 

It was in the statute quoted from California in 1872. Fascinating to watch your ideology actually alter your perception of reality.

 

LOLOL!!!! All the court cases creating gay marriage are based upon it.

 

??? No, I'd say they are based on looking at the law as it is and taking into account various factors (identically situated sterile and elderly couples) and judging it to be discriminatory. That's not to say the historical intention of marriage was motivated by an animus towards gay people. Statues specifically blocking SSM are though.

 

Nonsense. A campaign by gays to alter marriage simply elicits comments from those with animus towards gays to become the noisiest in reaction.

 

That's bogus. Gays aren't out to alter marriage.