I have written about what I consider to be bad arguments that are frequently used to advocate marriage neutering, or against legislation that codifies again (or restores) bride+groom state marriage licensing.
But there is one argument that marriage neutering advocates make that seems to be their strongest, at least in the U.S.A. It is some variation of an appeal to "equal access/protection". It packs the most emotional punch, given the desire of the average American to support “equality”.
But law is about logic and facts, not emotion.
Equal protection is a concept found in the federal Constitution, in the Fourteenth Amendment. In Section 1, is this text:
Yes. Any man, regardless of sexual orientation, is allowed to be a groom. Any woman, regardless of sexual orientation, is allowed to be a bride. Both men and women have equal access to marriage licensing.
I understand that some individuals do not want to marry someone of the opposite sex, and want to get a marriage licensing with someone of the same sex. However, that someone wants something other than what is available does not mean what is offered denies equal protection and must be changed.
It is worth noting that under neutered marriage licensing, where the bride-groom requirement is absent, it is still equal protection as heterosexual individuals are also allowed to get licenses with someone of the same sex. However, any domestic partnership or civil union law that excludes male-female pairings while applying to same-sex couples denies equal protection to some couples. I do not have a problem with this, as I note it is Constitutional to treat different kinds of voluntary associations differently, and thus marriage applies to bride-groom couplings while domestic partnerships and civil unions can be applied to other kinds of couplings.
If, despite the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment, one argues that equal protection must also be extended to couples instead of individuals only, such a change would have profound effects on many areas of law beyond marriage licensing. Suddenly, pairings/partnerships will have rights previously only recognized as applying to individuals. Such a change should require implementation by Amendment, but sadly, I think it is possible a court will create it by decision.
If equal protection must be extended to pairings, then doesn't that also mean presumably platonic pairings, such as business partners, partners in crime (especially those who do not want to testify against each other), roommates, friends, and siblings? And where is the justification to limit the equal protection to pairings instead of trios or larger groupings? A businessperson can form two different partnerships with to different partners. Under "equal protection for couples", surely we can't deny a bigamist what he or she wants.
While appealing to "fairness" and insisting that it is what they want and it would make them happy may be emotionally effective in manipulating public sentiment, the "equal protection" argument does not stand up to scrutiny from a Constitutional perspective. Individuals are allowed to pursue what they want, as long as it does not compell someone else to provide something without consent. When someone applies for a state marriage license, she is asking the people of that state for something. While another woman may agree to apply with her, the people of the state may not agree to provide a license.
(This was originally posted at The Opine Editorials)
But there is one argument that marriage neutering advocates make that seems to be their strongest, at least in the U.S.A. It is some variation of an appeal to "equal access/protection". It packs the most emotional punch, given the desire of the average American to support “equality”.
But law is about logic and facts, not emotion.
Equal protection is a concept found in the federal Constitution, in the Fourteenth Amendment. In Section 1, is this text:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.Emphasis mine. Notice that this applies to individuals. A simple reading of the text reveals that it does not apply to couples or any groupings. Under traditional marriage licensing, where both a bride and a groom are required, is there equal access (and therefore, protection) provided to homosexual individuals in relation to straight individuals?
Yes. Any man, regardless of sexual orientation, is allowed to be a groom. Any woman, regardless of sexual orientation, is allowed to be a bride. Both men and women have equal access to marriage licensing.
I understand that some individuals do not want to marry someone of the opposite sex, and want to get a marriage licensing with someone of the same sex. However, that someone wants something other than what is available does not mean what is offered denies equal protection and must be changed.
It is worth noting that under neutered marriage licensing, where the bride-groom requirement is absent, it is still equal protection as heterosexual individuals are also allowed to get licenses with someone of the same sex. However, any domestic partnership or civil union law that excludes male-female pairings while applying to same-sex couples denies equal protection to some couples. I do not have a problem with this, as I note it is Constitutional to treat different kinds of voluntary associations differently, and thus marriage applies to bride-groom couplings while domestic partnerships and civil unions can be applied to other kinds of couplings.
If, despite the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment, one argues that equal protection must also be extended to couples instead of individuals only, such a change would have profound effects on many areas of law beyond marriage licensing. Suddenly, pairings/partnerships will have rights previously only recognized as applying to individuals. Such a change should require implementation by Amendment, but sadly, I think it is possible a court will create it by decision.
If equal protection must be extended to pairings, then doesn't that also mean presumably platonic pairings, such as business partners, partners in crime (especially those who do not want to testify against each other), roommates, friends, and siblings? And where is the justification to limit the equal protection to pairings instead of trios or larger groupings? A businessperson can form two different partnerships with to different partners. Under "equal protection for couples", surely we can't deny a bigamist what he or she wants.
While appealing to "fairness" and insisting that it is what they want and it would make them happy may be emotionally effective in manipulating public sentiment, the "equal protection" argument does not stand up to scrutiny from a Constitutional perspective. Individuals are allowed to pursue what they want, as long as it does not compell someone else to provide something without consent. When someone applies for a state marriage license, she is asking the people of that state for something. While another woman may agree to apply with her, the people of the state may not agree to provide a license.
(This was originally posted at The Opine Editorials)
What about the right of an individual to marry a compatible mate of the same sexual orientation? Heterosexual individuals have it, homosexual individuals do not.
ReplyDeleteSearchCz,
ReplyDeleteWhat about it?
Seems like you have no idea what the right to marry, or even marriage is.
Let me take you through a few levels of what marriage can be. This isn't a multiple choice question as much as it is a question of what it includes. Every one of the following answers includes what comes before it, the question is at what point do I go to far and mention something it doesn't include? This question focuses on the behavior that a marriage license expects to recognize as a right...
1) The right to live with someone in mutual domestic cohabitation and trust.
2) The right to live with someone in a romance.
3) The right to live with someone in a monogamous romance.
4) The right to live with someone in mutual procreative responsibility.
At what level are you going to stop what marriage recognizes and protects between two people, level 1? Perhaps all the way to level 3? Or are you ready to help marriage protect all the way to level 4?
On Lawn writes: "What about it?"
ReplyDeleteIt, in this case, meaning "the right of an individual to marry a compatible mate of the same sexual orientation". Heterosexuals have this right, homosexuals do not. Therein we have unequal protection. One need not argue about rights being extended to couples to recognizes that the legal protections for individuals is unequal.
On lawn writes "at what point do I go [too] far and mention something it doesn't include?".
People have the right to do any and all of the things you mention without marrying. And people have the right to marry, yet do none of the things you mention. But that doesn't change what marriage "recognizes and protects" between those who have the will and ability to do those four things.
On Lawn: "At what level are you going to stop what marriage recognizes and protects between two people"
I'm not going to stop marriage from recognizing and protecting anything that it currently recognizes and protects.
_It, in this case, meaning "the right of an individual to marry a compatible mate of the same sexual orientation". Heterosexuals have this right, homosexuals do not._
DeleteContradiction in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
_People have the right to do any and all of the things you mention without marrying._
So then what is the right to marry protecting?
Marriage provides protections for folks who choose to do any of the four things you've listed. ( Some folks choose to do those things WITHOUT the legal protections that marriage affords. )
DeleteI appreciate that response. I want to bring to your attention that the "right to marry" is significant in the question. It is what the institution of marriage is built around.
DeleteThe right to marry are not the protections itself, the protection that comes from the shelter of the institution of marriage is for the encouraging recognition of the rights.
So let me ask the same question in a more specific way...
What is are the rights that the institution of marriage is protecting? There are four levels presented, each increasingly recognizing and protecting more rights between the participants. The ultimate including the only involuntary participant, the child they create between them.
Does marriage protect all of those rights? Or are there any of those rights which you see are outside of the shelter of marriage?
On Lawn: "The right to marry are not the protections itself"
DeleteThe US Constitution's equal protection clause is the subject of Playful Walrus' article. From that standpoint, the right to marry is very much about the protections that are conferred to those who marry. Remembering that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
On Lawn: "What is are the rights that the institution of marriage is protecting?"
There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law. I don't think that any of the four things you list are among them. But these benefits, rights and protections do make it easier for folks who choose to do any of those things you list. Consider Family and Medical Leave for example. People have the right to "live with someone in mutual domestic cohabitation and trust" whether or not they marry. But only the married folks have the law providing them with a protected right to take a leave from work to care for that other person should they become ill.
_The US Constitution's equal protection clause is the subject of Playful Walrus' article._
DeleteYes, it is. And the four levels are all about equal protection too.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Okay, I'll follow this rabit hole. What does marriage protect you from?
What do the laws of marriage protect you from?
_There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law._
False. There are 1,138 times marriage is mentioned in the law if you do a word search. That isn't the same thing as 1,138 rights and protections.
And I want to have a discussion on the rights and protections but you just declared "right to marry is very much about the protections". To you the rights are about the protections, not the other way around. Which means you have it exactly backwards.
You'll keep going in circles on that, I'm sure :-D
_But only the married folks have the law providing them with a protected right to take a leave from work to care for that other person should they become ill._
So under equal protection, you must means that everyone in mutual domestic cohabitation must be a marriage to have the same protections?
I'll correct myself than. IN federal law, there are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges.
DeleteOn Lawn: "What do the laws of marriage protect you from?"
I've already mentioned Family & Medical leave. When people have made the commitment to care for one another - AND have the legal recognition of that commitment called "marriage" - they are legally empowered to taker a leave from work in order to honor that commitment and care for their spouse. In this case, the legal recognition provides an assurance that if one spouse becomes ill that the other will have the option of caring for them. And that employers may not deprive them of that opportunity to care for one another in the event of illness.
The right of married people to care for each other in times of illness is protected by the law. Unmarried people do not enjoy the same protected right.
On Lawn: "So under equal protection, you must means that everyone in mutual domestic cohabitation must be a marriage to have the same protections?"
No, I don't "must means" that anyone "must be a marriage". I mean that there are protections offered only to people who are legally married, and that denying someone the opportunity for that legal recognition denies them of protections.
On Lawn: "I want to have a discussion on the rights and protections"
You should say what you have to say about that, then.
_there are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is [...]_
DeleteWhere marriage is mentioned.
That is all a word search provides.
_I've already mentioned Family & Medical leave._
The laws protect you from "Family & Medical leave"?
You clearly misunderstood the question. What do the laws of marriage protect you from?
_The right of married people to care for each other in times of illness is protected by the law._
You clearly don't understand what rights are.
_I mean [equal protection means] that there are protections offered only to people who are legally married [...]_
You clearly don't know what equal protection means.
Hmm, that last idea didn't make it all the way to the page.
Delete_I mean [equal protection means] that there are protections offered only to people who are legally married, and that denying someone the opportunity for that legal recognition denies them of protections._
So under equal protection, you must mean that everyone in mutual domestic cohabitation must not be a marriage because they don't deserve the same protections?
You clearly don't know what equal protection means.
On Lawn, about these 1,138 statutes and provisions contingent on marital status. Here's the 1997 report from the US General Accounting Office on the subject, which has since been updated. That's not a word search.
DeleteOn Lawn writes: "The laws protect you from "Family & Medical leave"?
You clearly misunderstood the question."
No, you clearly misunderstood the answer. The Family & Medical Leave Act is a law that provides protections to married folks. It protects them from being deprived o their caregiver in times of medical need.
And now, misquoting me, On Lawn says I wrote: "I mean [equal protection means] that there are protections offered only to people who are legally married [...]"
On Law, I'm getting tired of this habit you have of inserting phrases of your own choosing that you can argue against. You inserted "[equal protection means]" into my statement. That's not something I wrote, and is therefore not something I need to defend. that goes for this comment of yours as well.
_That's not a word search._
DeleteYou get things so basic, so wrong, so often that it is hilarious.
To quote the report, "To find laws that meet these criteria, we conducted searches for various words or word stems ("marr," "spouse," "widow," etc.), [..]"
It is a word search.
I really get tired of your lazy bluffing. But it is so lazy that it usually takes seconds to find out you are wrong.
_It protects them from being deprived o their caregiver in times of medical need._
So naturally this should, for equality sake, apply to all caregivers, right?
_You inserted "[equal protection means]" into my statement. That's not something I wrote_
LOL... so it is a mistake to assume when you were answering a question about equal protection, that you were talking about equal protection.
Typical, you are hypocritically unequal about your application of equal protection.
And if you read THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE of the GOA report, you would see:
Delete"From the collection of laws in the United
States Code that we found through those searches, we eliminated laws that included one or more of our search terms but that were not relevant to your request"
Either you're not doing your homework, or you're choosing to be dishonest about what you've read.
Also, I'll remind you of your own question. You asked: "What do the laws of marriage protect you from?". The GOA report should highlight quite a few examples for you, if you were to read it.
On Lawn: "LOL... so it is a mistake to assume when you were answering a question about equal protection, that you were talking about equal protection."
No, its a mistake to invent a phrase, insert it into my statement wherever you wish, and assume that it reflects my meaning. "Mistake" may not be a strong enough term. In fact, my original responses were complete without the need for any insertions on your part.
Let's revisit what I wrote in the first place, which prompted your gibberish "you must means" question. I wrote: "Consider Family and Medical Leave for example. People have the right to "live with someone in mutual domestic cohabitation and trust" whether or not they marry. But only the married folks have the law providing them with a protected right to take a leave from work to care for that other person should they become ill.".
And you asked: "So under equal protection, you must means that everyone in mutual domestic cohabitation must be a marriage to have the same protections?"
And my answer: No [...] I mean that there are protections offered only to people who are legally married, and that denying someone the opportunity for that legal recognition denies them of protections. " (emphasis added)
Quite easy to read and comprehend that conversation - all except for your "must means" question. No need to insert phrases into my statements. Please stop wasting my time by unnecessarily inventing phrases and misattributing them to me.
_No, its a mistake to invent a phrase, insert it into my statement wherever you wish, and assume that it reflects my meaning._
DeleteThat invented, made up phrase? Equal protection.
_Quite easy to read and comprehend that conversation_
Except for that made up phrase "equal protection".
When you research it, you'll find it means the opposite of "mean [equal protection means] that there are protections offered only to people who are legally married [...]" and that should be denied to people who are caregivers in mutual domestic trust.
A distinction that makes no difference. It doesn't matter who invented the phrase, you invoked it erroneously and unnecessarily, altering something I had written in a way that does not enhance its clarity or meaning. thats what we can an "incorrect correction".
DeleteMaybe you should start responding to what I've written, instead of altering them so that you have something you prefer to respond to.
Search before... "No, its a mistake to invent a phrase", and now "It doesn't matter who invented the phrase".
DeleteAgain the "invented phrase" in question ... "Equal Protection".
LOL...
_It protects them from being deprived o their caregiver in times of medical need._
So naturally this should, for equality sake, apply to all caregivers, right?
_You inserted "[equal protection means]" into my statement. That's not something I wrote_
LOL... so it is a mistake to assume when you were answering a question about equal protection, that you were talking about equal protection.
Typical, you are hypocritically unequal about your application of equal protection.
And when that is pointed out to you, you claimed I invented the phrase "equal protection".
You continue to quote poorly. I said "its a mistake to invent a phrase, insert it into my statement wherever you wish, and assume that it reflects my meaning".
DeleteTry it like this
Its a mistake to:
1) invent a phrase
2) insert it into my statement wherever you wish, and
3) assume that it reflects my meaning
Any time you add words to something I've written, you're presenting your own (mis)interpretation of what you thought I meant. You are creating a statement other than what I wrote in the first place so that you can argue against it. That's strawman, and its a waste of time.
On Lawn: "so it is a mistake to assume when you were answering a question about equal protection, that you were talking about equal protection."
No, its a mistake turn a satisfactory statement into gibberish through the spurious insertion of a phrase that was not there in the first place, then to waste time arguing against the gibberish you yourself created.
And here's what I actually wrote, again: "I mean that there are protections offered only to people who are legally married, and that denying someone the opportunity for that legal recognition denies them of protections."
If you want to know what I think "equal protection" means, you're free to ask. That's a much better option than projecting your own assumptions wherever you see fit.
_Its a mistake to [...] invent a phrase_
DeleteHilarious. Again, this invented phrase is "equal protection".
His statement came from the question, "So under equal protection, you must mean[] that everyone in mutual domestic cohabitation must be a marriage to have the same protections?"
Equal protection, same protections, somehow Search thinks that "equal protection" is a "spurious insertion of a phrase that was not there in the first place". Clearly he doesn't know what was there in the first place.
