Yes!! To the extent that such changes do not violate the rights of others or put others at risk, and there is no rational basis or compelling state interest in upholding said tradition
A fine idea.
INdeed, almost what legislatures are for.
A place made, with elected representatives of the people to discuss seriously matters of policy and law, such as a growing gap between ancient tradition and a changing modern world, in a calm and serious manner.
One side could make the case that the world has changed, and the Laws need to be changed to reflect that, and the other could challenge their assertions and claims, and a policy could be reached as to how to handle it.
Too bad that your side decided to not do that.
More nonsensical blather intended to obfuscate the issue which is that the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and without so much as a rational basis....
No, you made the point that traditions evolve and that laws have to change to keep up with them.
I agreed. And went on to discuss how it makes sense for a legislature to address such changing traditions, and whether or how to change laws to fit them.
No reasonable or honest person could call that "blather" and it is telling that instead of supporting your claim that it is blather, you immediately want to reassertion ALL you initial positions and arguments AND later arguments.
I find it interesting and telling how you blithely skip past all of the main points that I made- procreation, the importance of gender roles, the ability of same sex couples to nurture children- which you were decisively slapped down on, and zero in on one issue where you think that still have some life . But you don't...…...
All that you have accomplished here is to underscore your pathetic ignorance of our legal system and the role of the courts. Tell us dear boy, how long should gay people have waited for the legislature to act in states like Mississippi or Alabama. Yes I am reasserting my position because it is a valid one for which you have no counter argument except to claim that you are right-with no evidence or logic to back up that claim. Judicial oversight is a well established function of the courts and the 14th Amendment extended that function to intervene in state laws that violate the constitution, and deprive people of due process and equal protection under the law which is precisely how Obergefell was decided. Read the ******* constitution. Read some case law and maybe you won't be so ignorant. Maybe.
1. I skipped past all the points we have gone over already.
2. Hint: When I point something out to you, and you just refuse to see it, and spend page after page refusing to even address what I actually said, and if you do, you just dismiss it and reassert your original position, that is not me getting slapped down, that is you being an ideologically blind and dishonest person.
3. My point stands. I made a point, and you calling it "mindless" is not an argument. That was you realizing that you could not hope to challenge my point, and so you just ran away like a little girl.
4. And, you extensive recap of the whole discussion, was just an attempt to distract from the fact that you just tried running a line of jive past me. Hint: it failed.
Dude!! You skipped past all of the points that I devastated you with and now you're bleating about my refusing to see what you are trying to say and being dismissive .That is all nothing but a smokescreen to obscure the fact that you have been thoroughly beaten down.
And here again, you are offering nothing that resembles facts or logic that can help your failed argument that there is justification for banning same sex marriage. I called you a mindless bigot because you don't seem to be bright enough to see that pathetic failure of every aspect of your argument. I think that we have to do it again, and keep doing it until it sinks in
You tried the argument that gays people should not marry because they do not reproduce based on your assertion that the central reason for marriage is to "get the father to stick around and provide" .I confronted you with the question of whether or not opposite sex couples who could not reproduce naturally should be allowed to marry to which you responded that fathering children is not a requirement for marriage. Apparently it is only a requirement for gay people according to you.
You then ran like hell from your "procreation "crap" never to revisit it.
You then fell back on your appeal to tradition .Marriage has been between one man and one women for a millennium
When asked if you want to preserve all traditions related to marriage such as women as property and marriage being between two people of the same race, you actually, much to my amazement , said that you were opposed to interracial marriage. At least your consistent, but you did not address the role and status of women. I can only imagine.
You stated that you are opposed to same sex marriage because of the different traditional roles that men and women bring to a relationship. However, you refused to deal with the fact that in most heterosexual relationships, women are increasingly doing all of the same things that men do, but you have no problem with whatever gender role conflict if any that might entail
When asked what negative or unexpected consequences same sex marriage has had, you stated that it is too soon to tell and speculated- without evidence- that you doubt that same sex couples can function as well as opposite sex couples and provide the same level of nurturance to children.. I pointed out that the Netherlands has had same sex marriage for 18 years and asked you to document the societal decline that you predict. I also provided evident that children of same sex couples do just as well as others. You have had nothing further to say on either count.
You have derided the SCOTUS decision on same sex marriage claiming that the bans imposed by the states were not arbitrary and that there was a reason for them.. But the only reason that you could come up with was your appeal to tradition fallacy.
You also claimed that it was an abuse of the courts to go that rout as opposed to legislation All that you have accomplished here is to underscore your pathetic ignorance of our legal system and the role of the courts. Tell us dear boy, how long should gay people have waited for the legislature to act in states like Mississippi or Alabama. Yes I am reasserting my position because it is a valid one for which you have no counter argument except to claim that you are right-with no evidence or logic to back up that claim. Judicial oversight is a well established function of the courts and the 14th Amendment extended that function to intervene in state laws that violate the constitution, and deprive people of due process and equal protection under the law which is precisely how Obergefell was decided. Read the ******* constitution. Read some case law and maybe you won't be so ignorant. Maybe
Have a good day
