[Craig] If the sole intent were to prevent certain marriages, yes. But there is also the motive of preserving an already existing institution.
[Arlo] This again, I don't understand, as the same argument could've been made (and was made) against "inter-race marriage". People argued that allowing mixed-race marriages would destroy the institution of marriage. Here's a strange case, and its always (for me) the oddities that define the situation clearer than the un-odd. True story, from Maury or one of those shows, forget exactly. A man and a woman got married, man comes to realize he is not a "man", but a woman trapped in a male body, a transgender, has an operation to become "female", his "wife" still loves "her/him" and decides to stick by "her" as a lesbian lover. Question. Are they still married? Does the state nullify the marriage if the man "loses" his male parts? Does the state nullify the marriage when the "man" adopts the persona of a "female"? Does the state allow these two female lesbians to remain married because once-upon-a-time one of them had a penis? Your thoughts? [Craig] It's not the extra work, but the likely hood that lawyers will screw it up, that I'm leary of. The practical consequences, not just the theoretical argument, are involved in what makes something moral or immoral. [Arlo] So back before the federal government proclaimed that all the states had to recognize inter-racial marriages, you would've used this same argument? Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