So what does equal protection mean to couples that Search has deemed "incompatible mates" or simply people of a different definition of mate than what he means? What of their equal protection?
And Search's answer, "I mean that there are protections offered only to people who are legally married, and that denying someone the opportunity for that legal recognition denies them of protections."
Not only does Search avoid what things really mean, we know that what he really means is that equal protection does "deny[] someone the opportunity for that legal recognition". It "denies them of protections".
But perhaps Search is admitting then that he didn't answer the question? Perhaps we have another instance that I gave him too much credit, and instead he was evading the question entirely?
If so I invite search to try his answer again...
Oh On Lawn, any fool can see what was there in the first place. I wrote it, and I've quoted it twice. "I mean that there are protections offered only to people who are legally married, and that denying someone the opportunity for that legal recognition denies them of protections."
DeleteAnyone who can read can read that this is an example of what it means to deny somebody equal protection. Its right there in the statement. Just look for the words "denying" and "denies". Its not what I think equal protection means, its one example of denial of equal protection.
But you're not content to read and comprehend. You need to insert unnecessary and inappropriate words ( of any origin ), change the statement so you can have something to argue against. What a waste of time. Also, a display of arrogance, that you think your hack job of a rewrite of my statement is a better reflection of my meaning than the original statement.
So no, I neither wrote nor do I mean that equal protection denies someone the opportunity for ANYTHING.
You dishonest repetition has become tiresome. Enough.
_Anyone who can read can read that this is an example of what it means to deny somebody equal protection._
DeleteSure, that is exactly how you are denying people equal protection who's pairing up isn't your definition of mate, mate.
But don't blame me for your denial of human rights. Or your statement that is what equal protection means.
Seriously, you were caught conflicting in a number of ways, dodging questions then denying to answered them, then denying you didn't deny you answered them, etc...
You've made the pretzle, I just baked it in for you.
Sorry, On Lawn, you still haven't hit the minimum standard of intelligence and honesty required for productive conversation. You just keep regurgitating the same misquotes of things I've written so that you'll have something to argue against. You can have that conversation alone.
DeleteYes, dishonest people will often simply call people who catch them in their lies, 'liars'.
DeleteYou were caught in a dishonest amphibology, then caught in a number of conflicting denials that you used to cover your initial lie.
Simply put, you are a liar who was caught lying through various methods.
But this is still unresolved, unless you want your refusal to acknowledge it be a confession that it is absolutely and undeniably true...
So back to the question...
You claim you are "more than happy to allow people to decide on their own who is their compatible mate."
I'm sure they appreciate that, since your definition is entirely your own.
You aren't planning on requiring the government to adopt your definition of "compatible mate" to determine what is and what isn't marriage are you?
If the government decides that means a categorical capacity to procreate, that is a valid definition.
And if the government decides that simple pairing up at a domestic level should be protected through a much more broad program, that is a valid definition too.
So if the government doesn't adopt your definition, and you said you aren't forcing anyone to adopt your definition, then there is no violation of equal protection.
Your claim that there exists a "right of an individual to marry a compatible mate" would only be a compatible in a way that mother nature gives to couples of both genders, not segregated genders. Hence same-sex couples are not, in that mother-nature biological sense, mates.
Hence you created a deliberately misleading amphibology, where you mean something entirely different than the government, in your equal protection claim.
Sorry, liars are not permitted to ask questions. Answer a question truthfully and earn the right to ask a question.
DeleteIf that were true, you wouldn't have been able to ask any questions.
DeleteSo answer honestly...
So back to the question...
You claim you are "more than happy to allow people to decide on their own who is their compatible mate."
I'm sure they appreciate that, since your definition is entirely your own.
You aren't planning on requiring the government to adopt your definition of "compatible mate" to determine what is and what isn't marriage are you?
If the government decides that means a categorical capacity to procreate, that is a valid definition.
And if the government decides that simple pairing up at a domestic level should be protected through a much more broad program, that is a valid definition too.
So if the government doesn't adopt your definition, and you said you aren't forcing anyone to adopt your definition, then there is no violation of equal protection.
Your claim that there exists a "right of an individual to marry a compatible mate" would only be a compatible in a way that mother nature gives to couples of both genders, not segregated genders. Hence same-sex couples are not, in that mother-nature biological sense, mates.
Hence you created a deliberately misleading amphibology, where you mean something entirely different than the government, in your equal protection claim.
Because my right to ask a question is not going to be taken away by someone like you who is simply scared of having to answer it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSorry, I don't entertain questions from liars. I've answered 10 of your questions. AFTER you answer 10 of mine, I might entertain your questions. Not before.
DeleteIf that were true, you wouldn't have been able to ask any questions.
DeleteSo answer honestly...
So back to the question...
You claim you are "more than happy to allow people to decide on their own who is their compatible mate."
I'm sure they appreciate that, since your definition is entirely your own.
You aren't planning on requiring the government to adopt your definition of "compatible mate" to determine what is and what isn't marriage are you?
If the government decides that means a categorical capacity to procreate, that is a valid definition.
And if the government decides that simple pairing up at a domestic level should be protected through a much more broad program, that is a valid definition too.
So if the government doesn't adopt your definition, and you said you aren't forcing anyone to adopt your definition, then there is no violation of equal protection.
Your claim that there exists a "right of an individual to marry a compatible mate" would only be a compatible in a way that mother nature gives to couples of both genders, not segregated genders. Hence same-sex couples are not, in that mother-nature biological sense, mates.
Hence you created a deliberately misleading amphibology, where you mean something entirely different than the government, in your equal protection claim.
Because my right to ask a question is not going to be taken away by someone like you who is simply scared of having to answer it.
Answer ANY question truthfully, for once, an you might gain the privilege of asking a question. Go !
DeleteLOL...
DeleteIf that were true, you wouldn't have been able to ask any questions.
So answer honestly...
So back to the question...
You claim you are "more than happy to allow people to decide on their own who is their compatible mate."
I'm sure they appreciate that, since your definition is entirely your own.
You aren't planning on requiring the government to adopt your definition of "compatible mate" to determine what is and what isn't marriage are you?
If the government decides that means a categorical capacity to procreate, that is a valid definition.
And if the government decides that simple pairing up at a domestic level should be protected through a much more broad program, that is a valid definition too.
So if the government doesn't adopt your definition, and you said you aren't forcing anyone to adopt your definition, then there is no violation of equal protection.
Your claim that there exists a "right of an individual to marry a compatible mate" would only be a compatible in a way that mother nature gives to couples of both genders, not segregated genders. Hence same-sex couples are not, in that mother-nature biological sense, mates.
Hence you created a deliberately misleading amphibology, where you mean something entirely different than the government, in your equal protection claim.
Because my right to ask a question is not going to be taken away by someone like you who is simply scared of having to answer it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm starting a new thread because Search dodged the question.
ReplyDeleteHere again is the question...
Let me take you through a few levels of what marriage can be. This isn't a multiple choice question as much as it is a question of what it includes. Every one of the following answers includes what comes before it, the question is at what point do I go to far and mention something it doesn't include? This question focuses on the behavior that a marriage license expects to recognize as a right...
1) The right to live with someone in mutual domestic cohabitation and trust.
2) The right to live with someone in a romance.
3) The right to live with someone in a monogamous romance.
4) The right to live with someone in mutual procreative responsibility.
At what level are you going to stop what marriage recognizes and protects between two people, level 1? Perhaps all the way to level 3? Or are you ready to help marriage protect all the way to level 4?
_________________
His previous answer was that there was a right to engage in the behaviors anyway, which essentially says the right to marry is meaningless since it isn't protecting any liberty between two people at all.
It also ignores that the question infers obligations from the other party, which a spouse or even child has a right to be recognized and even protected where possible.
I've dealt with the first issue. And in time there will be no way to avoid an investigate more on the second question.
But for now ...
Search, please answer the question asked.
Marriage provides protections for folks who choose to do any of the four things you've listed. It recognizes the obligations that the espoused accept, and empowers them to satisfy those obligations.
DeleteSome folks choose to do all four of the things you listed WITHOUT the legal protections that marriage affords. That doesn't change what marriage is protecting, its merely an example that some people do choose to do those four things without the empowerment that the law provides.
Some folks who marry, choose NOT to do all of the four things you listed. It doesn't "stop what marriage recognizes and protects" in your family when other families exercise choices different from your own.
As for the rest of your repost+
1) Its a little weird that you didn't correct your error. Perhaps you can confirm that you meant *go too far* when you wrote "go to far"
2) I can't decipher what you mean by "And in time there will be no way to avoid an investigate more on the second question." Avoid an investigate? Sorry, I don't know what that is.
_Marriage provides protections for folks who choose to do any of the four things you've listed._
DeleteProtections for their rights in all four, correct?
When we say the right to marry, we aren't just protecting the rights of a domestic co-habiting relationship of mutual trust, we are protecting all the way to level 4, correct?
When you say all of them, that is the same as answering #4, each answer is "all of the above" plus something else.
I've answered this question several times. Marriage offers protections to folks in any of the four situations you describe.
DeleteBefore: "the right of an individual to marry a compatible mate of the same sexual orientation"
DeleteAfter: "Marriage offers protections to folks in any of the four situations"
And he leaves it at that :-D
Sure. Heterosexuals have the right to marry a compatible mate of the same sexual orientation, and in doing so to gain a range of legal rights, benefits and protections. Whether their intention is to:
Delete1) live with someone in mutual domestic cohabitation and trust.
2) live with someone in a romance.
3) live with someone in a monogamous romance.
4) live with someone in mutual procreative responsibility.
In fact, even if none of those things are their intention. They still obtain these legal rights, benefits and protections.
But not so with homosexuals. They may not marry a compatible mate of the same sexual orientation, and are thus denied a range of legal rights, benefits and protections.
_Heterosexuals have the right to marry a compatible mate of the same sexual orientation_
DeleteSo does a lesbian have a right to marry a gay man?
You must mean that if you say their intention is to "live with someone in mutual procreative responsibility".
_They still obtain these legal rights, benefits and protections._
Do children, involuntary members of the procreative relationship, still get the protection of their rights? The right to know and be raised by the two people who shared their identity to create the child's identity?
On Lawn: "So does a lesbian have a right to marry a gay man?"
DeleteThat wouldn't be a compatible mate, mate. So the question is irrelevant.
On Lawn: "Do children, involuntary members of the procreative relationship, still get the protection of their rights?"
Still? What circumstances would precipitate a change?
On Lawn: "Do children, involuntary members of the procreative relationship, still get the protection of their rights? The right to know and be raised by the two people who shared their identity to create the child's identity?"
Is this a protected right that children have now, that they obtain as a product of their parents' marriage? If so, why would that change?
_That wouldn't be a compatible mate, mate._
DeleteMating, as in breeding, means that two people of the same gender aren't compatible, but the gay and lesbian are.
As far as just pairing up, there is no compatibility other than being able to trust each other.
So why would a gay man not be able to trust a lesbian, and vice versa?
_So the question is irrelevant._
In truth, your original comment was irrelevant, and a joke. Don't blame me for trying to discuss this with you anyway.
_Is this a protected right that children have now, that they obtain as a product of their parents' marriage?_
You said it was, didn't you? You said, "Marriage offers protections to folks in any of the four situations you describe."
Even if they didn't intend to have children, I assume because you said, "In fact, even if none of those things are their intention. They still obtain these legal rights, benefits and protections."
So once again, "Do children, involuntary members of the procreative relationship, still get the protection of their rights? The right to know and be raised by the two people who shared their identity to create the child's identity?"
I'm making clear you are specifically recognizing that right as one of the protections you ambiguously waved your hand at.
On Lawn: "Mating, as in breeding, means that two people of the same gender aren't compatible, but the gay and lesbian are."
DeleteHad I meant "breeding", you might have a point. I didn't, you don't.
On Lawn: "As far as just pairing up, there is no compatibility other than being able to trust each other."
Had I meant "just pairing up", you might have a point. I didn't, you don't.
On Lawn: "So why would a gay man not be able to trust a lesbian, and vice versa?"
Who said they wouldn't be able to trust each other? That's your invention (again).
On Lawn our responses to these questions are unsatisfactory. Let's try again.
DeleteRe: your claim about the rights of children, I asked:
Is this a protected right that children have now, that they obtain as a product of their parents' marriage? If so, why would that change?
And here's you're unsatisfactory response:
On Lawn: "You said it was, didn't you?
No, I did not. You introduced the idea of children having "the right to know and be raised by the two people who shared their identity to create the child's identity".
Thus far, you've answered zero parts of my three-part question. I'll break it down for you:
1) Do children now have the protected right to know and be raised by the two people who shared their identity (as you claim)? Any example illustrating this would be welcome.
2) Do children obtain the protection of this right only if their parents marry? Any examples of a law that only protects children if their parents marry will do.
3) If so, why would that change?
You raised the question of whether or not children would "still get the protection of their rights". Please identify the thing that you had in mind that might prevent children from being raised by the two people who shared their identity, and explain how that thing is a threat.
_Had I meant "breeding", you might have a point. I didn't, you don't._
Delete_Had I meant "just pairing up", you might have a point. I didn't, you don't._
Marriage is more than breeding, not less than. You yourself noted that marriage is for protections that are specific to breeding when you identified level 4 of rights protections instead of the non-breeding level 3.
But even worse, you are saying it isn't even about pairing up.
_Who said they wouldn't be able to trust each other?_
You said they aren't compatible to even pair up in mutual trust.
If you didn't mean that, then you should explain what you meant more explicitly.
So define for us what "compatible" means in the statement "compatible mate".
I think its time for you to answer a few questions for a change. You introduced the idea that children have "the right to know and be raised by the two people who shared their identity to create the child's identity". Rather than continuing to dodge my questions, its time for you to either back up that claim with some answers. I'll accept your failure to do that as an admission that you were incorrect.
DeleteNo Search, you used the phrase "compatible mate" as a significant qualifier in your opening statement.
DeleteNow we find out you mean something very unique if not completely made up.
So tell us what does "compatible" mean in the statement "compatible mate".
Be a good sport, and take first things, first.
I've been a good sport, and responded to all of your questions. You've not shown the same good nature. Which is peculiar, especially considering that you wrote: "I want to have a discussion on the rights and protections".
DeleteAnd now I'm inviting you to do so, for the third time. Discuss this concept that you raised: that children have "the right to know and be raised by the two people who shared their identity to create the child's identity".
If all you want to do is ask questions, that would constitute an interrogation rather than a discussion. If your intention was to interrogate rather than discuss you should have been honest and said so in the first place.
_I've been a good sport, and responded to all of your questions._
DeleteOh so you can show me where your answer is to what "compatible" means when you say "compatible mate".
Because it is clear you don't mean mating as in combining to create children, and you don't even mean just pairing up.
Having been caught in that, I can see why you want to quick evade that again.
But you are the one making the equal protection claim. You are the one saying you didn't mean something normal people use the words to mean.
Its up to you to figure that out.
That's okay, if you need time just take it. I'll wait until you can.
"compatible mate" explained, using the common definitions of these terms and nothing "unique" or "made up".
DeleteCompatible - Able to have a harmonious relationship: well-suited.
Mate - A person's husband, wife, or other sexual partner.
Compatible mate = a husband, wife or other sexual partner to whom one is well suited, and with whom one is able to have a harmonious relationship. Heterosexuals have the option to choose and marry a compatible mate, and in doing so to gain a wide range of legal rights, protections and responsibilities. Homosexuals do not have such option. Thus, unequal protection.
LOL...
DeleteSo a lesbian and gay person cannot have a "harmonious relationship: well-suited".
Thanks for clarifying.
I never wrote that a gay man and a lesbian cannot have a harmonious relationship. I never wrote that they were not compatible. I wrote that they would not be compatible mates ... and I provided you with an explanation of what I meant by the phrase "compatible mates".
DeleteYour response, as if I had claimed that gay men and lesbians are incompatible, shows either a lack of reading comprehension or a willful dishonesty in communication on your part. slow down, pay attention, and respond to what I've written (or not at all).
_I never wrote that a gay man and a lesbian cannot have a harmonious relationship. I never wrote that they were not compatible._
DeleteRewind the tape... "That wouldn't be a compatible mate, mate."
You used mate twice there. They are compatible mates, mate, by any reasonable definition.
They can create children together. They can live together harmoniously.
But the fact you say they are not, is wrong on both accounts. Plain and simple, mate.
There's no willful deception except on your part, playing games on what you mean by "mate", mate.
Now you are showing a deep dishonesty, On Lawn, in asking me what I meant by "compatible mate" and then ignoring what I wrote in favor of your own definition.
DeleteCompatible mate = a husband, wife or other sexual partner to whom one is well suited, and with whom one is able to have a harmonious relationship.
"Create children together" is nowhere in that definition - so again you are invoking a phrase I did not write in order to respond to something I did not write. What a waste.
Also, it appears you are still dodging those three questions. Why are you trying to stonewall this discussion by your continuing and repeated refusal to answer questions ?
_I meant by "compatible mate" and then ignoring what I wrote in favor of your own definition._
DeleteHypocrite.
You are the one ignoring what mate means for your own definition.
Rewind the tape...
_Had I meant "breeding", you might have a point. I didn't, you don't._ (later _"Create children together" is nowhere in that definition_
_Had I meant "just pairing up", you might have a point. I didn't, you don't._
Yet mating means breeding. Mating can also mean pairing up. You denied that it means either.
Your denials are now being compounded with hypocrisy.
But lets return to the questions you have otherwise refused to answer...
_Heterosexuals have the right to marry a compatible mate of the same sexual orientation_
So does a lesbian have a right to marry a gay man?
You must mean that if you say their intention is to "live with someone in mutual procreative responsibility", as pertaining to #4 which you say marriage protects.
It is your context of the fourth option where you decided that "mate" means having children together.
So your denials are just wrong, the history of the conversation is already shows where you accepted mate in marriage as responsible procreation.
_They still obtain these legal rights, benefits and protections._
Do children, involuntary members of the procreative relationship, still get the protection of their rights? The right to know and be raised by the two people who shared their identity to create the child's identity?
You claimed to answer that both ways, and now deny answering it at all.
If so, then let me back up to it. Please answer the in a straight forward and honest response that you can own up to later and say, yes, that is your answer.
You inquired about me meaning when I wrote "compatible mate". I answered, explaining what I meant by "compatible mate". You choose to ignore that in order to continue your complaint. What a waste of time, and a continued dodge of the questions I've asked you.
DeleteOn Lawn: "Please answer the in a straight forward and honest response that you can own up to later and say, yes, that is your answer."
Please answer the? Hmm. The what? If you want to discuss your claim about children's rights, these three questions provide a great place to start, so that I can better understand your claim about these rights. I can't agree or disagree with you on something you refuse to explain.
1) Do children now have the protected right to know and be raised by the two people who shared their identity (as you claim)? Any example illustrating this would be welcome.
2) Do children obtain the protection of this right only if their parents marry? Any examples of a law that only protects children if their parents marry will do.
3) If so, why would that change?
You raised the question of whether or not children would "still get the protection of their rights". Please identify the thing that you had in mind that might prevent children from being raised by the two people who shared their identity, and explain how that thing is a threat.
_ You choose to ignore that in order to continue your complaint._
DeleteLiar, lol...
ou are the one ignoring what mate means for your own definition.
Rewind the tape...
_Had I meant "breeding", you might have a point. I didn't, you don't._ (later _"Create children together" is nowhere in that definition_
_Had I meant "just pairing up", you might have a point. I didn't, you don't._
Yet mating means breeding. Mating can also mean pairing up. You denied that it means either.
Your denials are now being compounded with hypocrisy.
But lets return to the questions you have otherwise refused to answer...
_Heterosexuals have the right to marry a compatible mate of the same sexual orientation_
So does a lesbian have a right to marry a gay man?
You must mean that if you say their intention is to "live with someone in mutual procreative responsibility", as pertaining to #4 which you say marriage protects.
It is your context of the fourth option where you decided that "mate" means having children together.
So your denials are just wrong, the history of the conversation is already shows where you accepted mate in marriage as responsible procreation.
_They still obtain these legal rights, benefits and protections._
Do children, involuntary members of the procreative relationship, still get the protection of their rights? The right to know and be raised by the two people who shared their identity to create the child's identity?
You claimed to answer that both ways, and now deny answering it at all.
If so, then let me back up to it. Please answer the question in a straight forward and honest response that you can own up to later and say, yes, that is your answer.
You're repeating yourself.
DeleteI didn't deny that "mate" can mean breeding, or pairing up. It can also mean one of a matched pair, or an assistant to a skilled worker, or a deck officer on a merchant ship subordinate to the master.
But as I've explained - in response to your inquiry - none of those are what I meant by "mate" when I wrote about choosing a "compatible mate". The fact that you ask the question and ignore the answer shows a tremendous arrogance on your part. That's not something to be proud of.
By the way, I see you're still dodging the questions you've been asked. I'm beginning to think you lied when you said you wanted to have a discussion.
_You're repeating yourself._
DeleteI find I often have to with you.
_I didn't deny that "mate" can mean breeding, or pairing up._
You simply ignored it....
Had I meant "breeding", you might have a point. I didn't, you don't._ (later _"Create children together" is nowhere in that definition_
_Had I meant "just pairing up", you might have a point. I didn't, you don't._
_none of those are what I meant by "mate" when I wrote about choosing a "compatible mate"_
And to compound the ignorance, you claim that using those definitions is just arrogance.
Think about it. You claim a narrow use of the term, and get upset that others can take it to mean any of a number of things. In your anger you call that acknowledgement "arrogance".
You vs a world of uses for the term, and when the world moves in a way you don't like, then the world is just being arrogant. Anything or anyone but you, I suppose. That's not something to be proud of.
_By the way, I see you're still dodging the questions you've been asked. I'm beginning to think you lied when you said you wanted to have a discussion._
Sure lets have a discussion.
So does a lesbian have a right to marry a gay man?
You must mean that if you say their intention is to "live with someone in mutual procreative responsibility", as pertaining to #4 which you say marriage protects.
It is your context of the fourth option where you decided that "mate" means having children together.
So your denials are just wrong, the history of the conversation is already shows where you accepted mate in marriage as responsible procreation.
_They still obtain these legal rights, benefits and protections._
Do children, involuntary members of the procreative relationship, still get the protection of their rights? The right to know and be raised by the two people who shared their identity to create the child's identity?
You claimed to answer that both ways, and now deny answering it at all.
If so, then let me back up to it. Please answer the question in a straight forward and honest response that you can own up to later and say, yes, that is your answer.
On Lawn's version of a discussion.
Delete1) ask a question
2) ignore the answer
3) make up something to complain about
Search, you know that isn't true. Your signal to noise ratio (or in this case commentary to actual discussion) ration is now zero.
DeleteYet there are these questions you've admitted to not answering.
So lets get back to that...
So does a lesbian have a right to marry a gay man?
You must mean that if you say their intention is to "live with someone in mutual procreative responsibility", as pertaining to #4 which you say marriage protects.
It is your context of the fourth option where you decided that "mate" means having children together.
So your denials are just wrong, the history of the conversation is already shows where you accepted mate in marriage as responsible procreation.
_They still obtain these legal rights, benefits and protections._
Do children, involuntary members of the procreative relationship, still get the protection of their rights? The right to know and be raised by the two people who shared their identity to create the child's identity?
You claimed to answer that both ways, and now deny answering it at all.
If so, then let me back up to it. Please answer the question in a straight forward and honest response that you can own up to later and say, yes, that is your answer.
On Lawn is so inquisitive about lesbians and gay men! He asks "So does a lesbian have a right to marry a gay man?"
DeleteI'm a bit surprised you're still asking this question, as I've already answered that these two would not be compatible mates". And the right I've brought into question is the right to choose and marry a compatible mate.
If you wish to change the subject, or to raise a new subject, you are free to do so. You don't need my answer in order to do so.
On Lawn: "the history of the conversation is already shows where you accepted mate in marriage as responsible procreation"
That's quite a stretch, even for you. The history of this conversation quite clearly shows my belief that marriage provides protections to folks whether or not they choose to procreate. And I think its quite reasonable to say that all four of the examples you provided illustrate somebody choosing to share their life with a compatible mate. And that's a choice that marital law respects and protects.
On Lawn writes: "Do children, involuntary members of the procreative relationship, still get the protection of their rights?"
Yes.
On Lawn writes: "The right to know and be raised by the two people who shared their identity to create the child's identity?"
I believe you've mistaken the rights of parents to raise their children with an imagined right of children to be raised by their parents. (This is why your slave analogy is such a piece of garbage: because among slaves the parents did not have the right to raise their own children, but there nothing in place or in the offing that undermines this parental right)
Perhaps you can correct me by pointing out any statute that protects a child's right in this regard.
Search, first I honestly appreciate that you've finally answered the question I asked.
DeleteWhile I think your answer is rather misguided, and denies children their essential rights, it isn't completely that way.
_The history of this conversation quite clearly shows my belief that marriage provides protections to folks whether or not they choose to procreate._
One right we can be clear that Search doesn't want marriage to protect is "The right to know and be raised by the two people who shared their identity to create the child's identity".
To Search, there are only adult rights, and the adult's right is to choose to abandon or keep a child at will.
___________________
extras: (these are beside the point now that Search actually answered the question, but still interesting on their own)
_And the right I've brought into question is the right to choose and marry a compatible mate._
As long as that mate means what Search wants it to. Go ahead and re-read the thread and not how many times he emphasizes his own choice of definition.
That is the point of asking about the lesbian and the gay who are compatible mates, both in breeding and in living in harmony together. They are compatible in many legitimate definitions of "mate". And to be honest, possibly compatible in Search's definition too, but that is only hypothetical based on the whims of sexual attraction.
Hidden under the covers of the first comment, "What about the right of an individual to marry a compatible mate of the same sexual orientation? Heterosexual individuals have it, homosexual individuals do not.", is an unspoken but adamant choice by Search to say that only the sexual attraction afforded by sexual orientation is important to compatibility.
Search adamantly rejects the compatibility of mutual trust and domestic dependency that is shared by many couples, even many same-sex couples who are not homosexual or sexual at all. Search adamantly rejects the compatibility for the result of creating a child who is not a blank slate, a child that shares the identity and heritage of the parents.
Singly and solely Search only considers "compatible mate" to be a sexual enterprise.
On one side, recognizing the right to mutual trust would give all the protections that a same-sex relationship (sexual or not) that neutered marriage would.
On the other side, it only provides some protections, like a seat belt provides only some protection for a couple.
So what about equal protection? If we are trying to help out every couple with protection of their mutual trust and dependency, we would do so whether they were sexual or not.
Yet that falls short of protect every right and need associated with procreation (not just sex) for the child as well as the man and the woman who are responsible to mutually seek the fulfillment and recognition of that relationship created at birth. Only an institution for the relationship between a man and a woman can do that.
Search's choice of what makes a compatible mate is selfish, it denies children's rights, and it denies the same protections of people who have dependency and mutual trust without any sexual relationship.
Besides, Search's choice of enforcing what makes people "compatible mates" is inviting the government into the bedroom.
On Lawn: "While I think your answer is rather misguided, and denies children their essential rights, it isn't completely that way."
DeleteYet you run away from every opportunity to explain how the right to know and be raised by their parents is a right protected by marriage. Pitiful.
On Lawn: "As long as that mate means what Search wants it to."
But, Lawn, you asked me what I meant. What kind of jerk asks somebody to explain their meaning in order to ignore their response?
On Lawn: "Search's choice of enforcing what makes people "compatible mates" is inviting the government into the bedroom."
Lawn got that absolutely backwards. I'm more than happy to allow people to decide on their own who is their compatible mate. On Lawn would have the government intervene, and only recognize those who match his criteria.
On Lawn: "Hidden under the covers of the first comment, "What about the right of an individual to marry a compatible mate of the same sexual orientation? Heterosexual individuals have it, homosexual individuals do not.", is an unspoken but adamant choice by Search to say that only the sexual attraction afforded by sexual orientation is important to compatibility."
Not "only". This is another example of Lawn claiming I've written something that I have not. Not classy.
On Lawn: "Singly and solely Search only considers "compatible mate" to be a sexual enterprise."
Not "only".
Let's not summarize this exchange before On Lawn answers the three questions he's been offered numerous times.
1) Do children now have the protected right to know and be raised by the two people who shared their identity (as you claim)? Any example illustrating this would be welcome.
2) Do children obtain the protection of this right only if their parents marry? Any examples of a law that only protects children if their parents marry will do.
3) If so, why would that change?
You raised the question of whether or not children would "still get the protection of their rights". Please identify the thing that you had in mind that might prevent children from being raised by the two people who shared their identity, and explain how that thing is a threat.
All we have from Lawn are complaints. His refusal to engage in this aspect of the conversation leaves us with nothing to support his position about the connection between marriage and children's' rights. I'm not surprised.
Search, I read your attempt to bluster and insult. The bravado comes through loudly, and shows how poor your people skills are.
DeleteBut what I find most interesting is that you really don't deny anything.
You are still disqualifying couples of mutual trust and domestic dependency, and remove recognition of rights unique to procreation from those who are invested in being responsible in ever aspect due to the children they procreate together.
Your bravado and bluster doesn't make up for the fact that your bigotry was not only exposed, but you still don't have an adequate explanation of it.
So some points...
_you asked me what I meant._
I did, after you said that couples of mutual trust don't qualify for your view of equality because "mating" means sexual relationships. You had already declared, for instance, a gay man and a lesbian woman to be "incompatible mates".
They might have mutual trust, but that doesn't count.
They might be compatible to have babies together, but that doesn't count. They are "incompatible mates".
Nothing else qualified. Or in your words, none of those are what I meant by "mate" when I wrote about choosing a "compatible mate".
So even before I asked what you meant, and for all the comments after, you were setting criteria that you didn't disclose in the first comment. You were declaring who was a compatible mate fulfilling a right to marriage, and who wasn't.
And then you said that those that don't will not get the benefits of marriage outside of it, disqualifying everyone else when you said, "I mean that there are protections offered only to people who are legally married, and that denying someone the opportunity for that legal recognition denies them of protections."
You complain that these criticisms are complaints.
They aren't bravado, they aren't mean spirited.
They are just taking off the mask to expose your hatred, bigotry and over-sexed attitude about what government should protect.
REPEAT: I'm more than happy to allow people to decide on their own who is their compatible mate. On Lawn would have the government intervene, and only recognize those who match his criteria.
DeleteThe point is that heterosexuals have the ability to gain the protections of marriage together with someone of their choosing, and they are free to make that choice with consideration for sexual compatibility if they wish. Because sex is a part of life, and it is more that reasonable that people have the chance to choose someone who is likely to be sexually compatible. Homosexuals do not have this option.
On Lawn asks "So does a lesbian have a right to marry a gay man?"
My answer to this question was that it is irrelevant. Because the inequity in question is all about people being able to choose for themselves a mate they find compatible. Personally, I'm not too concerned about whether or not a lesbian and a gay man make the choice to marry one another.
After all, straight people are free to marry someone with whom they are not sexually compatible. But they are also free to marry someone with whom they are sexually compatible, aren't they? Hmmm.
On Lawn,no doubt, will call this "hatred, bigotry, and over-sexed" !
_I'm more than happy to allow people to decide on their own who is their compatible mate._
DeleteWhat an dishonest dodge.
How about this. The government is willing to let you decide on your own, but for the purpose of the equal protection clause, marriage is about compatible mating between a man and a woman. Same-sex is segregationist and incompatible mates, mate.
And for pairing up, lets let that be an adult choice which happens with or without sexual relationships, and help everyone pairing up. We can call it Domestic Partnerships, or Reciprocal Beneficiaries, or Civil Unions.
_The point is that heterosexuals have the ability to gain the protections of marriage_
Some protections, but not all that recognize their natural and unique relationship in creating their children, because you want marriage to only recognize the protections of pairing up, but deny those protections to people just pairing up.
Its the worst of both worlds scenario.
And after that you go through a diatribe about how much sex is what matters, when people living together care about so much more, and there are so many more people living together who don't care about sex between them at all.
Yes, you keep repeating that you are just that bigoted, over-sexed and spiteful.
More false accusations. Let's clear these up.
DeleteI never suggested that the right to marry should be taken away from anyone.
I never suggested that any of the protections, obligations and rights that come with marriage ought to change. That includes any rights that marriage bestows to children. No changes called for.
And as I've already acknowledged, these protections extend to folks who choose to have children. ( They are also enjoyed by folks who do not have children, and folks who are raising adopted children. All those families deserve and should continue to get all the protections they currently enjoy. I never said otherwise. )
I never suggested that anyone but the two people contemplating marriage should determine what their criteria for selecting one another ought to be,
On Lawn is simply not a trustworthy reported regarding my position.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By contrast, On Lawn calls it "over-sexed" if sexual compatibility is among the criteria that the couple considers. He says that the ability to make a baby together ought to be enough, when he writes "Mating, as in breeding, means that two people of the same gender aren't compatible, but the gay and lesbian are.". Consider that carefully: according to On Lawn, if two people can make a baby together, they are compatible.
