There's a difference between "expected" and "the purpose"

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #377,396 by drook 7/2/13 9:37:48 PM Reply	There's a difference between "expected" and "the purpose" There shouldn't be laws based on the proposition that procreation is the purpose of marriage. It's reasonable -- though not mandatory -- to have laws based on the expectation that it's likely. -- Drew
Post #377,398 by mmoffitt 7/2/13 9:48:12 PM Reply	Thank you. I think it is clear that we have laws on the books that were written when there was a reasonable expectation that children would follow from marriage. In a nutshell what I'm saying is that those laws should be stricken. The politically incorrect claim I'm making is that the "marriage laws" on the books were made with that presumption, which, I claim, was valid at one point and is no longer valid as a consequence of the full recognition of same-sex marriage being equivalent to heterosexual marriage. Moreover, to the consternation of apparently almost everyone, I'm saying that the beneficial laws with regard to marriage that were drafted when there was a reasonable expectation that children would follow from marriage should not be applied to same-sex marriages because there is no expectation that their marriages will result in the birth of children. Honestly, from my POV, I cannot understand why taking such a position would be controversial.
Post #377,403 by Another Scott 7/2/13 10:07:45 PM Reply	I think it went off the rails here. http://forum.iwethey...iwt?postid=377163 The only societal benefit that ever comes from wedlock (or any romantic relationship) is the creation of a new generation. That's a strong statement, and it gets the back up of people who don't fit in that category. It's fine to be annoyed that the person who brought the suit will be getting back a few hundred thousand dollars in inheritance taxes. That doesn't mean that society will get no benefit unless a marriage results in mixing of genes. HTH! Cheers, Scott.
Post #377,406 by mmoffitt 7/2/13 10:10:26 PM Reply	Yep, that was subjective. Doesn't mean I don't believe it, but I shouldn't have made that a part of the argument. ;0)

Survey on DOMA. - (Another Scott) - (114) - June 27, 2013, 07:49:05 AM EDT

Done. -NT - (mmoffitt) - June 27, 2013, 09:33:53 AM EDT

Done. -NT - (hnick) - June 27, 2013, 10:03:41 AM EDT

Also done. -NT - (Andrew Grygus) - June 27, 2013, 11:40:40 AM EDT

Done also. -NT - (a6l6e6x) - June 27, 2013, 12:09:21 PM EDT

Seriously done! -NT - (folkert) - June 27, 2013, 02:37:54 PM EDT

Check - (drook) - (106) - June 27, 2013, 02:46:20 PM EDT

Affects the tax base. - (mmoffitt) - (11) - June 27, 2013, 03:43:12 PM EDT

Bzzzzt, thank you for playing - (drook) - (9) - June 27, 2013, 03:57:58 PM EDT

I think he means the actual case at hand. - (Another Scott) - (7) - June 27, 2013, 04:42:29 PM EDT

That's *her* standing - (drook) - (6) - June 27, 2013, 04:57:19 PM EDT

I think the argument is... - (Another Scott) - (5) - June 27, 2013, 06:40:56 PM EDT

Even if true ... - (drook) - June 27, 2013, 06:50:15 PM EDT

That's as may be... - (malraux) - (3) - June 27, 2013, 06:57:58 PM EDT

Now you're getting there. But, ... - (mmoffitt) - (2) - June 28, 2013, 08:47:03 AM EDT

why pay a penalty for not being single? -NT - (boxley) - (1) - June 28, 2013, 10:17:22 AM EDT

There's a negative economic impact in cohabitation. - (mmoffitt) - June 28, 2013, 12:34:23 PM EDT

I was unclear. - (mmoffitt) - June 28, 2013, 08:50:39 AM EDT

costly to the taxpayer? It's not your money - (boxley) - June 27, 2013, 05:57:18 PM EDT

But it *will* affect you! - (pwhysall) - (6) - June 28, 2013, 03:06:29 AM EDT

Are you SURE you don't live here? - (hnick) - (5) - June 28, 2013, 06:24:16 AM EDT

Even up in the north... - (folkert) - (4) - June 28, 2013, 09:21:50 AM EDT

Huh, wha? I've never been to the Netherlands! -NT - (CRConrad) - (3) - June 28, 2013, 07:04:07 PM EDT

Ummm... - (folkert) - (2) - June 28, 2013, 08:13:54 PM EDT

I've never Reformed any Churchies either! -NT - (CRConrad) - (1) - June 28, 2013, 09:40:57 PM EDT

Jussa so's yews noes... - (folkert) - June 29, 2013, 02:15:07 AM EDT

WOW. - (mmoffitt) - (86) - June 28, 2013, 04:41:30 PM EDT

Um... Justice? - (hnick) - (85) - June 28, 2013, 04:49:35 PM EDT

Nonsense. Did they have kids? - (mmoffitt) - (84) - June 28, 2013, 04:59:30 PM EDT

