That want the laws changed to "Any human can marry any other human, except people who are related too closely or unless you are already married or one of you are below a certain age."
I can't find anything immediately disagreeable about that statement.
Why is it such a stretch to also say "And you can't marry someone of the same sex?"
Because there's no basis for such a law.
The incest laws I can understand - and the polygamy laws just make it easier to argue against marriage in the first place. But why deny Fred marrying Shaggy while allowing Fred to marry Daphne? What's the basis of that denial?
A set of laws that work for a society of heterosexuals do not necessarily work for a group of homosexuals.
I think the only people who can decisively answer that are the homosexuals themselves. And they want the same set of laws - to allow to adults who love each other to get married.
So much wrong crammed into one post...
Semantics is not about re-defining words, it's the complete opposite.
The fact you think all north america (sic) has the same set of laws just makes me shake my head in disbelief.
Just because something is fact does not make it right. If you can't understand that, I'll gladly invoke Godwin as a demonstration.
For example they have the right to marry what ever woman they want.
Miss Sarah Brown would disagree with you, as would I.
I'd just wait for the fourScorder myself. The fivecorder probably won't be out until the year after anyway.
Silly person. It's going to the be "fourCorder S"
I can't stand people that play on semantics to make an argument.
You cannot participate in a discussion (argument) unless all parties agree on the meaning of both premises (whether either premise is right or wrong is immaterial).
Semantics: The branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.
Therefore if you do not apply semantics to your argument, you have lost before you open your mouth.
Hybrid car shows both ICE and Electric Motor properties.
Wait, Facebook is demanding their applicants give up their Facebook passwords? Fucking bastards!
Amazon isn't a corner shop food store that takes cash - is my point.
20 years ago you walked into a store, bought a loaf of bread with cash - and afterwards the store could not trace that transaction back to you.
Wait - 20 years ago some corporate bod knew that Mr Smith of 23 Acacia Avenue bought hamburger buns? I think not.
Home Depot maintains summer/winter hours, it's not that difficult. Bin collections are by day not by time. Don't know about you but bin collections around here are "whenever they get around to your road", not at a specific hour. I used to live in the UK where trains had summer and winter schedules anyway, all published on one sheet for that line.
I can't see it being any easier to change the clocks than it would be to just do stuff at different times, if that's what you wanted to do. Mandated changes only serve to piss everyone off, let business and the voters decide when things happen locally.
Seeing as we're ruling out the sunshine and therefore moonlight, all that's left is the boogie.
That's the German constitution though. Has no effect outside Germany and so cannot be a fundamental human right - just a fundamental German right. Also, who gets to define "dignity"? Can I end my life in a dignified way if there is no other choice? Not in Germany I can't.
There are no fundamental right, no inviolable rights. There are rights bestowed upon us by societies, but not all societies agree on any single aspect of what is a fundamental or inviolable right. Therefore there is no such thing as a fundamental or inviolable human right.
Is it? Please elaborate.
"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker
