Supreme Court.......STRIKES DOWN...Defence of Marriage Act !

[EastUS1]

PS:  A side issue Tree...But since all traditional concepts are obviously but pure nonsense, and all indviduals are and should be considered equals accross the board, without the slightest reasonable references allowed to evolution/whatever: How are your recruiting efforts going for finally (with complete, polictical correctness of course) fielding our first all-gay and all-women heavy infantry divisions?

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Unless you like reading your own prose, your writing here is an exercise in futility.

 

[EastUS1]

Unless you like reading your own prose, your writing here is an exercise in futility.

 
Any scribbling here from whatever source always is, unless you've perverse delusions of somehow changing the world by such. What's your point? 😉

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Any scribbling here from whatever source always is, unless you've perverse delusions of somehow changing the world by such. What's your point? 😉

Exactly?

 

[EastUS1]

Exactly?

 
That's arguably a bit excessively nihilistic. For reasonably pursuing such discussion; we should exit for more fully capable boards. If you're merely pointing out the utter futility of ever attempting to enjoin the liberal "mind" in reasoned debate of any kind; rest assured that I've earnestly attempted no such folly here.  😉

 

[Ms Tree]

 
"Things" indeed are always changing. Not-so-much human nature. "we no longer use horses to travel long distances, our cars.."...? So...Why then do we not refer to "our cars" as horses anymore? Why even employ the term Marriage anymore?
 
I note you're happy with offering up a definition of "Prejudice" (as if anyone disagreeing with your tripe must needs be), but you've yet to provide anything even approaching a definition of Marriage. Care to now, finally make that effort?

Marriage is used because people are used to it.  You cannot legally compel people to use certain words.
 
I have given a definition earlier.  Marriage so far as the state is concerned is a legal contract.  Same as a home loan, employment contract or any other legal document.  Nothing more nothing less.

 

[Ms Tree]

 
I merely noted 5,000 or so years of even at all recorded history as available for reasonable study. You may completely disregard any lessons from such, and instead seek continued refuge in Fantasyland at your pleasure. 😉

 
Study to what end?  To see how they did it earlier?  Lessons in history are sometimes useful, sometimes not.  As far as marriage is concerned, I find history pretty useless unless you wish to go back to treating women as they were prior to the 1900's.
 

 
 
"sanctity?" We're possibly now intruding into the religious realm, since I can find no defintional notions that at all remove, rather than reinforce religious involvement with the term? 😉  OK then. Perhaps you should address that question to any Muslims you might know...An idea that's seriously and not whimsically offered here. For that matter; you could also inquire as their notions concerning the sanctity of gay marriage as well....Just sayin'...
 
With "sanctity": You might want to simply uphold Hindu notions instead, but then again, there's this troublesome notion: "Wife and husband are the two wheels of the life chariot." While we're busying ourselves completely redefining Marriage, maybe we should also greatly expand (or simply eliminate) all existent definitions of "Wife and husband" as well, one must suppose...?"

Marriage started out as a religious function.  I never disputed that.  I contend that it is no longer an exclusive function of religion.  Since I am not interested in the Christian basis of marriage, what makes you think I care about any other religious definitions of marriage?  They consider women as property just as Christians did in earlier generations.  Most religions are male dominated for that matter.  
 
I think you missed my point regarding sanctity.  I am mocking the very idea that the US in general considers marriage a sacred institution.  Good luck eliminating terms that are ingrained in daily vernacular.
 

 
At what logical point then should the very term reasonably be made extinct?

How about now?  Or if you need time to prepare how about midnight central time?

 

[Ms Tree]

PS:  A side issue Tree...But since all traditional concepts are obviously but pure nonsense, and all indviduals are and should be considered equals accross the board, without the slightest reasonable references allowed to evolution/whatever: How are your recruiting efforts going for finally (with complete, polictical correctness of course) fielding our first all-gay and all-women heavy infantry divisions?

 
 
I am pretty sure I never said that.  There is a difference between legal equality and a persons capability but I am guessing you knew that and you are just playing stupid.

 

[EastUS1]

Marriage is used because people are used to it. 

 
So then; you support some degree of tradition after all? "because people are used to it" now, within the limits of even this laughable exchange, magically justifies anything at all? 🙂 Thanks for the hearty chuckles.
I'll gently exit with but a repeat of the obvious: If you're merely pointing out the utter futility of ever attempting to enjoin the liberal "mind" in reasoned debate of any kind; rest assured that I've earnestly attempted no such folly here.

 

[Ms Tree]

If you want to liken the use of a familiar word as a justification of preventing legal equality go for it.
 
You would not know a reasonable debate if it bit you on the ass.  You have yet to provide any legal basis for denying equal rights for same sex marriage.  All you have done so far is throw a hissy fit over the use of a word and tradition none of which has any legal bearing what so ever.  

 

[EastUS1]

If you want to liken the use of a familiar word as a justification of preventing legal equality go for it.
 
You would not know a reasonable debate if it bit you on the ass.  ............. throw a hissy fit ........

 
Oh my gosh! That's your best? Again; thanks for the hearty laughs. You may now return to indulging in narcicisstic fantasies of intellect and knowledge as you see fit to....and try not to bite anybody on the ass here tonight. If the awesome weapon of reasonable debate is at all required for you achieving such a lofty goal...well...no frets need ever be fielded. 🙂

 

[Ms Tree]

Give one legal reason to deny equal marriage rights to all.  Just one.  Should be easy for a brain surgeon like your self.

 

[southwind]

Give one legal reason to deny equal marriage rights to all.  Just one.  Should be easy for a brain surgeon like your self.

Ok..........give us one legal reason why Dog can't marry his cousin? It's all good in a Libtard world....isn't it?

 

[Dog Wonder]

Ok..........give us one legal reason why Dog can't marry his cousin? 

Add incest to Southwind's list of perversions.

 

[Ms Tree]

Ok..........give us one legal reason why Dog can't marry his cousin? It's all good in a Libtard world....isn't it?

When you get right down to it if you believe in individual rights (as conservatives claim they do) there is no reason to prevent the 'marriage' between any two (or more) consenting adults.  
 
East obviously has no legal argument to put forth.  Do you?