Really? - (Another Scott) - (2) - June 28, 2013, 05:12:19 PM EDT

Maybe in the short term. - (mmoffitt) - (1) - July 1, 2013, 06:01:47 PM EDT

The number you want is "new household formation". - (Another Scott) - July 1, 2013, 07:26:08 PM EDT

so you are one of them - (boxley) - June 28, 2013, 05:13:24 PM EDT

Re: Nonsense. Did they have kids? - (hnick) - (58) - June 28, 2013, 06:13:14 PM EDT

Sans kids, what are the societal benefits of marriage? - (mmoffitt) - (57) - July 1, 2013, 06:23:54 PM EDT

I remember arguing with Ben why atheists want to marry - (boxley) - (1) - July 1, 2013, 07:15:48 PM EDT

Man, I am *NOT* making my point about marriage. - (mmoffitt) - July 1, 2013, 09:12:48 PM EDT

Re: Sans kids, what are the societal benefits of marriage? - (Another Scott) - (54) - July 1, 2013, 07:38:37 PM EDT

So what? - (mmoffitt) - (53) - July 1, 2013, 09:23:03 PM EDT

Re: So what? - (Another Scott) - (52) - July 1, 2013, 09:34:21 PM EDT

:0) - (mmoffitt) - (51) - July 1, 2013, 09:44:47 PM EDT

That's rough. - (Another Scott) - (50) - July 1, 2013, 10:40:01 PM EDT

I don't think your marriage is a sham marriage. - (mmoffitt) - (49) - July 2, 2013, 06:37:02 PM EDT

How about mine? - (crazy) - (1) - July 2, 2013, 08:14:52 PM EDT

No societal benefit != no benefit. - (mmoffitt) - July 2, 2013, 10:03:07 PM EDT

I wasn't pointing at you specifically. - (Another Scott) - (46) - July 2, 2013, 08:56:31 PM EDT

No. Come on, Scott, have I really been that unclear? - (mmoffitt) - (45) - July 2, 2013, 09:30:51 PM EDT

There's a difference between "expected" and "the purpose" - (drook) - (3) - July 2, 2013, 09:37:48 PM EDT

Thank you. - (mmoffitt) - (2) - July 2, 2013, 09:48:12 PM EDT

I think it went off the rails here. - (Another Scott) - (1) - July 2, 2013, 10:07:45 PM EDT

Yep, that was subjective. - (mmoffitt) - July 2, 2013, 10:10:26 PM EDT

We're talking past each other. - (Another Scott) - (40) - July 2, 2013, 09:54:29 PM EDT

I think that's slightly disingenuous. - (mmoffitt) - (39) - July 2, 2013, 10:08:40 PM EDT

See above. I don't know how to say more... -NT - (Another Scott) - (27) - July 2, 2013, 10:10:15 PM EDT

Dude, Seriously? - (mmoffitt) - (26) - July 2, 2013, 10:11:38 PM EDT

Expectations change. - (Another Scott) - (25) - July 2, 2013, 10:34:23 PM EDT

An equal protection claim assumes the result. - (mmoffitt) - (24) - July 2, 2013, 10:56:56 PM EDT

you are confused - (boxley) - (1) - July 2, 2013, 11:00:32 PM EDT

Yeah, I didn't get a call. Stupid b*stards. :0) -NT - (mmoffitt) - July 2, 2013, 11:02:29 PM EDT

BZZT - sorry, elementary logic lacking. - (CRConrad) - (21) - July 3, 2013, 05:37:10 AM EDT

on A3) dont forget to steal all their stuff as well. -NT - (boxley) - July 3, 2013, 08:35:59 AM EDT

First, I never said "reproduction was a requirement". - (mmoffitt) - (19) - July 3, 2013, 01:21:10 PM EDT

On your addendum. - (Another Scott) - July 3, 2013, 03:04:01 PM EDT

Yes you did. But never mind that; let's talk people in stead - (CRConrad) - (17) - July 3, 2013, 03:15:18 PM EDT

My last bit. A little clarification. - (mmoffitt) - (16) - July 6, 2013, 11:36:52 AM EDT

Wake up. - (Another Scott) - (9) - July 6, 2013, 12:07:00 PM EDT

Racial discrimination is a different issue entirely. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (7) - July 6, 2013, 02:19:48 PM EDT

Equal protection is Equal protection. QED. -NT - (Another Scott) - (6) - July 6, 2013, 02:22:57 PM EDT

Can we discriminate against polygamists? - (mmoffitt) - (5) - July 6, 2013, 02:54:28 PM EDT

Is polygamist marriage legal in the US? - (Another Scott) - (2) - July 6, 2013, 03:10:21 PM EDT

How about Amendment 10? - (mmoffitt) - (1) - July 6, 2013, 05:13:02 PM EDT

was legal in utah before statehood - (boxley) - July 6, 2013, 06:31:41 PM EDT

uh, no. Just wont allow them to get stamped by the gummint -NT - (boxley) - (1) - July 6, 2013, 05:01:37 PM EDT