And read his next sentence: "As far as just pairing up, there is no compatibility other than being able to trust each other."
Such depth of ignorance about the nuanced complexities along the continuum of human relationships. For On Lawn, you're either making babies (in which case, the ability to make babies ought to be your only consideration when evaluating compatability) or you're "just pairing up", in which case "trust" ought to be your only consideration. According to On Lawn, nobody ought to consider whether they share respect, common goals, a similar perspective on life, religious belief, or anything else when evaluating compatibility.
Also, describing same-sex life partners as people who are "just pairing up" wrongly puts them into the same category as roommates. The error of this characterization is especially apparent when you consider that children are being raised by same-sex couples, often with a biological relationship to one of those adults. Just like so many other children after their parents' second marriage. Why do these children deserve any less protection, Lawn?
Okay, LOL...
DeleteI'll you've had your say on that. The record conflicts with your revisions and denials, but that is just typical.
So lets go back to where we left off...
How about this.
You claim you are "more than happy to allow people to decide on their own who is their compatible mate."
I'm sure they appreciate that, since your definition is entirely your own.
You aren't planning on requiring the government to adopt your definition of "compatible mate" to determine what is and what isn't marriage are you?
If the government decides that means a categorical capacity to procreate, that is a valid definition.
And if the government decides that simple pairing up at a domestic level should be protected through a much more broad program, that is a valid definition too.
So if the government doesn't adopt your definition, and you said you aren't forcing anyone to adopt your definition, then there is no violation of equal protection.
Your claim that there exists a "right of an individual to marry a compatible mate" would only be a compatible in a way that mother nature gives to couples of both genders, not segregated genders. Hence same-sex couples are not, in that mother-nature biological sense, mates.
Hence you created a deliberately misleading amphibology, where you mean something entirely different than the government, in your equal protection claim.
On Lawn: "Your claim that there exists a "right of an individual to marry a compatible mate" would only be a compatible in a way that mother nature gives to couples of both genders, not segregated genders."
Delete"Mother nature" is a fiction for children. Nature, on the other hand, gives compatibility to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. it all comes from the same place.
_Nature, on the other hand, gives compatibility to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. it all comes from the same place._
DeleteSo a gay and lesbian are compatible mates now!
LOL...
So lets go back to where we left off...
How about this.
You claim you are "more than happy to allow people to decide on their own who is their compatible mate."
I'm sure they appreciate that, since your definition is entirely your own.
You aren't planning on requiring the government to adopt your definition of "compatible mate" to determine what is and what isn't marriage are you?
If the government decides that means a categorical capacity to procreate, that is a valid definition.
And if the government decides that simple pairing up at a domestic level should be protected through a much more broad program, that is a valid definition too.
So if the government doesn't adopt your definition, and you said you aren't forcing anyone to adopt your definition, then there is no violation of equal protection.
Your claim that there exists a "right of an individual to marry a compatible mate" would only be a compatible in a way that mother nature gives to couples of both genders, not segregated genders. Hence same-sex couples are not, in that mother-nature biological sense, mates.
Hence you created a deliberately misleading amphibology, where you mean something entirely different than the government, in your equal protection claim.
_"Mother nature" is a fiction for children._
Actually, it just an anthropomorphism. You can assume "nature" in place of "mother nature" (even though in your use, "nature gives", it is just as anthropomorphic) if it helps you respond more intelligently.
Are you that thick? I didn't nature gives heterosexuals and homosexuals THE SAME compatibility. I said that "nature gives compatibility to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. it all comes from the same place". If your misinterpretation is the same as my statement, its clear that you lack the basic necessary skills to communicate in this way. I can't keep wasting my time with you. Enough.
DeleteLets follow this progression again.
DeleteI'll take it from where I say, "Your claim that there exists a "right of an individual to marry a compatible mate" would only be a compatible in a way that mother nature gives to couples of both genders, not segregated genders."
Search replies, "Nature, on the other hand, gives compatibility to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike."
But wait, "I didn't nature gives heterosexuals and homosexuals THE SAME compatibility."
I'm glad he set that straight ... LOL...
So back to the question...
You claim you are "more than happy to allow people to decide on their own who is their compatible mate."
I'm sure they appreciate that, since your definition is entirely your own.
You aren't planning on requiring the government to adopt your definition of "compatible mate" to determine what is and what isn't marriage are you?
If the government decides that means a categorical capacity to procreate, that is a valid definition.
And if the government decides that simple pairing up at a domestic level should be protected through a much more broad program, that is a valid definition too.
So if the government doesn't adopt your definition, and you said you aren't forcing anyone to adopt your definition, then there is no violation of equal protection.
Your claim that there exists a "right of an individual to marry a compatible mate" would only be a compatible in a way that mother nature gives to couples of both genders, not segregated genders. Hence same-sex couples are not, in that mother-nature biological sense, mates.
Hence you created a deliberately misleading amphibology, where you mean something entirely different than the government, in your equal protection claim.
Sorry, On Lawn, you still haven't hit the minimum standard of intelligence and honesty required for productive conversation. You just keep regurgitating the same misquotes of things I've written so that you'll have something to argue against. You can have that conversation alone.
DeleteI know, you want to complain about the conversation rather than take any part in it.
DeleteThis attempt to invalidate the whole conversation is laughable. It was neither dishonest or unintelligent (at least on my part). And you know it.
Your amphibology was dishonest. And now it was fully exposed by your own writing. And now trying to claim the whole conversation was invalid is just more dishonesty on your part.
So back to the question...
You claim you are "more than happy to allow people to decide on their own who is their compatible mate."
I'm sure they appreciate that, since your definition is entirely your own.
You aren't planning on requiring the government to adopt your definition of "compatible mate" to determine what is and what isn't marriage are you?
If the government decides that means a categorical capacity to procreate, that is a valid definition.
And if the government decides that simple pairing up at a domestic level should be protected through a much more broad program, that is a valid definition too.
So if the government doesn't adopt your definition, and you said you aren't forcing anyone to adopt your definition, then there is no violation of equal protection.
Your claim that there exists a "right of an individual to marry a compatible mate" would only be a compatible in a way that mother nature gives to couples of both genders, not segregated genders. Hence same-sex couples are not, in that mother-nature biological sense, mates.
Hence you created a deliberately misleading amphibology, where you mean something entirely different than the government, in your equal protection claim.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete_On Lawn our responses to these questions are unsatisfactory. Let's try again._
ReplyDeleteNo, what I exposed is that your answer is unsatisfactory.
I asked, "Do children, involuntary members of the procreative relationship, still get the protection of their rights? The right to know and be raised by the two people who shared their identity to create the child's identity?"
Because that is what is meant by, "4) live with someone in mutual procreative responsibility." Other's rights amount to our responsibilities to recognize and fulfill. And in creating a child, their rights to their parentage and heritage, as well as their care and comfort are the primary responsibility of the two people who shared their identity to create the child's identity.
You answered that marriage does protect the rights associated with procreation. And now you say it does not.
So you are either lying, or simply denying their rights to begin with.
And that is not equality.
The last group of people in the US who found the rights a child has to their heritage and parentage to be inconvenient were the slave owners, who wished to buy and sell children at will.
How vain your claim on equality looks like when arguing from the very platform of denying human rights that was occupied and defended by slave owners.
On Lawn: "You answered that marriage does protect the rights associated with procreation."
DeleteNo, you either misread or you are trying to mislead again. I said that marriage provides protections to those who choose to live with someone in mutual procreative responsibility. You have described children as "the only involuntary participant". As such, they cannot be counted as one who chose to live with someone in mutual procreative responsibility.
On Lawn: "And now you say it does not.".
Nope, I didn't say that either.
I haven;t said whether marriage does or does not protect the right of the child that you've identified. I've merely asked you to support your claim by answering a few questions.
I said, "So you are either lying, or simply denying their rights to begin with."
DeleteAnd it looks like you took the denying rights option. Your reply now changes to say that marriage does not protect the rights associated with procreation.
_I haven't said whether marriage does or does not protect the right of the child that you've identified._
You have, but it is interesting that after answering it both ways, now you don't want to have answered it at all.
You've made claims about a child's "right to know and be raised by the two people who shared their identity to create the child's identity?"
DeleteYou falsely claim that I've agreed with your claim about a child's rights, yet you've failed to provide a verifiable quote showing such agreement.
You falsely claim that I've disagreed with your claim about a child's rights, yet you fail to provide a verifiable quote showing such agreement.
What I've done is ask you questions about your claim, none of which you've been able to answer. Here they come again ...
1) Do children now have the protected right to know and be raised by the two people who shared their identity (as you claim)? Any example illustrating this would be welcome.
2) Do children obtain the protection of this right only if their parents marry? Any examples of a law that only protects children if their parents marry will do.
3) If so, why would that change?
You claim to want a discussion of this topic. Start discussing and stop dodging.
Search,
DeleteNow you are just trying to stonewall the whole discussion.
That you are trying to agree, and disagree, and not answer the question is already documented. Your denials are just laughable.
Here's the deal. You've not set the record straight at all. You've simply denied one way, then denied the other, and found yourself denying both ways at the same time. Then when you were caught int that you denied you even answered in the first place.
No, I really pity you. You've been dishonest from the beginning, and your inability to make a straight answer has now exposed your dishonesty.
I asked, "Do children, involuntary members of the procreative relationship, still get the protection of their rights? The right to know and be raised by the two people who shared their identity to create the child's identity?"
Because that is what is meant by, "4) live with someone in mutual procreative responsibility." Other's rights amount to our responsibilities to recognize and fulfill. And in creating a child, their rights to their parentage and heritage, as well as their care and comfort are the primary responsibility of the two people who shared their identity to create the child's identity.
You answered that marriage does protect the rights associated with procreation. And now you say it does not.
So you are either lying, or simply denying their rights to begin with.
And that is not equality.
The last group of people in the US who found the rights a child has to their heritage and parentage to be inconvenient were the slave owners, who wished to buy and sell children at will.
How vain your claim on equality looks like when arguing from the very platform of denying human rights that was occupied and defended by slave owners.
On Lawn: "You answered that marriage does protect the rights associated with procreation. And now you say it does not."
DeleteActually, you are the one who wrote "marriage does protect the rights associated with procreation". Twice now, plus the times I've quoted you.
You keep making this false claim, and failing to substantiate it with any verifiable quotes.
Among other things, you asked about those who choose to "live with someone in mutual procreative responsibility". I've given you my opinion that folks are free to make that choice, with or without the protections afforded by marriage. I don't know how I could be any more forthright on this, nor how you misconstrue this as any kind of commentary on the rights of any child they might produce.
You, On Lawn, made the claim about a child's right to "right to know and be raised by the two people who shared their identity to create the child's identity". A claim I've neither agreed to nor disputed. What I have done is to ask you a few questions about this claim, but you are apparently unable to answer. that doesn't make for much of a discussion.
_You keep making this false claim_
DeleteThe false claim, "marriage does protect the rights associated with procreation".
So, essentially, Search is denying again. But what he is denying are children's rights, as well as the spouse's rights to the others support in providing and recognizing the child's rights.
And that is not equality. Denying human rights never is.
The last group of people in the US who found the rights a child has to their heritage and parentage to be inconvenient were the slave owners, who wished to buy and sell children at will.
How vain your claim on equality looks like when arguing from the very platform of denying human rights that was occupied and defended by slave owners.
In a very straight forward manner, Search simply denies those rights.
No, Lawn. The false claim is not "marriage does protect the rights associated with procreation". That is something you've written, and which I have nether confirmed nor contested.
DeleteYour false claim is that I "answered that marriage does protect the rights associated with procreation. And now you say it does not."
Lets be forthright here. You made a claim about children's rights. As much as I would love to express my agreement or dissent, I am unable to do either until you answer the questions I've asked you about your claim of children's rights.
Save your accusations, and your slave owner analogies. Until I've expressed an opinion on the matter, they have no place here.
_The false claim is not "marriage does protect the rights associated with procreation". That is something you've written, and which I have nether confirmed nor contested._
DeleteYes, you go from affirming, to denying, to denying you affirmed or denied.
Oh what a web you weave when you attempt to simply deceive.
Its hilarious to watch.
Let me remind you of exactly what you did say,
Actually, you are the one who wrote "marriage does protect the rights associated with procreation". Twice now, plus the times I've quoted you.
You keep making this false claim, [...]
So lets get back to the question you are answering both yes, no, and denying you are answering at all...
I asked, "Do children, involuntary members of the procreative relationship, still get the protection of their rights? The right to know and be raised by the two people who shared their identity to create the child's identity?"
Because that is what is meant by, "4) live with someone in mutual procreative responsibility." Other's rights amount to our responsibilities to recognize and fulfill. And in creating a child, their rights to their parentage and heritage, as well as their care and comfort are the primary responsibility of the two people who shared their identity to create the child's identity.
You answered that marriage does protect the rights associated with procreation. And now you say it does not.
So you are either lying, or simply denying their rights to begin with.
And that is not equality.
The last group of people in the US who found the rights a child has to their heritage and parentage to be inconvenient were the slave owners, who wished to buy and sell children at will.
How vain your claim on equality looks like when arguing from the very platform of denying human rights that was occupied and defended by slave owners.
Go ahead, set the record straight. This answering both, and neither, is just showing the strange extremes of denial you are going through.
It is nothing but laughable that you choose accuse others of avoiding answering, to avoid answering. It is not only hypocritical, but shows just how dishonest you are.
On Lawn: "You answered that marriage does protect the rights associated with procreation. And now you say it does not."
DeleteStill not true, and I see you still have no verifiable quotes to support your accusations.
LOL...
DeleteOn Lawn: >> "You answered that marriage does protect the rights associated with procreation. And now you say it does not."
Search: > "Still not true, and I see you still have no verifiable quotes to support your accusations."
Denial is a terrible last stand to make Search.
* "Marriage provides protections for folks who choose to do any of the four things you've listed." [ Number 4 specifically states, "4) The right to live with someone in mutual procreative responsibility."]
Then later says it does not...
* "There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law. I don't think that any of the four things you list are among them."
We go from "Marriage provides protections for folks who choose to do any of the four" to "I don't think that any of the four things".
Yes, you go from affirming, to denying, to denying you affirmed or denied.
Oh what a web you weave when you attempt to simply deceive.
Its hilarious to watch.
So lets get back to the question you are answering both yes, no, and denying you are answering at all...
I asked, "Do children, involuntary members of the procreative relationship, still get the protection of their rights? The right to know and be raised by the two people who shared their identity to create the child's identity?"
Because that is what is meant by, "4) live with someone in mutual procreative responsibility." Other's rights amount to our responsibilities to recognize and fulfill. And in creating a child, their rights to their parentage and heritage, as well as their care and comfort are the primary responsibility of the two people who shared their identity to create the child's identity.
You answered that marriage does protect the rights associated with procreation. And now you say it does not.
So you are either lying, or simply denying their rights to begin with.
And that is not equality.
The last group of people in the US who found the rights a child has to their heritage and parentage to be inconvenient were the slave owners, who wished to buy and sell children at will.
How vain your claim on equality looks like when arguing from the very platform of denying human rights that was occupied and defended by slave owners.
Go ahead, set the record straight. This answering both, and neither, is just showing the strange extremes of denial you are going through.
It is nothing but laughable that you choose accuse others of avoiding answering, to avoid answering. It is not only hypocritical, but shows just how dishonest you are.
People have "the right to live with someone in mutual procreative responsibility". Marriage does not give them this right. Marriage does offer protections to people who choose "to live with someone in mutual procreative responsibility". It also offers protections to people who choose not to "live with someone in mutual procreative responsibility".
DeleteYou keep writing that "marriage does protect the rights associated with procreation". Why not make that case and provide an example?
And to be clear, there is a difference between saying that marriage provides protections to people who do procreate responsibly (something I've said), and saying that marriage protects their right to procreate responsibly. (not something I've said). I'm not going to sweat it if On Lawn isn't able or willing to acknowledge the difference.
DeleteI'll simplify it for you with an example.
DeleteA seatbelt provides protection to those who:
1) choose to live with someone in mutual domestic cohabitation and trust.
2) choose to live with someone in a romance.
3) choose to live with someone in a monogamous romance.
