Dems Go Silent, Pull Women’s Month Resolution After GOP Asks For Simple Definition of a woman

[jc456]

I did not intend that protecting children was the sole purpose of marriage, but the keystone purpose. Certainly, the male and female were motivated also by companionship and property ownership plus more.

Caretaker

 

[Robert W]

Correct.

Hopefully Robert W will study your words.

When I studied Roman law, I understood that children were not the sole purpose, but children need legal protection.

 

[Robert W]

Okay, so then it is not a universal trueism that marriage laws are for the purposes of protecting children.

I'm glad you are not a lawyer, in particular glad you are not my lawyer.

Judge: Mr. W., what evidence do you have in defense of Mr. Flops?
Robert W: Your honor, the evidence could not be more clear. Study the laws surrounding the crime my client is accused of and read the news accounts of the incident and you will understand how innocent my client is.

Be sure to read the several interviews I gave in which I answered that very question.

The Defense rests!

This seems far too vital for you. Why are you against protecting children in marriage?

 

[Seymour Flops]

This seems far too vital for you. Why are you against protecting children in marriage?

I'm not at all against it. I just know that this is not the sole purpose of marriage. That canard has been trotted out to justify denying marriage to same-sex people. I'm only pointing out that if not being able to have children is a reason to deny a couple a marriage license, then the same would logically apply to people past childbearing age, infertile couples who plan to adopt after marriage, and those who believe that babies cause global warming, so we are better off aborting them.

You seem to agree that protecting children is not the sole purpose for marriage, so we really don't disagree. Maybe you disagree and believe that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry, but I won't argue that and I respect that belief.

So should every Democrat and "not Democrat" on here, since that was Obama's belief for nearly all of his adult life.

 

[Robert W]

I'm not at all against it. I just know that this is not the sole purpose of marriage. That canard has been trotted out to justify denying marriage to same-sex people. I'm only pointing out that if not being able to have children is a reason to deny a couple a marriage license, then the same would logically apply to people past childbearing age, infertile couples who plan to adopt after marriage, and those who believe that babies cause global warming, so we are better off aborting them.

You seem to agree that protecting children is not the sole purpose for marriage, so we really don't disagree. Maybe you disagree and believe that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry, but I won't argue that and I respect that belief.

So should every Democrat and "not Democrat" on here, since that was Obama's belief for nearly all of his adult life.

Actually, I conditioned my comments that it was Roman law I cited. You have two adults, correct. Are they protected by marriage?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Actually, I conditioned my comments that it was Roman law I cited. You have two adults, correct. Are they protected by marriage?

Sure they are.

 

[Robert W]

Sure they are.

How does marriage protect the partners?

 

[Seymour Flops]

How does marriage protect the partners?

I really have to ask if you are serious with that question.

I honestly don't think so, but I'll play along with one example.

Because of just one protection of marriage, my next of kin is not determined by whose sperm knocked up my mamma and how many other rug rats she squeezed out. Therefore if I am in the hospital, unconscious and in need of medical care requiring consent, or possibly in need of a decision whether cessation of medical care is appropriate, I have my chosen NOK, my wife in whose hands I willingly place my life to make that decision, and not my hillbilly redneck, brokeass and looking for a windfall, blood relatives.

Was that question supposed to be some kind of Socratic irony?

 

[Robert W]

I really have to ask if you are serious with that question.

I honestly don't think so, but I'll play along with one example.

Because of just one protection of marriage, my next of kin is not determined by whose sperm knocked up my mamma and how many other rug rats she squeezed out. Therefore if I am in the hospital, unconscious and in need of medical care requiring consent, or possibly in need of a decision whether cessation of medical care is appropriate, I have my chosen NOK, my wife in whose hands I willingly place my life to make that decision, and not my hillbilly redneck, brokeass and looking for a windfall, blood relatives.

Was that question supposed to be some kind of Socratic irony?

Was that in the marriage contract?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Was that in the marriage contract?

I don't remember signing that.

But:

Maybe you should have skipped ahead to the present instead of spending so much time studying Roman law.