Washington State set to become 7th state to legalise SSM

And yet those with an animus towards gay people tend to form the base of support for such laws. The arguments themselves are bogus regardless.

 

EVERY SINGLE COURT CASE seeking to change marriages limitation to a man and a woman, has been brought by gays, without exception. Grasp a little reality if you can.

 

What made up BS. They were passed by the voters of the states. You simply attribute the views of the loudest advocates to the majority of the voters. Baseless speculation with no substance in fact.

 

Exactly what you and others do to gays, attributing the whole to the small minority who are flamboyant and eccentric.

 

Nope, I'm saying in most places the core support comes from people motivated by animus towards gay people. That's just a fact. There are no real logical reasons to keep marriage the sole preserve of heterosexuals, as we've established by seeing you run around in circles and spouting the same tired talking points ad nauseam.

 

And what point is that.... that the idea that men and women can reproduce MUST be enshrined in a state-sanctioned institution, excluding other forms of partnerships where direct form of reproduction isn't possible?

No, I haven't seen where that is a logical requirement. You can make laws around it, but that doesn't necessitate that it be exclusive. There's nothing particularly special about being ABLE to reproduce and raise kids... it's the actual raising of kids that is special. There's no reason we can't or shouldn't adjust the laws to only grant special rights to those who raise kids, excluding homosexuals, heterosexuals, and any other form of couple doesn't raise children.

An unwillingness to consider such a compromise is makes the whole argument appear as a smoke-screen, and provides no valid reason to deny marriage to homosexuals on the bases that they won't reproduce if you're unwilling to do the same for heterosexuals that don't reproduce. I believe I provided a very acceptable proposal which you didn't even consider, including a grace period for heterosexual couples to have all the financial rights even before they have children so that they can "prepare the nest".

You refuse to move an inch from the "straight couples, in general, have the capacity to reproduce biologically and thus are entitled to exclusive rights". Is there any inch you would move more towards focusing the financial rights more towards families with children, or are our current laws (in most states) perfect?

 

Wrong, dixon. And I have reality well-enough in hand.

 

Thank you. In the Western tradition marriage has been primarily a legal construct for centuries. Certainly at various times certain religions or denominations were deferred to in the implementation of the law but but while the state may have delegated authority it never gave up its primacy in the matter.

As it stands now any clergy person who legally formalizes a marriage has been granted the power to do so by the state and is acting as an agent of the state. In this capacity a member of the clergy is no different than a judge or authorized secular authority.

The fact that the clergy person normally also sanctifies the marriage under the conditions laid down by his or her particular religion is irrelevant as far as the state is concerned. Sanctification is an option which a couple can exercise or not as they chose and as their particular religion, if they have one, dictates. Whatever they decide to do in this regard has no bearing on the legality of their marriage and is a matter of indifference to the state, which is exactly how it should be.