4) choose to live with someone in mutual procreative responsibility.
( seatbelts provide protection to other folks as well )
Does that mean that a seatbelt protects someone's right to live with someone else in mutual procreative responsibility? No. People have that right, with or without a seatbelt. And even people who do not choose to live with someone in mutual procreative responsibility are protected when they are using a seatbelt.
Okay, you've had your say on that...
DeleteSo lets get back to the question you are answering both yes, no, and denying you are answering at all...
I asked, "Do children, involuntary members of the procreative relationship, still get the protection of their rights? The right to know and be raised by the two people who shared their identity to create the child's identity?"
Because that is what is meant by, "4) live with someone in mutual procreative responsibility." Other's rights amount to our responsibilities to recognize and fulfill. And in creating a child, their rights to their parentage and heritage, as well as their care and comfort are the primary responsibility of the two people who shared their identity to create the child's identity.
You answered that marriage does protect the rights associated with procreation. And now you say it does not.
So you are either lying, or simply denying their rights to begin with.
And that is not equality.
The last group of people in the US who found the rights a child has to their heritage and parentage to be inconvenient were the slave owners, who wished to buy and sell children at will.
How vain your claim on equality looks like when arguing from the very platform of denying human rights that was occupied and defended by slave owners.
Go ahead, set the record straight. This answering both, and neither, is just showing the strange extremes of denial you are going through.
Here's the problem, Lawn. You are discussing two different rights which may or may not be connected.
DeleteWhen you talk about the right to "live with someone in mutual procreative responsibility", the parties you are talking about are adults. Children do not have this right. In fact, they are protected from people who would try to put them into a situation where they would have to face procreative responsibility.
I know you want us to believe that the right described above somehow equates to a child's right to know and be raised by their biological parents. (I paraphrase). But you haven't made the case or the connection, and in spite of pretending to want conversation on this topic you continually run away from questions on the topic you've raised.
In fact, that might be a second On Lawn Formula for Online Conversation:
1) lie, claiming "all i want is discussion"
2) introduce the topic of children's rights protected by marriage
3) cowardly run away from questions about the topic you introduced
If you sincerely want to talk about children's rights protected by marriage, you might entertain a question or two on the topic. YOu refusal to do so reveals your dishonesty.
Search,
DeleteThe problem is that you are trying to evade a simple question in many ways. You've tried to say yes, and no, and finally admit you didn't answer.
So simply answer...
I asked, "Do children, involuntary members of the procreative relationship, still get the protection of their rights through marriage? The right to know and be raised by the two people who shared their identity to create the child's identity?"
These questions have been answered
DeleteAnd I'll add, you've shown zero no rights that children obtain through marriage that might be in jeopardy. You've also declined to mention the thing you have on mind that mind that might compromise those rights. So what are you talking about?
Search,
DeleteThe problem is that you are trying to evade a simple question in many ways. You've tried to say yes, and no, and finally admit you didn't answer.
I already know you dishonestly make accusations and diversions to avoid questions. And I'm not interested in diversions, just an answer.
So simply answer...
I asked, "Do children, involuntary members of the procreative relationship, still get the protection of their rights through marriage? The right to know and be raised by the two people who shared their identity to create the child's identity?"
As I said, these questions have been answered. In case you didn't notice, you can click on that link to see the answers and respond to them. Let's not have the same conversation in two different threads.
DeleteYes you finally just did, and I already answered there.
DeleteThe last group of people in the US who found the rights a child has to their heritage and parentage to be inconvenient were the slave owners, who wished to buy and sell children at will.
How vain your claim on equality looks like when arguing from the very platform of denying human rights that was occupied and defended by slave owners.
And your analogy is till inapt, as the rights of parents (which were ignored by slave owners) remain respected. There's no denial of human rights.
DeleteIn point of fact, you've cowardly run away from every opportunity to make the case for something you seem to feel is a right. Pitiful.
Search, your commentary is pitiful :-D
DeleteThere is no analogy in it, only historical parallels. Slave owners denied children's rights to be raised by their parents. Today you are doing the same thing. Not an analogy, but ignoring the exact same right.
No, not the "exact same right". Slave owners ignored the rights of parents. A distinction you continue to overlook.
DeleteAnd on these rights of a child, I've quite clearly answered you that YES - "children, involuntary members of the procreative relationship, still get the protection of their rights". So if the right to be raised by their biological parents is among those rights, yes, that right is retained.
I've given you numerous opportunities to illustrate that children have this right. I wish you would. For example, I've asked you to identify any statute that protects the right you're talking about. You've failed to do so.
But on that note, I'll point out a few of realities that call into question your idea that children have the right to be raised by their biological parents. Adoption confidentiality and sealed records law are protecting something other than a child's right to know and be raised by their parents, correct? In fact, those laws run quite contrary to that ideal. Why would that be?
Likewise, safe harbor laws, which make it possible for any adult to drop off an unharmed newborn at designated facilities, no questions asked, and no risk of prosecution for child abandonment. That law doesn't reflect the ideal you've expressed either. Why?
And what about any legal action that would institutionalize one or both parents, making them unavailable to raise their children. That happens, again contrary to the ideal you've expressed.
If a child has a right to know and be raised by both parents, why are all three of these examples present in the legal system?
Either the ideal you speak of is not a recognized right after all, or, the law places a higher priority on other rights that supersede a child being raised by their own parents.
If you could provide any example of a statute that protects what you call a child's right in this regard, that might shed some light on the question.
I've also listed a few questions you could answer. I think that would be a much more effective way of communicating your idea here, rather than all the name calling and disparaging comparisons you've been writing. Here they are again, for your convenience:
1) Do children now have the protected right to know and be raised by the two people who shared their identity (as you claim)? Any example illustrating this would be welcome.
2) Do children obtain the protection of this right only if their parents marry? Any examples of a law that only protects children if their parents marry will do.
3) If so, why would that change?
Search dishonestly continues to dodge the point that slave owners denied the rights children had to know and be raised by their parents.
DeleteBy claiming that slave owners didn't deny rights to children, he's simply denying the same right.
And to say, "Slave owners ignored the rights of parents", as the only right they ignored, he's saying that only parents have the right to decide whether they raise their children or not. He's saying only parents have any stake or interest or rights in the matter.
Its a dishonest dodge where he is propagating denial of the same children's rights to know and be raised by their parents that Slave owners did.
When he said I've "failed" to illustrate the right, he's saying he's failed to see it. Yep ... denial again.
Remember above where he said yes to a question, then no, and then denied he even answered the question. His dodges painted himself into a corner. Now his denial is of children's rights altogether.
Search also then goes into logic that essentially says, since he can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, then the right to free speech doesn't exist. Or because you can't shoot people randomly on the street, your right to bear arms doesn't exist.
He's essentially saying that because one's right to swing their fist stops at another's nose, that means they don't have a right to swing their fist.
Essentially he's taking on the favorite and most desperate argument of anyone who wants to deny a right in total, that if there is any limit to the right then the right must not exist at all so we should deny the right in total.
Its a dishonest and mean spirited denial, one that is calculated and intentionally deceptive.
False accusations, On Lawn. Learn to read.
DeleteYes, that must be the problem.
DeleteIt isn't that you deny the obvious and fish for improbable uncertainties.
It must be that I can't read :-D
How about a forthright answer to this question: were slave owners denying parents their right to raise their own children? Yes or no will suffice.
DeleteNo, its up to you to answer if slave owners were denying children their rights to know and be raised by their parents.
DeleteBy claiming that slave owners didn't deny rights to children, he's simply denying the same right.
And to say, "Slave owners ignored the rights of parents", as the only right they ignored, he's saying that only parents have the right to decide whether they raise their children or not. He's saying only parents have any stake or interest or rights in the matter.
Its a dishonest dodge where he is propagating denial of the same children's rights to know and be raised by their parents that Slave owners did.
On Lawn: "By claiming that slave owners didn't deny rights to children, he's simply denying the same right."
DeleteAnother example of your flawed or dishonest reporting. Where's that wrote where I said "slave owner's didn't deny rights to children"? It doesn't exist.
On Lawn: "And to say, "Slave owners ignored the rights of parents", as the only right they ignored"
Wasting more times on things I didn't say. You keep producing things out of your imagination, in this case that I wrote "only".
Pay attention. Comment on what I wrote. Ask questions if you need something explained ... I tend to answer relevant questions. And answer a question every once and a while. Thats what conversation is, and that's what you claimed you wanted here. Or was your pretense of wanting conversation another falsehood?
Another comment, another inconsistent denial...
Delete_Where's that wrote where I said "slave owner's didn't deny rights to children"?_
Rewind the tape to where he said "No, not the 'exact same right'. Slave owners ignored the rights of parents."
The accusation he was denying was, "Slave owners denied children's rights to be raised by their parents. Today you are doing the same thing. Not an analogy, but ignoring the exact same right."
Yep, he was denying he was denying. Now he is denying that he denied he was denying. Typical Search.
Any fool can see that my statement illustrates that the salve owners' violation also included the violation of the parents' rights, not only the right of children that you cited. But you aren't just any fool.
DeleteLOL...
DeleteThe fool is the person who denied they were denying the right, and now expects us to believe a new denial that you denied you were denying the right.
Still, it is progress of a kind.
Sorry, On Lawn, you still haven't hit the minimum standard of intelligence and honesty required for productive conversation. You just keep regurgitating the same misquotes of things I've written so that you'll have something to argue against. You can have that conversation alone.
DeleteNo, no need to be sorry about it.
DeleteI've not been dishonest or unintelligent.
But you really don't like how your amphibology was exposed.
You like it when you can smoothly conflate between two things.
Now you realize you tipped your hand and nailed down a specific definition for your amphibology, and aren't ready to consider the validity of any other definition the government can use.
So back to the question...
You claim you are "more than happy to allow people to decide on their own who is their compatible mate."
I'm sure they appreciate that, since your definition is entirely your own.
You aren't planning on requiring the government to adopt your definition of "compatible mate" to determine what is and what isn't marriage are you?
If the government decides that means a categorical capacity to procreate, that is a valid definition.
And if the government decides that simple pairing up at a domestic level should be protected through a much more broad program, that is a valid definition too.
So if the government doesn't adopt your definition, and you said you aren't forcing anyone to adopt your definition, then there is no violation of equal protection.
Your claim that there exists a "right of an individual to marry a compatible mate" would only be a compatible in a way that mother nature gives to couples of both genders, not segregated genders. Hence same-sex couples are not, in that mother-nature biological sense, mates.
Hence you created a deliberately misleading amphibology, where you mean something entirely different than the government, in your equal protection claim.
On Lawn claims "I've not been dishonest or unintelligent."
DeleteLet's check the record on that.
On Lawn asked: "So then what is the right to marry protecting"
And I answered on two ways.
First I mentioned that "There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law. " - which I later corrected to read "there are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges.". Even after I provided this link to the 1997 GOA report on this, which clearly stated that each of these 1,138 provisions had passed human review for relevance. Rather than correct his prior claim that these 1,138 provisions were merely the product of a word search, he repeated it. Even though the report clearly states "From the collection of laws in the United
States Code that we found through those searches, we eliminated laws that included one or more of our search terms but that were not relevant to your request."
So what happened here? It wouldn't be very intelligent to make a comment like that about the report I cited without reading it. And it wouldn't be very honest to read the report but claim that the 1,138 provisions were simply the product of a word search.
Next, I cited the Family & Medical leave act as an example of legal protections afforded to those who marry. I wrote: "only the married folks have the law providing them with a protected right to take a leave from work to care for that other person should they become ill." later adding "The right of married people to care for each other in times of illness is protected by the law. Unmarried people do not enjoy the same protected right. "
DeleteAnd even after this additional explanation, On Lawn wrote "The laws protect you from "Family & Medical leave"?"
If Lawn sincerely don't understand the protection that family & Medical Leave act affords to married couples, he's not very intelligent. And if he did understand the protection but pose such a nonsense question, he's not very honest.
Frankly, there are way too many examples like this to mention. Asking me what I meant by "compatible mate", then ignoring what I wrote in favor of a definition Lawn prefers.
DeleteAfter I write about the rights of adults, Lawn falsely claims that "To Search, there are only adult rights".
After I write about sexual compatibility being a factor in selecting the person you wish to marry, Lawn falsely claims that "Singly and solely Search only considers "compatible mate" to be a sexual enterprise.".
After I write that people can decide for themselves who they find to be a compatible mate, Lawn falsely claims that I'm disqualifying people who define compatibility differently than I do.
After I wrote: "Nature, on the other hand, gives compatibility to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. it all comes from the same place." Lawn replies "So a gay and lesbian are compatible mates now!" - making the apparent mental leap that "coming from the same place" must mean that they are identical. Thats not very intelligent. Or its not vey honest.
There are just so many examples of On Lawn either lacking the intelligence to understand the written word well enough to accurately repeat it. Either that, or understanding well but intentionally misrepresenting what he's read, which is dishonest communication.
And the most offensive example: On Lawn's writes "I want to have a discussion on the rights and protections". But check the thread and, in spite of the many many answers I've provided to his questions, you'll have a hard time finding a time when he's answered a question I've raised.
DeleteLet's take a quick tally ...
By my count, I've answered 10 questions for On Lawn. But I've still seen no answer to these three simple quesitons:
1) Do children now have the protected right to know and be raised by the two people who shared their identity (as you claim)? Any example illustrating this would be welcome.
2) Do children obtain the protection of this right only if their parents marry? Any examples of a law that only protects children if their parents marry will do.
3) If so, why would that change?
(If you could provide any example of a statute that protects what you call a child's right in this regard, that might shed some light on the question.
And for the record, and one last example of On Lawn's dishonest communication, his most recent response to these questions was "Search dishonestly continues to dodge" ! That's pretty unintelligent, Lawn, to use the word "dodge" when you're dodging a question.
Keep that in mind when you read On Lawn's ridiculous accusation that I'm stonewalling the conversation.
_And I answered on two ways._
DeleteUsually two conflicting ways, which then leads you to deny ever answering in the first place :-D
Whats funny, is that even Search's own retelling shows the dishonesty..
_On Lawn asked: "So then what is the right to marry protecting"_
Search answered, "There are [...] protections provided".
LOL, that is like asking "who stole the cookies from the cookie jar?" with "cookies were stolen..."
Then he goes on about a little side argument about a word search, which the report states explicitly. He claims that it was a bit more relevant than a word search, but its still so vague that it is impossible to tell.
_only the married folks have the law providing them with a protected right to take a leave from work to care for that other person should they become ill_
Mostly not true, actually. It is true that spouses can, but not "only the married folks".
According to the FMLA, which actually works for any family member.
But still that doesn't answer the question, which asked what the right to marry is protecting, not the FMLA.
Here's the difference, an entitlement has a different connotation than just being a fundamental right. "An entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights or by legislation. A "right" is itself an entitlement associated with a moral or social principle, such that an "entitlement" is a provision made in accordance with legal framework of a society. Typically, entitlements are laws based on concepts of principle ("rights") which are themselves based in concepts of social equality or enfranchisement."
The right to marry protects some fundamental "a moral or social principle" to being human. We get married for that moral or social principle.
Its ludicrous to say the right to marry protects the entitlement of medical leave, as if people's marriages are for the moral or social principle of keeping a job without pay while you care for someone.
Besides, his construction is a juggling act.
Search knows very well that the answer he provided FMLA to was specifically...
_On Lawn: "What do the laws of marriage protect you from?"
I've already mentioned Family & Medical leave._
That is quoted verbatim, question and answer.
Search clearly answered that the laws of marriage protect you from Family & Medical leave.
And to continue the dishonesty, the FLMA protects your job and job benefits for a small time. Further down that same post we read how Search starts twisting that into something else that is entirely false, "The right of married people to care for each other in times of illness is protected by the law. Unmarried people do not enjoy the same protected right."
So protecting the entitlement to job benefits changes to the right [...] to care fore each other in times of illness. So no one else has that right? No one else has that right protected?
But I have to thank Search for reminding me of some of his antics.
Apparently the fact I didn't fall for that twisting of the facts means I'm unintelligent!
:-D
_Asking me what I meant by "compatible mate", then ignoring what I wrote in favor of a definition Lawn prefers._
DeleteAnd that is also dishonest. The question is of his tolerance for what he deems incompatible, that others might deem compatible. Especially if the government deems it compatible.
The point about his definition of a compatible mate is pretty important to his case about what is equal protection and what isn't...
So back to the question...
