Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Marriage has always been a contract. For religious people it may also be a sacrament. But, it's between consenting parties as the state is not party to the contract.Marriage did mean that. Why the definition had to change is debatable. Controlling words is controlling thought. That probably had a lot to do with it. Equal rights do not necessarily entail identical verbiage.
A contract between a man and a woman (with their families intertwined).Marriage has always been a contract. For religious people it may also be a sacrament. But, it's between consenting parties as the state is not party to the contract.
Their families are not party to the marriage contract either.A contract between a man and a woman (with their families intertwined).
Children don't inherit?Their families are not party to the marriage contract either.
Has NOTHING to do with children inheriting. Marriage is a contract between consenting parties. The state is not involved unless there's a dispute in a disolution. The state doesn't want to raise our children.Children don't inherit?
my great grandpa had 3 wive.s
Your understanding is demonstrably insufficient.Has NOTHING to do with children inheriting. Marriage is a contract between consenting parties. The state is not involved unless there's a dispute in a disolution. The state doesn't want to raise our children.
Ask a lawyer. I am certified in civil litigation.Your understanding is demonstrably insufficient.
The marriage and the "contract" were between a man and a woman, as has been discussed. Rights and contracts can be equal between parties without changing the traditional meaning of marriage. That was a social movement effort.Marriage has always been a contract. For religious people it may also be a sacrament. But, it's between consenting parties as the state is not party to the contract.
Yes, and the contract is first and foremost between consenting adults. Civil rights take precedence.The marriage and the "contract" were between a man and a woman, as has been discussed. Rights and contracts can be equal between parties without changing the traditional meaning of marriage. That was a social movement effort.
Your arguments in sum amount to maintaining that nouns mean nothing. That appears to be an increasingly common view.Yes, and the contract is first and foremost between consenting adults. Civil rights take precedence.