Same-sex attraction and long-term relationships are readily seen in a number of species besides humans. Or is "marriage" just limited, in your mind, to a structure for giving birth to new children?

Homosexual marriages often want kids too, even in the animal kingdom.

Like a typical liberal you miss the point.

And like a typical bigot, you change the subject when you fall flat defending your position.

The point is that if the standard is changed from biology [note, I did not mention the concept of attraction in relation to biology] to "whatever we love" we wind up removing highly beneficial limits.

Um, if it's not about attraction, what exactly do you mean by "biology"? Same-sex attraction and long-term relationships are readily seen in a number of species besides humans. Or is "marriage" just limited, in your mind, to a structure for giving birth to new children? You want a law school essay test, Yorkie? defend that definition against an infertile couple, or for people too old to have more children. Why should they be allowed to marry?

Your original complaint against gay marriage seemed to be something about

When the standard is changed from a biological one to "whomever we love,"

and then somehow drifted into Con Law, so exactly what "biological standard" do you have for marriage? If it's not based on either "two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together" (which is the actual subject being debated) or "any number of people, animals, and inanimate objects living under some sort of magical legal contract that give them 'new rights'" (which appears to be what your fevered brain has turned Prop 8 into), how would you define it?

No, the problem is exactly as described: The change from a solid, definable standard to a nebulous one. Nebulous legal standards are the bane of a society trying to live by the rule of law.

What exactly is more nebulous about "two adults" versus "a man and a woman"? What exactly is the purpose of defining marriage under law at all?

Should 4 people be allowed to be married? How about 6? 8? 12? 42?

Again, how about the woman who promised to marry an entire homeless shelter?

Can you propose a constitutional legal structure to prevent these forseen unintended consequences?

Um, you either haven't been talking to very good lawyers or (I suspect) you've been biasing the questions you ask them and leading them to your own conclusion. If you want an actual useful legal statement, begin with something like this: How is marriage different from any other legal contract? Ask you lawyer friends _that_, and then come back.

Again I say: if marriage is defined by law at all, there's no rational reason it can't be defined as "two adults" over "man and woman" if enough people feel it should change. If the people don't feel that change, or one to "an entire homeless shelter", is acceptable, then they won't change the law.

I would not burn a lot of daylight on York. Scratch a homophobe and you will generally find latency. Perhaps one day he will come to grips with what he is really afraid of.

You are so ignorant as to not be worth my time.

But evidently telling me that I'm not worth your time is worth your time, as you keep coming back here to do so.

So, for the record, you time is worth less than repeated petty insults, but more than civilized discourse. I can only imagine what things you find to spend so much of it on.

Simple enough for you?

Yeah, I got that you're insulting me. The fact that I'm not offended doesn't mean I didn't understand, it just means that I didn't care.

You are so ignorant as to not be worth my time.

Simple enough for you?

Bye bye now.

Holland is to the Netherlands what England is to the UK. You probabely mean Belgium.

I think adults who love each other should be able to marry. I wouldn't have a problem if there were more than two either, as long as it wouldn't give them unfair advantages (i.e. 5 people, each entitled to a widowerspension). People who live together can allready have what we call a samenlevingscontract, just like people who don't have a sexual relationship (i.e. two elder siblings living together), so they can formalize the rights they have (take over rent, being responsible for mortgage payments, divide furniture when seperate, etc.).

As long as everybody is a consenting adult and it doesn't cost me money, why would it matter to me? If I want to critisize other people's relationships there are plenty of heterosexual ones that wouldn't fit my standard for "proper marriage".

Why would other people be entitled to decide whom you want to marry, unless it is to protect a weaker party (like a minor)? When are people allowed to hamper other people's rights to enter a formal relationship?

Which is a fancy way of saying "I let the gang at Fox do my thinking for me"...

No, it's a fancy way of saying "My facts are based on other people's opinions, not necessarily facts". Using an editorial as a reference of fact is worse than using Wikipedia.

You see if you disagree with this proposal then the real reason you want same sex marriage is to force the Christians to accept homosexuality and then you are impeding on their rights.

You will find that most of the opposition to your idea will come from the religious institutions, and not the homosexual community.

Your response clearly [very clearly] illustrates you do not understand my question. Your response isn't remotely close to an understanding of first year law, much less anything at a higher level.

Great, so was I wrong, or are you just concerned that I'm not using a lawyerly tone?

It's no problem that you have little or no legal training. I'm just not going to take my Saturday afternoon to give it to you.

After 5 posts, it's a little late to be making that decision, don't you think?

My ethical responsibility to continue the debate and justify and defend my positions does not require me devoting my time to bring you up to speed. You have no such claim on my time.

And yet you keep posting. Don't worry, I don't blame your ethics.

Please pick up the WSJ editorial page on a regular basis to understand my arguments.

Which is a fancy way of saying "I let the gang at Fox do my thinking for me"...

You just make it an exclusive contract, someone who enters into one can not legally enter into another, without terminating the first. Exclusivity in contract law is hardly a new concept."

Your response clearly [very clearly] illustrates you do not understand my question. Your response isn't remotely close to an understanding of first year law, much less anything at a higher level.

I'm not trying to be insulting; I just don't wish to spend the next two hours giving you a lesson is basic Constitutional law.

I was hoping you'd be able handle that type of discussion.

It's no problem that you have little or no legal training. I'm just not going to take my Saturday afternoon to give it to you.

I'm just not going to devote the time.

My ethical responsibility to continue the debate and justify and defend my positions does not require me devoting my time to bring you up to speed. You have no such claim on my time.

Find a Constitutional lawyer, and ask him about what I mean.

Respectfully,
Mike

I'm sorry, but you are not educated enough in the law for me to spend any more time continuing this argument.

Well isn't that convenient.

Please pick up the WSJ editorial page on a regular basis to understand my arguments.

Thank you for your time and comments.

I hope you had a nice holiday, and hope your and yours are seen well throughout the ensuing New Years.
Best,
Mike