You claim you are "more than happy to allow people to decide on their own who is their compatible mate."
I'm sure they appreciate that, since your definition is entirely your own.
You aren't planning on requiring the government to adopt your definition of "compatible mate" to determine what is and what isn't marriage are you?
If the government decides that means a categorical capacity to procreate, that is a valid definition.
And if the government decides that simple pairing up at a domestic level should be protected through a much more broad program, that is a valid definition too.
So if the government doesn't adopt your definition, and you said you aren't forcing anyone to adopt your definition, then there is no violation of equal protection.
Your claim that there exists a "right of an individual to marry a compatible mate" would only be a compatible in a way that mother nature gives to couples of both genders, not segregated genders. Hence same-sex couples are not, in that mother-nature biological sense, mates.
Hence you created a deliberately misleading amphibology, where you mean something entirely different than the government, in your equal protection claim.
DeleteSo you finally have a clue about the Family & Medical leave act, On Lawn! and now if you only had the intelligence and honesty to relate it to the conversation about legal protections for those who marry. That is what we're talking about, Lawn, and context counts, Lawn. Or is that too much cognitive load for you?
Because it is through marriage that two people gain the recognition of a familial relationship that didn't exist previously. It is marriage that makes the two people legally considered "family members", and therefore entitled to that protection.
Furthermore, none of this excuses your previous unintelligent and/or dishonest comments on the subject. You've shown your stripes.
And just to be clear on this point: two people who are not protected by the family and medical leave act are free to choose one another as compatible mates of the same sexual orientation, to marry, and in doing so gain the protection of this act. It does not matter if the protection itself is a right or an entitlement: if it is a protection of the law it must be equally available to all in the state's jurisdiction.
Delete_So you finally have a clue about the Family & Medical leave act, On Lawn!_
DeleteLOL... nothing's changed but perhaps this is a personal journey for Search of a kind.
_It is marriage that makes the two people legally considered "family members", and therefore entitled to that protection._
[later]
_Two people who are not protected by the family and medical leave act are free to choose one another as compatible mates of the same sexual orientation, to marry, and in doing so gain the protection of this act._
Search adamantly rejects the compatibility of mutual trust and domestic dependency that is shared by many couples, even many same-sex couples who are not homosexual or sexual at all.
Singly and solely Search only considers "compatible mate" to be a sexual enterprise.
On one side, recognizing simple mutual trust would give all the protections that a same-sex relationship (sexual or not) that neutered marriage would, and to all such situations.
On the other side, it only provides some protections, like a seat belt provides only some protection for a couple.
So what about equal protection? If we are trying to help out every couple with protection of their mutual trust and dependency, we would do so whether they were sexual or not.
And when you find something Search, that I wrote, that was genuinely dishonest or unintelligent (rather than you just complaining aimlessly about things) then I'll worry about what you think about my writing :-D
Me: "So you finally have a clue about the Family & Medical leave act, On Lawn!"
DeleteLawn: "LOL... nothing's changed but perhaps this is a personal journey for Search of a kind."
REMINDER
On Lawn is the same person who wrote about family and medical leave "The laws protect you from "Family & Medical leave?" which is pretty clueless. He also wrote that a human review of statuettes pertaining to marriage was just "a word search", He even stuck to that untrue statement after his error was pointed out. And although he never recanted that twice-repeated falsehood, at least he seems to have stopped repeating it.
So there are two things that have changed, On Lawn, contrary to your claim that nothing's changed.
But I see that plenty remains the same - namely, your apparent lack of intelligence when reading what others write, or your dishonesty when you misquote and mischaracterize what you've read. Here they are again, with corrections (again). Please stop lying about what I've written.
On Lawn: "Search adamantly rejects the compatibility of mutual trust"
I've said repeatedly that individuals ought to determine their own criteria for compatibility when choosing their marriage partner.
On Lawn: "Singly and solely Search only considers "compatible mate" to be a sexual enterprise."
I've said that currently, those who'd marry are are free to make that choice with consideration for sexual compatibility if they wish. Not singly, not solely - that's a concept On Lawn added.
Your past behavior is the best predictor of what your future behavior is likely to be. And your past is full of misinterpretations or willful misrepresentations (aka lies) about what I've posted here. Why would I waste my time answering additional questions under these circumstances? ESPECIALLY considering your failure to answer the questions that I pose.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
And an aside: your grammar is horrible. The extra words you leave in the middle of sentences makes them unintelligible.
Example - you wrote: "On one side, recognizing simple mutual trust would give all the protections that a same-sex relationship (sexual or not) that neutered marriage would, and to all such situations."
And since you've show that it is fruitless to ask you questions, we're left with no home of turning these little messes into understandable statements. Its another way you're wasting our time.
And in an "aha" moment, I think I understand why On Lawn adds the only / singly / solely concept to a discussion about whether people should be free to consider sexual compatibility (which includes attraction) when choosing the person they'll marry.
DeleteBecause to On Lawn, sexual compatibility is the one thing that people should not be allowed to consider. He's so invested in this idea that he's suggesting gay men marry lesbians!
But that doesn't reflect reality. The reality (as much as On Lawn refuses to admit it) is that sexual compatibility, which begins with attraction, is a factor for the vast majority of opposite sex couples who get together and marry. There's no reason it should be any less of a factor for same-sex couples.
LOL!!!
DeleteIts funny that the more you struggle to back pedal away from your errors, the more you bump right into them.
_On Lawn is the same person who wrote about family and medical leave "The laws protect you from "Family & Medical leave?"_
It is ludicrous, but not of my making. I was summing up the following exchange from Search.
Its funny how much he's ready to admit his own answers are ludicrous when he thinks someone else wrote them :-D
Me: >>> What do the laws of marriage protect you from?
Search: >> I've already mentioned Family & Medical leave.
Me: > The laws protect you from "Family & Medical leave"? You clearly misunderstood the question. What do the laws of marriage protect you from?
Yes, apparently Search really is that dense.
_Because to On Lawn, sexual compatibility is the one thing that people should not be allowed to consider._
Yes ... apparently Search really is that dense!
_He's so invested in this idea that he's suggesting gay men marry lesbians!_
This from the person who said that people should decide compatibility for themselves, now scoffs at letting a gay man and lesbian woman decide for themselves.
Yes, Search really is that dense.
So back to the question...
You claim you are "more than happy to allow people to decide on their own who is their compatible mate."
I'm sure they appreciate that, since your definition is entirely your own.
You aren't planning on requiring the government to adopt your definition of "compatible mate" to determine what is and what isn't marriage are you?
If the government decides that means a categorical capacity to procreate, that is a valid definition.
And if the government decides that simple pairing up at a domestic level should be protected through a much more broad program, that is a valid definition too.
So if the government doesn't adopt your definition, and you said you aren't forcing anyone to adopt your definition, then there is no violation of equal protection.
Your claim that there exists a "right of an individual to marry a compatible mate" would only be a compatible in a way that mother nature gives to couples of both genders, not segregated genders. Hence same-sex couples are not, in that mother-nature biological sense, mates.
Hence you created a deliberately misleading amphibology, where you mean something entirely different than the government, in your equal protection claim.
so here's the quote that On Lawn cherry picks:
DeleteMe: >>> What do the laws of marriage protect you from?
Search: >> I've already mentioned Family & Medical leave.
But consider that Family & Medical Leave had already been explained. My statement is a reference to something previously explained. And even more to the point, consider the full response from which On Lawn dishonestly cherry picks a single sentence. Here's the actual exchange with all relevant parts included.
Lawn: >> What do the laws of marriage protect you from?
Searchcz: " I've already mentioned Family & Medical leave. When people have made the commitment to care for one another - AND have the legal recognition of that commitment called "marriage" - they are legally empowered to taker a leave from work in order to honor that commitment and care for their spouse. In this case, the legal recognition provides an assurance that if one spouse becomes ill that the other will have the option of caring for them. And that employers may not deprive them of that opportunity to care for one another in the event of illness. "
And Lawn's response to this explanation was ...
On Lawn: ""The laws protect you from "Family & Medical leave?"".
A reality he now tries to deny. Thats more dishonesty on top of the previous dishonest. Not to mention the dishonest cherry-picking of snippets from the cogent explanations you've been provided.
On Lawn writes; "So, back to the question ..."
You certainly don't think I'm entertaining more questions from you, after I've answered the ten you asked and you've answered zero. You need to demonstrate a capacity heretofore unseen for honest & intelligent conversation before I'll be taking any more questions from you.
Hey Search,
DeleteIt isn't cherry picking. The question and response actually do show up as presented.
And be honest, the full quote doesn't help your cause any...
As already stated, you didn't answer the question of what is being protected. And what you do mention is an overly broad assumption which doesn't even turn out to be true...
_the legal recognition provides an assurance that if one spouse becomes ill that the other will have the option of caring for them_
1) The assurance is already there in the rights people have to care for one another.
2) It doesn't really provide assurance that they can or will care for the person.
And none of those are an example of being protected from something. :-D
Yes, Search really is that dense.
So back to the question...
You claim you are "more than happy to allow people to decide on their own who is their compatible mate."
I'm sure they appreciate that, since your definition is entirely your own.
You aren't planning on requiring the government to adopt your definition of "compatible mate" to determine what is and what isn't marriage are you?
If the government decides that means a categorical capacity to procreate, that is a valid definition.
And if the government decides that simple pairing up at a domestic level should be protected through a much more broad program, that is a valid definition too.
So if the government doesn't adopt your definition, and you said you aren't forcing anyone to adopt your definition, then there is no violation of equal protection.
Your claim that there exists a "right of an individual to marry a compatible mate" would only be a compatible in a way that mother nature gives to couples of both genders, not segregated genders. Hence same-sex couples are not, in that mother-nature biological sense, mates.
Hence you created a deliberately misleading amphibology, where you mean something entirely different than the government, in your equal protection claim.
Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
DeleteSo you pick one sentence, and ignore the rest of the paragraph. And claim that it is not cherry picking? You, sir, are a liar. And a waste of time.
No, you picked your own sentence in reply to the question.
DeleteI just pointed it out in reference to the question.
I've dealt with the rest of the paragraph, why pretend that I did not?
Is there something in it you wish to avoid or ignore in your tirade of being honest and not ignoring what is written? :-D
So back to the question...
DeleteYou claim you are "more than happy to allow people to decide on their own who is their compatible mate."
I'm sure they appreciate that, since your definition is entirely your own.
You aren't planning on requiring the government to adopt your definition of "compatible mate" to determine what is and what isn't marriage are you?
If the government decides that means a categorical capacity to procreate, that is a valid definition.
And if the government decides that simple pairing up at a domestic level should be protected through a much more broad program, that is a valid definition too.
So if the government doesn't adopt your definition, and you said you aren't forcing anyone to adopt your definition, then there is no violation of equal protection.
Your claim that there exists a "right of an individual to marry a compatible mate" would only be a compatible in a way that mother nature gives to couples of both genders, not segregated genders. Hence same-sex couples are not, in that mother-nature biological sense, mates.
Hence you created a deliberately misleading amphibology, where you mean something entirely different than the government, in your equal protection claim.
An honest person evaluates the entire response provided. A spineless weasel plucks a sentence from it and fraudulently responds to it as if it was the entire reopens. Guess which action you picked, spineless weasel - um - I mean - On Lawn ?
DeleteAnd to be clear, Lawn, YOU picked the sentence to which yo wanted to respond. ( Rather than respond to the entire statement ). That is dishonest communication on your part.
DeleteI've answered 10 of your questions. AFTER you answer 10 of mine, I might entertain your questions. Not before.
_as if it was the entire reopens. Guess which action you picked, spineless weasel - um - I mean - On Lawn ?_
DeleteLOL....
_YOU picked the sentence to which yo wanted to respond._
LOL, you are trying to deny any responsibility to how you responded to the question. All I did was quote your answer directly in response to the question.
_I've answered 10 of your questions._
Now you are going back to claiming you did answer the questions? Seems you keep changing your mind on whether you answered them or not.
True, often you answered something more like "Yes, I mean no, I mean I didn't answer anything!"
Still your question at the beginning has a very specific premise which begs the question what and who is deciding what a compatible mate is in deciding such a claim on equal protection.
And it is a question made all the more relevant in how often you've changed your own mind on that subject.
So back to the question...
You claim you are "more than happy to allow people to decide on their own who is their compatible mate."
I'm sure they appreciate that, since your definition is entirely your own.
You aren't planning on requiring the government to adopt your definition of "compatible mate" to determine what is and what isn't marriage are you?
If the government decides that means a categorical capacity to procreate, that is a valid definition.
And if the government decides that simple pairing up at a domestic level should be protected through a much more broad program, that is a valid definition too.
So if the government doesn't adopt your definition, and you said you aren't forcing anyone to adopt your definition, then there is no violation of equal protection.
Your claim that there exists a "right of an individual to marry a compatible mate" would only be a compatible in a way that mother nature gives to couples of both genders, not segregated genders. Hence same-sex couples are not, in that mother-nature biological sense, mates.
Hence you created a deliberately misleading amphibology, where you mean something entirely different than the government, in your equal protection claim.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteLOL!!!
DeleteOh he deleted it,
DeleteIt was, "I answered 0 of your questions, you answered zero of mine [...]"
The sound of a deeply frustrated On Lawn, because he has failed to share his life with a distant spouse. But, why, LOL ?
DeleteI answered 10, On Lawn KNOWS he (or she) has answered zero, and should expect no further answers. Questions?
Delete_he has failed to share his life with a distant spouse_
DeleteLOL... instead of answering the question presented, Search is now trying to get out his crystal ball and divine things about me.
Typical Search.
_On Lawn KNOWS he (or she) has answered zero_
But then Dan realizes he doesn't even know my gender!
I'm at a loss why this is easier than answering the question.
So back to the question...
You claim you are "more than happy to allow people to decide on their own who is their compatible mate."
I'm sure they appreciate that, since your definition is entirely your own.
You aren't planning on requiring the government to adopt your definition of "compatible mate" to determine what is and what isn't marriage are you?
If the government decides that means a categorical capacity to procreate, that is a valid definition.
And if the government decides that simple pairing up at a domestic level should be protected through a much more broad program, that is a valid definition too.
So if the government doesn't adopt your definition, and you said you aren't forcing anyone to adopt your definition, then there is no violation of equal protection.
Your claim that there exists a "right of an individual to marry a compatible mate" would only be a compatible in a way that mother nature gives to couples of both genders, not segregated genders. Hence same-sex couples are not, in that mother-nature biological sense, mates.
Hence you created a deliberately misleading amphibology, where you mean something entirely different than the government, in your equal protection claim.
I've answered 10 of your questions. You've answered zero of mine. You nee to balance the scales before you start asking more questions,
DeleteWhy make such false accusations and statements?
DeleteInstead just answer...
So back to the question...
You claim you are "more than happy to allow people to decide on their own who is their compatible mate."
I'm sure they appreciate that, since your definition is entirely your own.
You aren't planning on requiring the government to adopt your definition of "compatible mate" to determine what is and what isn't marriage are you?
If the government decides that means a categorical capacity to procreate, that is a valid definition.
And if the government decides that simple pairing up at a domestic level should be protected through a much more broad program, that is a valid definition too.
So if the government doesn't adopt your definition, and you said you aren't forcing anyone to adopt your definition, then there is no violation of equal protection.
Your claim that there exists a "right of an individual to marry a compatible mate" would only be a compatible in a way that mother nature gives to couples of both genders, not segregated genders. Hence same-sex couples are not, in that mother-nature biological sense, mates.
Hence you created a deliberately misleading amphibology, where you mean something entirely different than the government, in your equal protection claim.
False? I've answered 10 of your questions. You've answered zero fo mine. What part of that is false?
DeleteAnswerer 10 questions, then expect an answer.
Funny,
DeleteBut when you do decide to answer questions, for whatever reason you want to (instead of trying to make up games to evade answering), here's the question.
So back to the question...
You claim you are "more than happy to allow people to decide on their own who is their compatible mate."
I'm sure they appreciate that, since your definition is entirely your own.
You aren't planning on requiring the government to adopt your definition of "compatible mate" to determine what is and what isn't marriage are you?
If the government decides that means a categorical capacity to procreate, that is a valid definition.
And if the government decides that simple pairing up at a domestic level should be protected through a much more broad program, that is a valid definition too.
So if the government doesn't adopt your definition, and you said you aren't forcing anyone to adopt your definition, then there is no violation of equal protection.
