It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Are you saying that you are happy to subsidize marriage between two heterosexuals regardless of context?
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I'm not speaking of "your" marriage.
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
We don't require married men and women to procreate and we also allow those men and women who are infertile to marry, but these are gestures that pay homage to the orderliness of society and the part that marriage plays in maintaining that order.
I'm speaking to all those who clam that marriages between infertile men and women are justification for marriages between homosexuals.
God, I hate it when people don't read a post to determine the intent or even the content, before launching a red-faced diatribe.
As for whose business it is who gets married, it is the business of those who will subsidize that marriage.
Originally posted by HHH Is King
Grady is a republican therefor anything he says is null and void.
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I don't mean to be rude, but to understand this discussion,
I"m sorry to have offended you
2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone. ATS Terms and Conditions of Use
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Nonetheless, my case has been made.
You will argue that reproduction cannot be the purpose of marriage, because opposite-sex couple that are elderly, infertile, or simply don't plan to have children are still permitted to marry. In fact, I would suggest that the actual, tangible public interest in childless marriages is not as great as the public interest in marriages that produce children.
However, to exclude non-reproducing heterosexual couples from marriage would require an invasion of privacy or the drawing of arbitrary and inexact lines. Instead, we simply define the structure of marriage as being open to the entire class of couples that are even theoretically capable of natural reproduction--namely, opposite-sex ones--and we exclude an entire class of couples that are intrinsically infertile--namely, same-sex ones.
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Members may choose to accept it or not.
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I do not support a constitutional amendment regarding marriage.
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
This is no attitude to take to debate... come on Grady
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I am not here to enter into a debate.
[edit on 2008/3/27 by GradyPhilpott]
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
It seems that I have misconstrued the point of this thread, I thought we were here to debate.
Reply too.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic