Christian bakery wins 'gay cake' ruling from UK supreme court

Your first sentence opposed my statement, but the rest of your post supports it. Interesting. The truth is only what two people can agree on.

Written laws and records have zero value when it comes to how people live.

 

Well by that measure neither does limiting marriage to between a man and a woman. If you want to say they can't be married to someone else then I can say they have to be of opposite sex. Two women marrying one man does more to create a nuclear family, the primary purpose of marriage, than two women or two men marrying.

 

There are numerous contracts that limit the number of participants — that cannot be said about the gender of participants. Marriage does not create a nuclear family, children and two spouses do.

 

Well then I will ask you again: do you believe that marriage equality has been achieved in the US?

Of course not. But isn't it the paper that gives married people these rights?

 

I'll ask again then: do you believe that marriage equality has been achieved?

 

Sure, but this isn't marriage equality.

What do you mean?

 

Why wouldn't polygamy fall under that?

 

Again, because value is a subjective term, your statement is factually false.

However I think I can agree that facts and truths are sepersep things.

 

Number of people in a marriage is not an inherent trait such as race, gender, blood, etc. Marriage can be available to all even with a restriction on numbers.

 

How are.you defining spouses in this context?

 

Again, no. The last holdover, and thinks going to bring out the slippery slope whackos, is the incest restrictions. But the thing is, legally speaking, marriage requires neither sex nor children, so that is a red herring argument against the prohibition. Once that is gone, legal marriage will be available so that any consenting adult can being legally married to any other consenting adults. That is when marriage equality, legally speaking, will be achieved. If you are using the term marriage equality in a different context then you need to say so.

 

Life partner, husband, wife - not necessarily married

 

Why? Why restrict the number? The position of those supporting same sex marriage is the person should be able to marry whomever you want. Why the restriction if other person/people is/are married? If we can change the historical basic definition to fit same sex why nit for number of people?

 

Marriage is to encourage, support and sanction the nuclear family which is so vital to or society and species. The nuclear family being a father a mother and the children.

 

First we are not changing the historical definition, unless you are limiting the context to a specific recent point of history or to specific regions at any given point of history. It has been so multiple times across many threads that all these variations of marriage have existed throughout history.

But to the numbers question. Let me try a different tact. Let's assume for the moment, just for example's sake, that there was no incest restrictions. At this moment then marriage equality has been achieved. Later, we change the number restriction to up to 3 people in a legal marriage (assume also that the necessary related laws are changed to allow this). Equality is still there and has not changed.

For equality in law to be achieved, the laws cannot be referencing race, religion, orientation, etc. Number is not a part of that. Mind you I am not saying that we shouldn't be trying to bring polygamy back as a legally recognized status. Especially since I am in a polygamous marriage (obviously not on a legal basis), and would love to be able to have all the legal protections expanded to include my other two spouses in relation to me. I am only saying that number of people in a given legal status is independent of whether the legal institution has achieved legal equality or not.

 

Are you claiming this of modern marriage via government interest, or marriage throughout history?

 

Marriage has nothing to do with procreation. You do not now, nor have you ever had to have the ability or intention to procreate in order to get married.

 

Not true, or rather partially so. A lot depends upon the type of marriage you mean. And that is important, because we have had a lot of types thrown out here, some being improperly conflated with other types. As far as modern US legal marriage, you are correct. However, many societies considered a marriage terminated if the couple couldn't produce a child within so much time, or at the least could not show the marriage consummated.

 

I thought we were talking about marriage in the US? I agree it has meant many other things with many different requirements in many different places. I was just pointing out to him his comment about what the purpose of marriage is here was incorrect.

 

I understand and agree with the specific point. I was pointing out that throughout this whole thread, the various types are being being discussed as if they were one and that because they are all different, it is important to note which type you are referring to. Otherwise blanket statements, intended or not, are going to be shown to be false or at least partly so.

 

The nuclear family which is vital to the future of our society and species. Marriage is to encourage and support and sanction those efforts.

 

It has developed throughout history and society. We as a society and species do so through the governments we establish. We encourage and support and sanction of heterosexuality through marriage because that heterosexuality is vital to our society and species.

 

no it isn't, as procreation has never been, at any point in US history, a requirement in order to marry.

 

marriage is a legal institution. Same sex couples can not be banned from marriage, as that violates the 14th amendment. Procreation is entirely irrelevant to who can marry.

 

It's a societal that we as a society pass laws in our government to encourage, promote and sanction those heterosexual unions because they are vital to our society and species. There is no vital interest in our society nor to our species to encourage, support or sanction homosexuality or same sex marriage.