Your claim that there exists a "right of an individual to marry a compatible mate" would only be a compatible in a way that mother nature gives to couples of both genders, not segregated genders. Hence same-sex couples are not, in that mother-nature biological sense, mates.
Hence you created a deliberately misleading amphibology, where you mean something entirely different than the government, in your equal protection claim.
On Lawn, until you can show some intelligence and honesty, I can't waste any more time with you. Sorry, you obviously lied when you claimed that you wanted discussion. I can't be bothered with it anymore. Feel free to have whatever ridiculous and dishonest last word you care to. I'm out of this so-called "conversation". Via con dios.
ReplyDeleteWow, that is what you get for exposing someone in their lies and misleading answers.
DeleteSearch is crying in the corner that he got caught in a number of misleading and deceitful responses, and all he has left is an attempt to hope to discredit me with baseless accusations.
Well, the thread is open for people to read what happened. I for one hope they do.
Your past behavior is the best predictor of what your future behavior is likely to be. And your past is full of misinterpretations or willful misrepresentations (aka lies) about what I've posted here. Why would I waste my time answering additional questions under these circumstances? ESPECIALLY considering your failure to answer the questions that I pose.
DeleteYep, that is what you get. Expose a liar about their lies, and such a person resistant to the truth can just simply start lying and accusing you of the exact same thing.
DeleteThat's okay, the whole thread is here for people willing to wade through it. It can speak for itself, re-reading parts of it Search's dependency on lies is very evident.
Are you delusional, Lawn, thinking that others read through all your B.S. ? Or that those who read it don't see through it? That rare person who has paid any attention to your writings (here and elsewhere) recognize that your small mind can only tolerate marriages that conform to your personal experience of marriage. And if we're being honest, your experience doesn't include a lot of shared happy experiences with your spouse. Since your experience with your spouse hasn't been full of happiness, NOBODY should experience happiness with their spouse? Or even consider whether their relationship will be a happy one?
Delete( REMINDER: On Lawn thinks its a good idea for gay men to marry lesbians, solely because they have the capacity to reproduce )
So, to On Lawn, progeny are the only positive thing that can come from a marriage BECAUSE that's the only positive thing that has come out of his marriage. That's not a valid justification to consign everyone else to that outcome. We needn't impose that standard of "success" on everyone else.
Make no mistake - CHILDREN ARE A BLESSING! But they are not the ONLY blessing that proceeds from a happy and harmonious union. In fact, plenty of couples who do not have children are happy, harmonious and blessed.
( Oh, sorry, I almost forgot - you don't have a happy and harmonious union with your spouse. )
I don't know if you are a Christian, but I want to step aside from the secular for a moment and speak to you as a Christian. REMINDER: Thou shall't not bare false witness against they neighbor. If you are a Christian, please think about that before you post another falsehood. Because it is false witness against your neighbor.
_REMINDER: On Lawn thinks its a good idea for gay men to marry lesbians, solely because they have the capacity to reproduce_
DeleteLOL...
Here's the comment, with conversation from Search and myself included.
It starts out with one of Search's typical direct contradictions. And then goes on to yet another one.
_I never wrote that a gay man and a lesbian cannot have a harmonious relationship. I never wrote that they were not compatible._
Rewind the tape... "That wouldn't be a compatible mate, mate."
You used mate twice there. They are compatible mates, mate, by any reasonable definition.
They can create children together. They can live together harmoniously.
But the fact you say they are not, is wrong on both accounts. Plain and simple, mate.
There's no willful deception except on your part, playing games on what you mean by "mate", mate.
Me pointing out that you are wrong in declaring gay man and a lesbian incompatible mates, is something you'd wish never happened, I bet.
_progeny are the only positive thing that can come from a marriage_
Marriage is more than, not less than, that positive thing :-D
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBy the way folks, the way to deal with Search is to take him for each misdirection he feigns. For each feigned answer you take seriously he'll back-pedal his way out of it. Soon he'll have negated his whole platform, and even exposed all the amphibologies and hidden meanings himself. At some point he'll even admit he didn't answer by denying every answer he gave.
ReplyDeleteAs long as Search is back-pedaling with denial he'll go just about anywhere.
And don't allow yourself to be misdirected, Search loves nothing more than to try to attack you about your carefully thought out position to keep from having to back pedal further.
Your lack of cognitive skills does not equal my "misdirection". And when I help you reconcile your misinterpretations, that's not properly called "back-pedaling".
DeleteFrankly, I'm doubtful that you have a carefully thought out position. Your refusal to answer ANY questions suggest that your position isn'r very well thought out.
So let's be honest. You ask questions, and I answer. Because I am speaking from my heart.
But I ask questions, and you dodge. Because you are speaking out your a**.
Correct me if I am wrong ! LOL
_Your lack of cognitive skills does not equal my "misdirection"._
DeleteIn a way that is correct, since it doesn't take much to see your attempts at misdirection as (and sometimes anticipate before) they happen.
:-D
So speak from your heart...
You claim you are "more than happy to allow people to decide on their own who is their compatible mate."
I'm sure they appreciate that, since your definition is entirely your own.
You aren't planning on requiring the government to adopt your definition of "compatible mate" to determine what is and what isn't marriage are you?
If the government decides that means a categorical capacity to procreate, that is a valid definition.
And if the government decides that simple pairing up at a domestic level should be protected through a much more broad program, that is a valid definition too.
So if the government doesn't adopt your definition, and you said you aren't forcing anyone to adopt your definition, then there is no violation of equal protection.
Your claim that there exists a "right of an individual to marry a compatible mate" would only be a compatible in a way that mother nature gives to couples of both genders, not segregated genders. Hence same-sex couples are not, in that mother-nature biological sense, mates.
Hence you created a deliberately misleading amphibology, where you mean something entirely different than the government, in your equal protection claim.
One more aside,
ReplyDeleteThis wound up being the ultimate understanding of his original post here.
It took some effort to wrangle "what about" out of him, to be sure. But this is really what it boiled down to after being in the crucible for a few days...
So back to the question...
You claim you are "more than happy to allow people to decide on their own who is their compatible mate."
I'm sure they appreciate that, since your definition is entirely your own.
You aren't planning on requiring the government to adopt your definition of "compatible mate" to determine what is and what isn't marriage are you?
If the government decides that means a categorical capacity to procreate, that is a valid definition.
And if the government decides that simple pairing up at a domestic level should be protected through a much more broad program, that is a valid definition too.
So if the government doesn't adopt your definition, and you said you aren't forcing anyone to adopt your definition, then there is no violation of equal protection.
Your claim that there exists a "right of an individual to marry a compatible mate" would only be a compatible in a way that mother nature gives to couples of both genders, not segregated genders. Hence same-sex couples are not, in that mother-nature biological sense, mates.
Hence you created a deliberately misleading amphibology, where you mean something entirely different than the government, in your equal protection claim.
Please make the case: why government should decide what constitutes compatibility. Failing that, can you please do us the favor of shutting your pie hole on this subject?
Delete_why government should decide what constitutes compatibility_
DeleteNo, the question is why should Search? He's the one that declared who is and who isn't compatible here when it comes to establishing the right to marry.
I don't mind a democratic debate on the subject, and having people decide. But Search is denying that a decision based on the human biology of reproduction is a valid definition for government to use, no?
You claim you are "more than happy to allow people to decide on their own who is their compatible mate."
I'm sure they appreciate that, since your definition is entirely your own.
You aren't planning on requiring the government to adopt your definition of "compatible mate" to determine what is and what isn't marriage are you?
If the government decides that means a categorical capacity to procreate, that is a valid definition.
And if the government decides that simple pairing up at a domestic level should be protected through a much more broad program, that is a valid definition too.
So if the government doesn't adopt your definition, and you said you aren't forcing anyone to adopt your definition, then there is no violation of equal protection.
Your claim that there exists a "right of an individual to marry a compatible mate" would only be a compatible in a way that mother nature gives to couples of both genders, not segregated genders. Hence same-sex couples are not, in that mother-nature biological sense, mates.
Hence you created a deliberately misleading amphibology, where you mean something entirely different than the government, in your equal protection claim.
you want "the people" to decide what constitutes compatibility. I'm happy for the individuals in question to decide that on their own. I don't want the gov't ( or anyone else ) defining "compatibility". I think you might be a communist, trying to dictate to everyone else what they ought to consider as "compatible". ( And heaven forbid sex have anything to do with that decision ).
DeleteI think you are so ridiculous, you;re about to become an internet MEME On Lawn !
_I don't want the gov't ( or anyone else ) defining "compatibility"._
DeleteWell, there you have it folks.
Granted, the right to associate freely in compatibility of your own choosing isn't in question. Its what the government recognizes and tries to protect as freedom of association.
Yet is marriage just freedom of association?
But Search says no, because even though a gay man and lesbian can freely associate, he's the one that has judged they cannot be compatible.
_I think you are so ridiculous, you;re about to become an internet MEME On Lawn !_
That's ridiculous LOL.. Who hasn't become a meme yet? Its 2013, and thousands of meme wars erupt over the internet every second. Whole meme generators send out thousands of newly created memes.
The question you want to ask yourself, is if you really think that mocking people rather than discussing things with them is really going to make you look anything but ridiculous yourself.
Give that some thought, Dan :-D
You claim you are "more than happy to allow people to decide on their own who is their compatible mate."
I'm sure they appreciate that, since your definition is entirely your own.
You aren't planning on requiring the government to adopt your definition of "compatible mate" to determine what is and what isn't marriage are you?
If the government decides that means a categorical capacity to procreate, that is a valid definition.
And if the government decides that simple pairing up at a domestic level should be protected through a much more broad program, that is a valid definition too.
So if the government doesn't adopt your definition, and you said you aren't forcing anyone to adopt your definition, then there is no violation of equal protection.
Your claim that there exists a "right of an individual to marry a compatible mate" would only be a compatible in a way that mother nature gives to couples of both genders, not segregated genders. Hence same-sex couples are not, in that mother-nature biological sense, mates.
Hence you created a deliberately misleading amphibology, where you mean something entirely different than the government, in your equal protection claim.
My friends call me Dan. You are not my friend, SearchCz will suffice.
DeleteOn Lawn:"the right to associate freely in compatibility of your own choosing isn't in question. Its what the government recognizes and tries to protect as freedom of association."
Amen, and thank you. I hope this means you arre going to stop wasting time quibbling about "compatibility" and move on to discussing the justifications for excluding some associations from legal recognition. Please go ahead and do so.
_My friends call me Dan._
DeleteYes, I shouldn't assume such illustrious position LOL...
Me: >> Its what the government recognizes and tries to protect as freedom of association.
Search: > Amen, and thank you.
Why you are welcome.
_I hope this means you arre going to stop wasting time quibbling about "compatibility" and move on to discussing the justifications for excluding some associations from legal recognition._
Arre!! Avast ye,
Of course, the right to freedom of association and the right to marry are not the same things.
Siblings can associate, but not get married (as determined by the government). And people who freely associate don't have to get divorced, or split all their property when they do quit associating.
I hope this means you arrreee! going to stop conflating the right to freedom of association and the right to marry P-D <--- Laughing Pirate smiley
Sorry, On Lawn, you still haven't hit the minimum standard of intelligence and honesty required for productive conversation. You just keep regurgitating the same misquotes of things I've written so that you'll have something to argue against. You can have that conversation alone.
ReplyDeleteInteresting.
DeleteIn the name of "intelligence and honesty", Search decides to deny and insult instead of actually answering the questions.
Lets go over this again, there's nothing disonest or unintelligent about this...
So back to the question...
You claim you are "more than happy to allow people to decide on their own who is their compatible mate."
I'm sure they appreciate that, since your definition is entirely your own.
You aren't planning on requiring the government to adopt your definition of "compatible mate" to determine what is and what isn't marriage are you?
If the government decides that means a categorical capacity to procreate, that is a valid definition.
And if the government decides that simple pairing up at a domestic level should be protected through a much more broad program, that is a valid definition too.
So if the government doesn't adopt your definition, and you said you aren't forcing anyone to adopt your definition, then there is no violation of equal protection.
Your claim that there exists a "right of an individual to marry a compatible mate" would only be a compatible in a way that mother nature gives to couples of both genders, not segregated genders. Hence same-sex couples are not, in that mother-nature biological sense, mates.
Hence you created a deliberately misleading amphibology, where you mean something entirely different than the government, in your equal protection claim.
Your past behavior is the best predictor of what your future behavior is likely to be. And your past is full of misinterpretations or willful misrepresentations (aka lies) about what I've posted here. Why would I waste my time answering additional questions under these circumstances? ESPECIALLY considering your failure to answer the questions that I pose.
DeleteLOL...
Delete1) People can change.
2) I've been very honest in trying to figure out what you've written here.
But sure, why waste your time answering questions here? Especially when you look back on the conversation and see all the times you cleverly contradicted yourself by saying yes, then no, then denying you answered at all.
Your position isn't consistent, you've already exposed that. Why subject yourself to the same thing over and over?
Well, people _can_ change. You just choose to rely on your own sophistry, denials, dishonesty, and some petty game of trying to accuse me of having the same problems you are having just out of spite, but you _don't have to_.
You can decide to be reasonable and consistent. And to be honest, you should.
So back to the question...
DeleteYou claim you are "more than happy to allow people to decide on their own who is their compatible mate."
I'm sure they appreciate that, since your definition is entirely your own.
You aren't planning on requiring the government to adopt your definition of "compatible mate" to determine what is and what isn't marriage are you?
If the government decides that means a categorical capacity to procreate, that is a valid definition.
And if the government decides that simple pairing up at a domestic level should be protected through a much more broad program, that is a valid definition too.
So if the government doesn't adopt your definition, and you said you aren't forcing anyone to adopt your definition, then there is no violation of equal protection.
Your claim that there exists a "right of an individual to marry a compatible mate" would only be a compatible in a way that mother nature gives to couples of both genders, not segregated genders. Hence same-sex couples are not, in that mother-nature biological sense, mates.
Hence you created a deliberately misleading amphibology, where you mean something entirely different than the government, in your equal protection claim.
cherry picking isn't honesty. adding concepts that come from your misperceptions into my quotes isn't honesty. i can't think of anything about your interaction here that I would call honest. you, on lawn, are a waste of time. goodbye.
DeleteOn Lawn,
DeleteIf the only thing of value that YOUR marriage produced was children, that is NOT sufficient reason to conclude that the only thing of value that marriage produces is children. ( There are other products of marriage that are valuable, even though YOUR marriage might lack those products - also, hello, any such deficit is not my fault )
_cherry picking isn't honesty_
DeleteNor was what you pointed out "cherry picking". :-D
_i can't think of anything about your interaction here that I would call honest._
LOL... so its not that you got flustered in denial after conflicting denial, first saying "yes", then "no", then denying you answered at all. Its not something as simple as that, it must be that I've not done anything honest here at all. Not one single thing, not even a little.
_If the only thing of value that YOUR marriage produced was children_
My marriage is more than _not less than_ the value I have from sharing children with a special spouse. I cannot deny that :-D
o back to the question...
You claim you are "more than happy to allow people to decide on their own who is their compatible mate."
I'm sure they appreciate that, since your definition is entirely your own.
You aren't planning on requiring the government to adopt your definition of "compatible mate" to determine what is and what isn't marriage are you?
If the government decides that means a categorical capacity to procreate, that is a valid definition.
And if the government decides that simple pairing up at a domestic level should be protected through a much more broad program, that is a valid definition too.
So if the government doesn't adopt your definition, and you said you aren't forcing anyone to adopt your definition, then there is no violation of equal protection.
Your claim that there exists a "right of an individual to marry a compatible mate" would only be a compatible in a way that mother nature gives to couples of both genders, not segregated genders. Hence same-sex couples are not, in that mother-nature biological sense, mates.
Hence you created a deliberately misleading amphibology, where you mean something entirely different than the government, in your equal protection claim.
Again, an honest answer to ANY of the (few) questions I asked is required before I consider answering any of your queries. Considering that I've answered 10, you;ve answered 0.
DeleteSo for those keeping score, I lead, 10 to zero ! Lawn has yet to answer a single question (on day 5 of communication). LOL ! What a joke this On Lawn character is. Pitiful.
I answered 10. Now you do likewise, ONLY after which I'll entertain additional questions. ( Here's an example where, for once, you needn't pretend that I wrote "only". There's a first time for everything. )
DeleteActually, you asked the first question, and I've answered it.
DeleteLets look at that answer again...
You claim you are "more than happy to allow people to decide on their own who is their compatible mate."
I'm sure they appreciate that, since your definition is entirely your own.