Concur. The state no longer has an interest in marriage. -NT - (mmoffitt) - July 6, 2013, 05:14:31 PM EDT

Re: Wake up. ... Interesting that they cited Korematsu - (Ashton) - July 7, 2013, 05:08:00 AM EDT

A distinction without a difference. - (CRConrad) - (4) - July 6, 2013, 06:34:26 PM EDT

And there it is. - (mmoffitt) - (3) - July 7, 2013, 01:06:17 PM EDT

Not assume, *declare* - (drook) - (2) - July 7, 2013, 01:33:44 PM EDT

Oh, he won't answer this one - (crazy) - July 7, 2013, 03:59:28 PM EDT

Where and when was this declaration made? - (mmoffitt) - July 8, 2013, 01:25:35 PM EDT

Sorry, you still lost about six levels ago. - (CRConrad) - July 6, 2013, 07:21:49 PM EDT

state involvement in marriage was about division of property - (boxley) - (10) - July 2, 2013, 10:50:48 PM EDT

Among DESCENDANTS, right? - (mmoffitt) - (2) - July 2, 2013, 10:58:10 PM EDT

absolutely, now with dna you dont need contracts to - (boxley) - (1) - July 2, 2013, 11:02:21 PM EDT

I'm with you. - (mmoffitt) - July 2, 2013, 11:03:39 PM EDT

<sigh> - (Another Scott) - (6) - July 2, 2013, 11:10:31 PM EDT

why, I was right that time as well :-) -NT - (boxley) - (1) - July 3, 2013, 08:33:35 AM EDT

Heh. No. :-) -NT - (Another Scott) - July 3, 2013, 08:55:09 AM EDT

How'd I miss that thread? ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt) - (3) - July 3, 2013, 01:14:14 PM EDT

Just lucky I guess. - (Another Scott) - (2) - July 3, 2013, 02:49:15 PM EDT

The best part is... - (mmoffitt) - (1) - July 6, 2013, 11:39:29 AM EDT

Indeed! -NT - (Another Scott) - July 6, 2013, 12:07:28 PM EDT

Things we have: "adoption", "artificial insemination"... - (malraux) - (20) - June 28, 2013, 06:41:46 PM EDT

Adoption and Artificial insemination rely on others. - (mmoffitt) - (19) - July 1, 2013, 06:25:23 PM EDT

"Zero chance" is BS - (malraux) - (18) - July 1, 2013, 06:35:22 PM EDT

Drop it, it's not about sex - (drook) - (9) - July 1, 2013, 07:09:21 PM EDT

He's only talking about the sex. -NT - (CRConrad) - (8) - July 1, 2013, 07:54:28 PM EDT

No, I'm not. Everyone else is. - (mmoffitt) - (7) - July 1, 2013, 08:50:17 PM EDT

now I'm confused - (boxley) - (1) - July 1, 2013, 08:54:48 PM EDT

No. - (mmoffitt) - July 1, 2013, 09:14:23 PM EDT

Yes you are, of course. Straight hetero making-babies sex. - (CRConrad) - (4) - July 2, 2013, 06:09:33 AM EDT

Um, No. - (mmoffitt) - (3) - July 2, 2013, 10:19:03 PM EDT

thats one convert :-) -NT - (boxley) - July 2, 2013, 10:31:26 PM EDT

Succinct, sure -- but above all, WRONG. - (CRConrad) - (1) - July 3, 2013, 01:27:28 AM EDT

I'm aware of the shady company I'm keeping. - (mmoffitt) - July 3, 2013, 01:29:11 PM EDT

I'll answer. Again. - (mmoffitt) - (7) - July 1, 2013, 09:32:42 PM EDT

what savings - (boxley) - (1) - July 1, 2013, 11:18:39 PM EDT

I'm on your side. - (mmoffitt) - July 2, 2013, 09:52:52 PM EDT

That sounds convoluted and far-fetched. - (CRConrad) - (4) - July 2, 2013, 05:57:34 AM EDT

no, he is pissed because he cant steal dead peoples money -NT - (boxley) - July 2, 2013, 08:53:21 AM EDT

I'm a homophobe because I want ... - (mmoffitt) - (2) - July 2, 2013, 09:39:01 PM EDT

Back-pedaling much? - (CRConrad) - (1) - July 3, 2013, 04:40:44 AM EDT

If you change premises, you have to change conclusions. -NT - (mmoffitt) - July 3, 2013, 01:27:09 PM EDT

Done ... to a crisp. - (Ashton) - (1) - June 27, 2013, 03:47:24 PM EDT

Methinks this thread (also) is done to a crisp. - (Ashton) - July 4, 2013, 12:51:22 AM EDT

I do have to wonder why you would keep a live snake in your coat in Saskatoon in December.
112 ms