Their compelling interest is to enshrine the family as the highest and most basic unit of society - mother, father, child. Marriage should be between one man and one woman. Divorce should be difficult and the last resort. You shouldn't get pregnant until you are married.Quote:
The lawsuit creates the acronym PAACNP, which stands for "Parent and Adult Child Non-Procreationable," to refer to the proposed parent/child union where the parties are incapable of having children. Because of that reality, the litigant suggests the state has no compelling interest in preventing the marriage.
Martin Q. Blank said:Their compelling interest is to enshrine the family as the highest and most basic unit of society - mother, father, child. Marriage should be between one man and one woman. Divorce should be difficult and the last resort. You shouldn't get pregnant until you are married.Quote:
The lawsuit creates the acronym PAACNP, which stands for "Parent and Adult Child Non-Procreationable," to refer to the proposed parent/child union where the parties are incapable of having children. Because of that reality, the litigant suggests the state has no compelling interest in preventing the marriage.
All things being equal, marriage is the most natural way to ensure social and economic flourishing. Yes, the state has a compelling interest to prevent this marriage.
No, you were the one constantly screaming "slippery slope" and people responded with "who cares?" and "so what?" Does this article make your marriage seem meaningless? Because mine's still pretty good.Seamaster said:
Remember how back during the great marriage debates of a few years ago several us said that without a limiting principle, the broadening of the definition of marriage would completely devolve into being essentially meaningless? We said there's be polygamy and incest and people "marrying" their pets and lampshades?
"Slippery slope!" We were told.
Yet here we are....
Yep. For some reason, people insist on the state and church having identical definitions of marriage. Heck, the state could abolish state-sanctioned marriage, and simply turn everything into a civil union, and it would have no bearing on how the church defines marriage.Beer Baron said:No, you were the one constantly screaming "slippery slope" and people responded with "who cares?" and "so what?" Does this article make your marriage seem meaningless? Because mine's still pretty good.Seamaster said:
Remember how back during the great marriage debates of a few years ago several us said that without a limiting principle, the broadening of the definition of marriage would completely devolve into being essentially meaningless? We said there's be polygamy and incest and people "marrying" their pets and lampshades?
"Slippery slope!" We were told.
Yet here we are....
The end of the state should be to become the ChurchPacifistAg said:Yep. For some reason, people insist on the state and church having identical definitions of marriage. Heck, the state could abolish state-sanctioned marriage, and simply turn everything into a civil union, and it would have no bearing on how the church defines marriage.Beer Baron said:No, you were the one constantly screaming "slippery slope" and people responded with "who cares?" and "so what?" Does this article make your marriage seem meaningless? Because mine's still pretty good.Seamaster said:
Remember how back during the great marriage debates of a few years ago several us said that without a limiting principle, the broadening of the definition of marriage would completely devolve into being essentially meaningless? We said there's be polygamy and incest and people "marrying" their pets and lampshades?
"Slippery slope!" We were told.
Yet here we are....
I agree with you, but based on the trajectory of how "the state" has been treating marriage over the last 50 years, there is a good argument that "the state" has abdicated any interest they ever had in protecting marriage for the good of society.Martin Q. Blank said:Their compelling interest is to enshrine the family as the highest and most basic unit of society - mother, father, child. Marriage should be between one man and one woman. Divorce should be difficult and the last resort. You shouldn't get pregnant until you are married.Quote:
The lawsuit creates the acronym PAACNP, which stands for "Parent and Adult Child Non-Procreationable," to refer to the proposed parent/child union where the parties are incapable of having children. Because of that reality, the litigant suggests the state has no compelling interest in preventing the marriage.
All things being equal, marriage is the most natural way to ensure social and economic flourishing. Yes, the state has a compelling interest to prevent this marriage.
dargscisyhp said:
Baby don't hurt me
Quote:
I'm not actually sure why I opened this thread. I certainly didn't read the OP or click on the link.
However, what you are looking for is "What is Love"
This is mistake is egregious and offensive.