You aren't planning on requiring the government to adopt your definition of "compatible mate" to determine what is and what isn't marriage are you?
If the government decides that means a categorical capacity to procreate, that is a valid definition.
And if the government decides that simple pairing up at a domestic level should be protected through a much more broad program, that is a valid definition too.
So if the government doesn't adopt your definition, and you said you aren't forcing anyone to adopt your definition, then there is no violation of equal protection.
Your claim that there exists a "right of an individual to marry a compatible mate" would only be a compatible in a way that mother nature gives to couples of both genders, not segregated genders. Hence same-sex couples are not, in that mother-nature biological sense, mates.
Hence you created a deliberately misleading amphibology, where you mean something entirely different than the government, in your equal protection claim.
You're question has been answered many times, in fact :-D
But your question has a premise which simply begs the question, so its time for you to answer. It is your initial point after all.
Answer explicitly.What question do you think you've answered? And wat of the 9 others that ou owe ?
DeleteLets look at that answer again...
DeleteYou claim you are "more than happy to allow people to decide on their own who is their compatible mate."
I'm sure they appreciate that, since your definition is entirely your own.
You aren't planning on requiring the government to adopt your definition of "compatible mate" to determine what is and what isn't marriage are you?
If the government decides that means a categorical capacity to procreate, that is a valid definition.
And if the government decides that simple pairing up at a domestic level should be protected through a much more broad program, that is a valid definition too.
So if the government doesn't adopt your definition, and you said you aren't forcing anyone to adopt your definition, then there is no violation of equal protection.
Your claim that there exists a "right of an individual to marry a compatible mate" would only be a compatible in a way that mother nature gives to couples of both genders, not segregated genders. Hence same-sex couples are not, in that mother-nature biological sense, mates.
Hence you created a deliberately misleading amphibology, where you mean something entirely different than the government, in your equal protection claim.
You're question has been answered many times, in fact :-D
But your question has a premise which simply begs the question, so its time for you to answer. It is your initial point after all.
And sorry, nothing I've said should be taken that I accept your tally, or that if it were true I should.
You were making a statement behind that opening question. If you want the open ended question to be your last word on it, that is your decision :-D
Before we proceed ...
Deleteyour mother (not your wife) is providing much of the care for your children. correct?
you and your wife do not live in the same home. correct?
And, in spite of this, you hope to present yourself as an AUTHORITY on the relationship between husband, and wife, and children? LOL !!
( Answer honestly now )
_your mother (not your wife) is providing much of the care for your children. correct_
DeleteFalse.
_you and your wife do not live in the same home. correct?_
False.
_in spite of this_
LOL....
Wow - you finally answered questions. Amazing. But you should start at the top and answer the first questions first.
DeleteNow, just to be clear, you are the same On Lawn who wrote:
"I also share an equal part of responsibility for the great spectrum of different things our relationship has been over a decade. We’ve spent a good deal of our marriage apart, separated."
and
"I’ve always been hesitant to give marriage advice because I live daily with the realization that in the next few days, or even hours, something can trigger which will bring us to the door of divorce, and its a crap-shoot at that point whether the relationship survives or it doesn’t."
That is you, correct?
I congratulate you if you're holding it together and managing to live together with your wife currently. But I need to point out that you also wrote:
"we define marriage equality as the equal recognition of the rights and responsibilities of the man, woman, and child they potentially have together"
So lets add this up. You describe marriage in terms of a relationship between a man, woman and child. And you describe yourself as " hesitant " to give advice on that kind of relationship. But you're constantly writing about marriage, and pontificating about what that should or should not include.
_Now, just to be clear, you are the same On Lawn who wrote:_
DeleteNot sure.
It is true that my wife needed medical care that kept her away from the family about 7 years ago.
It is also true that I, among many people, have to take their marriage seriously so that it doesn't end in divorce.
It is something I could have written, if that helps.
_I congratulate you if you're holding it together and managing to live together with your wife currently._
Thanks, marriages take work.
"But you're constantly writing about marriage, and pontificating about what that should or should not include."
I'm not sure where you get that. I am adamant that, just as it has helped keep my marriage together to realize that my marriage is a responsibility to my wife and children, it is something others should not _cut out of marriage_ or in what government recognizes as our rights and responsibilities in marriage.
On Lawn writes "my marriage is a responsibility to my wife and children".
DeleteFinally, a statement from On Lawn that I can get behind! He is finally (properly) talking about his choices and his priorities within his marriage - rather than telling everyone else what their choices and priorities must be.
But, unfortunately, he loses my support when he continues with "it is something others should not _cut out of marriage_ ".
Consider what this says about couples who are childless, by choice or circumstance. On Lawn says that their marriage is incomplete ... they've "cut something out of it.
But unlike On Lawn, we the people (aka "government") are OK with couples marrying and not having children. We even recognize that such couples have rights and responsibilities in marriage, even if they don't conform to what On Lawn's standard for a *complete* marriage.
And even so, that doesn't diminish what government recognizes as On Lawn's rights and responsibilities in his marriage. Nor does it diminish what government recognizes as the rights and responsibilities of his wife and children.
The fact is that marriage recognizes the rights and responsibilities of couples with or without children. On Lawn expresses concern about "what government recognizes as our rights and responsibilities in marriage" but fails to properly consider that childless couples are part of that group enjoying government recognition.
Furthermore - if the gold standard for *complete* marriage is a commitment to spouse and child, there are certainly same-sex couples who are raising children together who haven't cut that responsibility out of their relationship. If that's responsibility to spouse and children is "what government recognizes as our rights and responsibilities in marriage", they ought to be equally entitled as On Lawn to marry.
_talking about his choices and his priorities within his marriage_
DeleteThat Search thinks shouldn't be recognized by the government for its responsibilities and rights.
He thinks it should just be between the two people involved.
Search very well knows he is the one dictating what others should prioritize and not recognize :-D
_But, unfortunately, he loses my support when he continues with "it is something others should not _cut out of marriage_ "._
Here Search's dishonesty is once again on display.
Its clear he took my comment as saying children themselves should not be cut out of marriage, "Consider what this says about couples who are childless, by choice or circumstance. On Lawn says that their marriage is incomplete ... they've "cut something out of it."
But lets consider what it says about marriage.
Instead of cutting out children, it is clear that _responsibility to [spouse, in my circumstance wife] and children_ should not be cut out of marriage.
Search is simply a dishonest hack. Nothing really tricky about it, its just dishonest to try to remove "responsibility" from that statement.
Besides, Search is even inept at his dishonesty. Even if we consider the spouse and children as themselves being cut out with his partial quote, it is clear that cutting out a spouse would make a marriage no longer a marriage.
_But unlike On Lawn, we the people (aka "government") are OK with couples marrying and not having children._
And we the people (aka "government") are okay establishing marriage to raise the expectation that the man and the woman are unique in the responsibilities they have in their relationship because they potentially have kids :-D
Point and match.
If Search is okay letting we the people (aka "government") decide that marriage is about every potential responsibility and right between a man and a woman and the children they potentially have together, then there is no contradiction with equal protection.
Search claims he is "more than happy to allow people to decide on their own who is their compatible mate." And that marriage can be defined that way by we the people (aka "the government").
I'm sure they appreciate that, and Search's definition is entirely his own to pursue legal recognition for based on its altruistic mutual domestic dependency and trust, which includes relationships both homosexual and not sexual at all.
Search, therefore, isn't planning on requiring the government to adopt his definition of "compatible mate". That is up to us.
If the government decides that means a categorical capacity to procreate, that is a valid definition.
And if the government decides that simple pairing up at a domestic level should be protected through a much more broad program, that is a valid definition too.
And the protections of marriage remain complete in its recognition of all the responsibilities, rights associated with the fact that the man and woman can create a child together, and that child would have its own claim on their relationship.
So if the government doesn't adopt Search's definition, and he said he isn't forcing anyone to adopt your definition, then there is no violation of equal protection.
Search's claim that there exists a "right of an individual to marry a compatible mate" would only be a compatible in a way that mother nature gives to couples of both genders, not segregated genders. Hence same-sex couples are not, in that mother-nature biological sense, mates.
Lawn, rather than lie about what I've written, why not explain what you've written. ( Even in this thread I'm quite clearly standing in support of marital recognition for couples with children, and for couples with no children. So stick to the truth of craft a more believable lie. )
DeleteYou, On Law, wrote that others should not cut out responsibilities to spouse and children from marriage. Yet some married couples have no children for whom they could accept. These are among the people that you say are doing something wrong by not being responsible for children, and whom you suggest are undermining what government recognizes as your rights and responsibilities. How does it harm you or anyone else when the government recognizes the rights and responsibilities of couples who are not responsible for any children (as a result of being childless)?
Furthermore, some adults who have accepted responsibility for their spouse and children, and by your reckoning have not cut out that thing that you cite as vital to marriage, are denied that government recognition of their rights and responsibilities in marriage. How do you justify a government that refuses to recognize the rights and responsibilities of any adult who has accepted responsibility for their spouse and children?
_Lawn, rather than lie about what I've written_
DeleteThat's the problem with liars. They think that a quick and spurious counter accusation is the same thing as exposing their lies :-D
_why not explain what you've written. _
A good point of this is that statement. Since Search missed it, I'll go back to my last statement and recopy such an explanation.
______
_But, unfortunately, he loses my support when he continues with "it is something others should not _cut out of marriage_ "._
Here Search's dishonesty is once again on display.
Its clear he took my comment as saying children themselves should not be cut out of marriage, "Consider what this says about couples who are childless, by choice or circumstance. On Lawn says that their marriage is incomplete ... they've "cut something out of it."
But lets consider what it says about marriage.
Instead of cutting out children, it is clear that _responsibility to [spouse, in my circumstance wife] and children_ should not be cut out of marriage.
Search is simply a dishonest hack. Nothing really tricky about it, its just dishonest to try to remove "responsibility" from that statement.
Besides, Search is even inept at his dishonesty. Even if we consider the spouse and children as themselves being cut out with his partial quote, it is clear that cutting out a spouse would make a marriage no longer a marriage.
_But unlike On Lawn, we the people (aka "government") are OK with couples marrying and not having children._
And we the people (aka "government") are okay establishing marriage to raise the expectation that the man and the woman are unique in the responsibilities they have in their relationship because they potentially have kids :-D
____
_You, On Law, wrote that others should not cut out responsibilities to spouse and children from marriage. Yet some married couples have no children for whom they could accept._
Search is just daft again.
Accepting responsibility can happen before the event that requires responsibility, even in cases where the event might not every happen at all.
This happens in almost every walk of life.
- Car insurance is our way of accepting and taking responsibility before a crash happens
- Legal contracts are our way of establishing our responsibilities and benefits long before an event actually happens.
- Students accept responsibility to do homework that might be given by a teacher just by enrolling in school.
I could go on. I'm not going to say Search is dumb enough to not realize this. But I will say Search must think this readership is that dumb to think that we don't know that already.
Suffice to say taking responsibility for a potential occurrence, establishing exactly what your responsibility is if it should happen, is exactly what marriage does for the potential to create children.
Also Search is dishonest in assuming I expect that I don't think "the government recognizes the rights and responsibilities of couples".
DeleteIn fact that was also already explained.
Marriage remains our way of recognizing all, not just some, of the responsibilities that a man and a woman incur by having a child between them.
And, on the other hand we can recognize all the responsibilities inherent to relationships of any adult mutual domestic dependency.
_______
And for pairing up, lets let that be an adult choice which happens with or without sexual relationships, and help everyone pairing up. We can call it Domestic Partnerships, or Reciprocal Beneficiaries, or Civil Unions.
_The point is that heterosexuals have the ability to gain the protections of marriage_
Some protections, but not all that recognize their natural and unique relationship in creating their children, because you want marriage to only recognize the protections of pairing up, but deny those protections to people just pairing up.
Its the worst of both worlds scenario.
_____
The question is, How do you justify a government that refuses to recognize the rights and responsibilities of any adult who has accepted responsibility for their domestic "mate", mate?
ON LAWN
DeletePlease pay attention to what I write before you respond. I wrote:
"Consider what this says about couples who are childless, by choice or circumstance.".
Your response: "Accepting responsibility can happen before the event that requires responsibility, even in cases where the event might not every [sic] happen at all."
A couple who has chosen to remain childless, or who chooses to marry in spite of an inability to conceive, is not accepting responsibility for a child. Yet they marry, without diminishing in any way what marriage recognizes about all, not just some, of the responsibilities that any other couple might incur by having a child between them. Any dispute on that reality?
... and on the other hand ...
I've also asked you to consider what your "logic" says about couples who have already accepted responsibility for children, and are ready to accept responsibility for one another as spouses. These couples have in their relationship the very thing that you proclaim "others should not _cut out of marriage_ or in what government recognizes as our rights and responsibilities in marriage". they have the responsibility for raising a child. Yet you would not have them marry. Thats hypocritical.
Your rhetoric, which poses as concern for children, places couples who would choose to remain childless on a higher standing than couples who are already raising children when it comes to eligibility to marry. Thats hypocritical.
Search, don't patronize me.
DeleteYou should pay attention to what you write :-D
_by choice_
No one chooses to get into a car accident either, yet by purchasing auto insurance they are providing to take responsibility in case it happens any way.
It's easier to change one's mind than to change, or for something to happen even if you don't.
So yes, by getting married they are accepting responsibility in case it happens.
LOL... You get such basic things so wrong, so often.
_Yet you would not have them marry_
I wouldn't? What makes you think that?
In fact that was also already explained.
Marriage remains our way of recognizing all, not just some, of the responsibilities that a man and a woman incur by having a child between them.
And, on the other hand we can recognize all the responsibilities inherent to relationships of any adult mutual domestic dependency.
Why do I think you would oppose legal marriage recognition for couples who have already accepted responsibility for children, and are ready to accept responsibility for one another as spouses? Because opposition is the only thing I've seen from you whenever the conversation pertains to legal marriage recognition for same-sex couples. And such couples are among those who have accepted responsibility for one another and the children they are raising together.
DeleteHave you had a change of heart about same-sex couples marrying?
_Because opposition is the only thing I've seen from you whenever the conversation pertains to legal marriage recognition for same-sex couples._
DeleteFalse. I'm only opposed to removing "man and woman" from the definition and expectation of marriage.
I'm not opposed to legal recognition of same-sex couples marriages with a program better suited for all relationships of domestic mutual trust and dependency.
Marriage's explicit expectation of "man and woman" remains our way of recognizing all, not just some, of the responsibilities that a man and a woman incur by having a child between them.
And, on the other hand we can recognize all the responsibilities inherent to relationships of any adult mutual domestic dependency.
Make up your mind, On Lawn. If that vital thing that you mean to preserve in marriage is recognition of commitment to spouse and children, you have no basis for excluding same-sex couples who have made that commitment.
DeleteOH - and a quick note about auto insurance. You wrote: "Car insurance is our way of accepting and taking responsibility before a crash happens". car insurance is, in fact, the opposite of what you describe. because only an uninsured driver carries the full responsibility for the damages he causes in a crash, whilst the insured driver has somebody else to take assume that responsibility for him. car insurance is a way of avoiding (financial) responsibility for a crash.
_Make up your mind, On Lawn._
DeleteOh? my mind has changed?
LOL...
_If that vital thing that you mean to preserve in marriage is recognition of commitment to spouse and children_
In fact that was also already explained.
Marriage remains our way of recognizing all, not just some, of the responsibilities that a man and a woman incur by having a child between them.
And, on the other hand we can recognize all the responsibilities inherent to relationships of any adult mutual domestic dependency.
_you have no basis for excluding same-sex couples who have made that commitment._
As long as we don't change the definition of marriage from "man and woman" in order to "recognizing all, not just some, of the responsibilities that a man and a woman incur by having a child between them."
Sorry, you seem to have missed that "basis" that was repeated a few times for you already :-D
_because only an uninsured driver carries the full responsibility for the damages_
False, on two accounts.
One, the ability to be responsible is not just an act of being found responsible that an event taken place. To be responsible, you are expected to be able to pay money, give time, accomplish tasks, etc... requisite for what is due to others in that event.
Don't be confused like Search, taking responsibility doesn't just mean saying "oops, my bad". It means being able to fulfill what others deserve. In the case of a car accident, that means providing the money to get a car fixed or replaced, as well as covering medical costs.
An insurance company provides the means for taking responsibility for an accident, and if someone doesn't have the means and doesn't have insurance, they cannot take responsibility for the accident.