If a Man Marries a Rhinoceros Is It Really a Marriage?

Question is, can the rhino give consent?

Seriously, if someone wants to marry a........, they will, regardless whether its right or wrong.
Discernment comes from within, and can't be legislated.

 

what in the blue moon does a rhino have to do with the theme of this subsection?

I like using my tools around the house, should we ask about marrying a jigsaw?

 

Mountain gorillas are polygamous. Only the dominant male breeds, and may kill the offspring of other sires.
Marriage is a man-made concept tied to property, and inheritance, introduced by and for the rich and titled, to lay down the rules for division by heirs.

 

You can't legislate that people have good judgement, but you can certainly embed good judgement in law.

 

Not sure the relevance of any of these. I'm not saying monogamy doesn't exist in nature (and on that note, it's not particularly common among humans, left to their own devices).

What I'm saying is it's kindof ridiculous to talk about nature as if it is defined and created of nature, and that we've be violating some natural law in changing it. Marriage has at its roots a reflection of things humans would do naturally (like mate), but the formalities, legal constructs and social expectations that come with it are all made up by man, and have changed throughout history. Nothings says it can't or shouldn't change to reflect the sentiments of the culture that defines it.

 

And that doesn't have to change, even if gays are included too... children produced in a heterosexual marriage can still have the father presumed to be the husband. The point is moot.

Even then, the presumption is just that... a presumption. It's a default that's taken because it TENDS to be the fact, but is easily challenged, changed and tested in today's day and age. The world does not crumble and the sky does not fall if the presumption can not be met, but it does help to have some defaults. And again, having gays included in marriage does not eliminate this presumption.

You're focusing on arcaic rules that existed before adultery was legal, women had rights, women had jobs, and things like paternity could be tested. You're dealing with a whole new ballgame now. Today, encouraging monogamy (or something close to) among woman is far more important than protecting Presumption of Paternity from a non-existant threat.

 

It still directly contradicts your assertion.

Rules that still exist in 50 states.

 

irrelevant and long ago refuted.

 

Showing that some biology does make its way into the legalities of the word "marriage" does not directly contradict my claim that it does not HAVE to and that it can't change.

And it also doesn't show that having gays marry while leaving the presumption of paternity in place is contradictory or mutually exclusive.

They exist because they tend to be true and it's helpful to have defaults to help speed along the legal process. Again, this doesn't mean the world crumbles and sky falls if this presumption can't be met (and it frequently is challenged and incorrect). Nor would gays marrying require the elimination of the presumptions.

 

Thats not what you claimed. Ill wait here while you slither around, trying to figure out where you want to be.

 

Or you can show me where I said the contrary, instead of playing coy.

Do you wish to argue about what he said or she said, or do you want to argue about the merit of the claims? Your playing coy is somewhat less than productive.

Anyway, I'll save you the trouble. Here's my quote:

I see no contradiction.

But they are two different topics. My original claim was that people can continue to believe and practice what they want about marriage, regardless of what the law says about marriage. You came in and showed that marriage creates a legal presumption of fatherhood for a child born during that marriage.

True, but this does not contradict the fact that people can believe and practice what they want about marriage. If the people want to believe it as a religious institution, they can. If they want to believe it between just a man and a woman, they can. If they wan't to be celibate in marriage, they can. If they want to have anal sex, and only anal sex, they can. If they think marriage implies monogomy, they can. If they want to have sex outside of marriage, they can.

And, if they want to have a child with someone other than the partner they are married to, they can - and the presumption of paternity can be easily overridden.

There are no contradictions.

 

According to Jack in the Box, it is really a marriage if a man marries bacon....


And franky that is as cogent argument as anything the OP said.

 

Coy???? No, simply presuming that you can remember what you have said.

 

Dixon will always focus on what he perceives to be the technicalities of the dialogue in order to confound you and divert attention away from the real point. It makes him feel smart.

 

Great, now look 3 lines below the line of mine that you quoted and you'll see my response...

And the issue is that when you do something like this, I (we), have to go back and figure out exactly which quote or assertion you're being critical of, as there are often many made. It's helpful to be more direct.

 

depends what the age of consent is in the state they are getting married. 16 is the legal age of consent in a handful of states.

 

LOLOLOL!!! Great, you provide a "response to your own statements.

Thats nice. I never claimed the law was a dictionary.

 

You've obviously lost track of the conversation. let me help you bring it back in order:

Me:

You:

I then went on to say:

And then, despite my having found my own quote that you said I had made a contradiction with, and then going on to explain why it was not a contradiction, you ignored this part and went on to tell me the quote that I had made a contradiction with... without having addressed my response to it.

I then informed you to re-check my previous point, as I had already addressed your claim that there was no contradiction made with my quote

And here you are, accusing me of doing something odd like "responding to my own statements", when I was only responding to you saying I had made a contradiction with the statement.

That bring everything back in line for you?

 

That woud be like a Conservative man marrying a female RINO. Just won't work. In this case opposites are not attracted to one another.

 

If I really focus and worship a turnip does that make it a religion?

Can we get a biologist or a chemist here to explain the scientific origins of marriage? Hello?