Love is Love

1,874 Views | 20 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by diehard03
Seamaster
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:46a, 4/13/21
AG
https://disrn.com/news/parent-sues-new-york-for-the-right-to-marry-their-adult-child?fbclid=IwAR2OLy5vux5q3zNKkAgivAoIuJ0I11hXpA7w9ZG-_BZ_V-r-I-zsR19OAlA
Reply Quote
1
Star Wars Memes Only
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:25a, 4/13/21
Baby don't hurt me
Reply Quote
6
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:37a, 4/13/21

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.
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.

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.
Reply Quote
7
Quad Dog
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:43a, 4/13/21
AG
Since you made no comment on the article and based on the title of the thread, I'm going to assume you are all for it.
Reply Quote
8
1 edit
Post removed:
by user
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 9:58a, 4/13/21
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 11:47a, 4/13/21
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:

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.
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.

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.

How does the state's responsibility to ensure individual freedoms compare to its interest in 'social and economic flourishing'?

Reply Quote
4
PacifistAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:16p, 4/13/21
AG
Oh yay!
Reply Quote
1
Seamaster
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:15p, 4/13/21
AG
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....

Reply Quote
7
Beer Baron
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Seamaster • 3:23p, 4/13/21
AG
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....

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.
Reply Quote
6
GaddafiHalp
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:48p, 4/13/21
Love is not Love, God is Love and love means to will the ultimate best for another regardless of yourself. Someone marrying their child is not that.
Reply Quote
1
craigernaught
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:50p, 4/13/21
AG
I read this article and immediately filed for divorce.
Reply Quote
6
PacifistAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Beer Baron • 4:48p, 4/13/21
AG
Beer Baron said:
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....

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.
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.
Reply Quote
2 edits
PacifistAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:53p, 4/13/21
AG
Interesting to note, the legal papers fail to identify their gender, ages, or hometown, and was filed on APRIL 1.
Reply Quote
3
GaddafiHalp
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PacifistAg • 5:00p, 4/13/21
PacifistAg said:
Beer Baron said:
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....

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.
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.
The end of the state should be to become the Church
-The Brothers Karamazov
Reply Quote
Dad-O-Lot
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 5:50p, 4/13/21
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:

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.
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.

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.
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.

Reply Quote
PacifistAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dad-O-Lot • 6:08p, 4/13/21
AG
The American state has never treated marriage well. Whether it was breaking up families via the slave trade, or the oppressive and abusive marriages many women weren't allowed to escape from and where men were rarely held accountable for said abuse, the mistreatment of marriage has long been an issue.
Reply Quote
1
Post removed:
by user
In reply to PacifistAg • 6:27p, 4/13/21
swimmerbabe11
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Star Wars Memes Only • 6:39p, 4/13/21
dargscisyhp said:
Baby don't hurt me

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.
Reply Quote
8
Star Wars Memes Only
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:17p, 4/13/21
It has the same number of syllables to keep the rhythmic structure intact and is sufficiently assonant that I argue it be allowed.

Debate me.
Reply Quote
7
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Seamaster • 7:27p, 4/13/21
AG
I still want to know how does the state's responsibility to ensure individual freedoms compare to its interest in 'social and economic flourishing'?
Reply Quote
3
PacifistAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to [removed post] • 7:53p, 4/13/21
AG
I singled out America because the context of the discussion was government in America, and I'm not familiar with other nations, so I wanted to avoid making some overreaching comment. I didn't mean anything in particular outside of that.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
diehard03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:46p, 4/14/21
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.

Sometimes, one sacrifices precision for timing...and in this sort of situation, it's a trade-off that works. Everyone wants a good joke here, as these threads are tiresome if taken seriously. Darg delivered, and made the necessary choice to maximize impact.

it's a comedy thing. Maybe you just don't get it.
Reply Quote
3
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.