Ok, only one post left to examine, and I'm sure this is the one you are pretending doesn't make you a liar.
"What would happen if Utah passed a law permitting polygamy? Now, answer your own question about a couple moving to Alabama.
Your second question isn't relevant as to the issue of whether or not the Constitution recognizes gay marriage as a right. It is relevant if you are talking about whether a state should pass a law allowing gay marriage. However, I will answer your question as I did so yesterday and quote the editors of the National Review which sum up my view nicely.
"An older view of marriage has steadily been losing ground to a newer one, and that process began long before the debate over same-sex couples. On the older understanding, society and, to a lesser extent, the government needed to shape sexual behavior—specifically, the type of sexual behavior that often gives rise to children—to promote the well-being of those children. On the newer understanding, marriage is primarily an emotional union of adults with an incidental connection to procreation and children.
We think the older view is not only unbigoted, but rationally superior to the newer one. Supporters of the older view have often said that it offers a sure ground for resisting polygamy while the newer one does not. But perhaps the more telling point is that the newer view does not offer any strong rationale for having a social institution of marriage in the first place, let alone a government-backed one."
I support the older view of marriage, however, if the new view is flavor that wins the day then I don't see how you outlaw other forms of marriage (which is what Justice Alito was alluding to in his question to the gov't lawyer, in which she gave a bumbling, stumbling answer in response). Even more to the point, if the old view is archaic/obsolete then the question is required, "why do we nee a social institution of marriage, let alone a gov't backed one". The newer understanding of marriage doesn't provide a strong rationale for either. So, stop discriminating against single people, like myself, and get the gov't out of marriage. "
- Nothing there, but wait, maybe you were intending to focus on the article you cite, Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417600/constitution-silent-same-sex-marriage-editors, except it doesn't list any bases either, you posted the meat of it, and it just CLAIMS there were good reasons before, and now there aren't....it never says what those good reasons were, or how they changed.
Let's pick out the parts where you could, even arguably, claim you posted bases for "old marriage" sanctioning:
"I support the older view of marriage, however, if the new view is flavor that wins the day then I don't see how you outlaw other forms of marriage..."
"if the old view is archaic/obsolete then the question is required, "why do we nee a social institution of marriage, let alone a gov't backed one". The newer understanding of marriage doesn't provide a strong rationale for either. "
Generic, baseless claims that a) the definition has changed, without listing how, and b) good reasons for gov't sanctioning no longer apply, again without even saying how.
So it HAS to be this:
"On the older understanding, society and, to a lesser extent, the government needed to shape sexual behavior—specifically, the type of sexual behavior that often gives rise to children—to promote the well-being of those children. "
Is that it? The sole GOOD REASON for government sanctioning of "old marriage" was to "shape sexual behavior," and now that reason is lost with SSM?
Is that what you are claiming was the bases for sanctioning of marriage? One reason? Procreation? No other reasons, like stability, shared responsibility, clear ownership/estate delineation, ability to handle stressful situations, happiness, cheaper for government, better health/longer life, etc.
So, in all of this, including pretending I "libeled" you, you wanted to point back to the same article you've posted a handful of times, that says nothing?
Again, let's repeat your contention, in the simplest of terms:
Old Marriage = Good, Government should support (for procreation only? for other, refused-to-be-named reasons?)
New Marrage = Bad, Government should not support (still for procreation reasons?)
"What would happen if Utah passed a law permitting polygamy? Now, answer your own question about a couple moving to Alabama.
Your second question isn't relevant as to the issue of whether or not the Constitution recognizes gay marriage as a right. It is relevant if you are talking about whether a state should pass a law allowing gay marriage. However, I will answer your question as I did so yesterday and quote the editors of the National Review which sum up my view nicely.
"An older view of marriage has steadily been losing ground to a newer one, and that process began long before the debate over same-sex couples. On the older understanding, society and, to a lesser extent, the government needed to shape sexual behavior—specifically, the type of sexual behavior that often gives rise to children—to promote the well-being of those children. On the newer understanding, marriage is primarily an emotional union of adults with an incidental connection to procreation and children.
We think the older view is not only unbigoted, but rationally superior to the newer one. Supporters of the older view have often said that it offers a sure ground for resisting polygamy while the newer one does not. But perhaps the more telling point is that the newer view does not offer any strong rationale for having a social institution of marriage in the first place, let alone a government-backed one."
I support the older view of marriage, however, if the new view is flavor that wins the day then I don't see how you outlaw other forms of marriage (which is what Justice Alito was alluding to in his question to the gov't lawyer, in which she gave a bumbling, stumbling answer in response). Even more to the point, if the old view is archaic/obsolete then the question is required, "why do we nee a social institution of marriage, let alone a gov't backed one". The newer understanding of marriage doesn't provide a strong rationale for either. So, stop discriminating against single people, like myself, and get the gov't out of marriage. "
- Nothing there, but wait, maybe you were intending to focus on the article you cite, Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417600/constitution-silent-same-sex-marriage-editors, except it doesn't list any bases either, you posted the meat of it, and it just CLAIMS there were good reasons before, and now there aren't....it never says what those good reasons were, or how they changed.
Let's pick out the parts where you could, even arguably, claim you posted bases for "old marriage" sanctioning:
"I support the older view of marriage, however, if the new view is flavor that wins the day then I don't see how you outlaw other forms of marriage..."
"if the old view is archaic/obsolete then the question is required, "why do we nee a social institution of marriage, let alone a gov't backed one". The newer understanding of marriage doesn't provide a strong rationale for either. "
Generic, baseless claims that a) the definition has changed, without listing how, and b) good reasons for gov't sanctioning no longer apply, again without even saying how.
So it HAS to be this:
"On the older understanding, society and, to a lesser extent, the government needed to shape sexual behavior—specifically, the type of sexual behavior that often gives rise to children—to promote the well-being of those children. "
Is that it? The sole GOOD REASON for government sanctioning of "old marriage" was to "shape sexual behavior," and now that reason is lost with SSM?
Is that what you are claiming was the bases for sanctioning of marriage? One reason? Procreation? No other reasons, like stability, shared responsibility, clear ownership/estate delineation, ability to handle stressful situations, happiness, cheaper for government, better health/longer life, etc.
So, in all of this, including pretending I "libeled" you, you wanted to point back to the same article you've posted a handful of times, that says nothing?
Again, let's repeat your contention, in the simplest of terms:
Old Marriage = Good, Government should support (for procreation only? for other, refused-to-be-named reasons?)
New Marrage = Bad, Government should not support (still for procreation reasons?)
