And?The conversation was between another poster and myself, not you.
Of course I do, you were still advancing, or at least entertaining an utterly absurd argument.Understand the difference?
Here’s the problem, unless your discrimination and prejudice have a rational basis and serve a legitimate state interest, they are not valid to negate the right of another citizen to equal protection of the laws.The topic of marriage was being spoken about and 'non-consensual' marriage was brought up between us, not you. Understand the difference?
The other poster stated non-consensual type marriages were wrong based on the premise of a animal or thing not being able to give consent in a contract of marriage. Understand?
My point to the poster was that non-consensual legal contracts for animals and things already existed. So where was the rationale to claim non-consensual marriage contracts wrong when legal non-consensual contracts for animals/things already existed?
My in between the line point was that this paralleled the thinking that opposite sex marriages are fine but same sex marriage and polygamous marriages aren't okay.
Well to round out the argument, people marry each other without the obvious intent to do mental/physical harm to each other while being in that marriage. So why forbid marriage between a human and an animal or thing using the same basis of thought, that the human isn't engaging a marriage to an animal or thing to do it mental/physical harm?
Know what the difference is? It's what it always has been concerning marriage: discrimination and prejudice.
How foolish of me to forget, you merely like seeing your words in print and advance disingenuous and irrelevant arguments in order to see them.I never was making an argument against same sex marriage. This show's how narrow your understanding is of what's being said and what wasn't said.
I am aware of the Supreme Court cases addressing polygamy, and I am also aware that issue has been settled as a matter of law for over 100 years. Allowing same sex couples the right to marry in no way has any impact upon the laws addressing polygamy. They are separate issues."Polygamy seeks greater, not equal protection." Scotus never even considered it. Go read the summary of the case why don't you and educate yourself beyond your own opinion.