RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
July 17, 2015 at 11:23 am
(This post was last modified: July 17, 2015 at 11:26 am by Ace.)
[/quote]
Please tell me you aren't confusing the respondents' concentrating on a procreative centric definition of marriage and the actual definition of marriage. The respondents concentrated on this aspect of marriage because they knew there was no way in hell any of the other commonly accepted and well known attributes of marriage could be used in argument and have a chance in of surviving a 14th amendment challenge. The definition of marriage hasn't changed, the procreative centric concentration was simply the only viable defense available.
[/quote]
HAHAHAH WOW
I had to read you posting twice to make sure I read it right. I think that is what Anima has been arguing, because legally the argument for Obergefell is the law. And it is the law which is based on that case that he/she is using to try and argue the danger of the cases reasoning if taken to its full conclusion.
Please tell me you aren't confusing the respondents' concentrating on a procreative centric definition of marriage and the actual definition of marriage. The respondents concentrated on this aspect of marriage because they knew there was no way in hell any of the other commonly accepted and well known attributes of marriage could be used in argument and have a chance in of surviving a 14th amendment challenge. The definition of marriage hasn't changed, the procreative centric concentration was simply the only viable defense available.
[/quote]
HAHAHAH WOW
I had to read you posting twice to make sure I read it right. I think that is what Anima has been arguing, because legally the argument for Obergefell is the law. And it is the law which is based on that case that he/she is using to try and argue the danger of the cases reasoning if taken to its full conclusion.