[Secret Squirrel]

if laws aren't based in some ethic or code, then legislation would be rather arbitrary, or at least passed according only to who's in congress

I'm not disagreeing. It seems rather arbitrary anyway.

(Humor jab starts here) Yeah, the ethics and codes that are followed by congress now are so high and beyond reproach....(/Humor jab)

it's a frikkin campfire i tell ya

Every day I eat s'mores.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I am guessing that this is an opening of Pandora's Box. It is not simply allowing a same sex union, as this creates a slippery slope. Sodomy laws are affected, and to what degree? In that vein, marriage between a 10 year old girl and a 50 year old man could be argued. So, while the opinion may have religious connotations, the slippery slope effect has larger implications that fall far beyond same sex unions.

Whoa. The slippery slope argument is going just a wee bit too far. We have other laws that affect whether a 10 yr old boy or girl can wed, and those laws were put into effect to protect children from predatory adults. That is a compelling reason for the state to continue to outlaw that sort of union.

Law is essentially a social contract we all subscribe to for protection of our society as a whole. In this agreement to follow laws, we as a people inherently give up certain rights to maintain the better will of our society; therefore we can conclude that law is a social contract between individuals and society.

Well said. Most of the freedoms we give up though are for the express purpose of not denying other people's freedoms. For instance, I can't kill someone because that inhibits their rights. By the same token, I can't yell, "Fire," in a crowded theater because I would be putting others in jeopardy. Gay marriage does neither of these.

The social aspect of laws, more especially in the United States, since its founding, was all religiously driven, henceforth the formation of our country. To research through out history, most all societies have laws derived from basic religious beliefs, from Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Muslimism and Taoism to name a few of the biggies. So while our particular matter may be driven by Christianity and Judaism, many other societies have similar laws based on different theoretical religious beliefs and deities.

Our code of laws draws upon many different sources from the Code of Hammurabi to the Magna Carta and many other sources. Some laws are strictly religiously derived (i.e. blue laws) and I do believe that those should be scrapped. Other laws, like the prohibition on murder, are not and can certainly be said to serve a secular purpose.

 

[SK6]

Why would it do that? I just quit reading. Your imaginary friend doesn't like gays. That's not a good reason for legislation, sorry. He doesn't like shellfish or heterosexual adulterers, and until you're out there pounding the pavement for the death penalty for adultery, you're either ignorant of the details of your own religion or you're using it to attempt to hide the fact that you're a bigot.

It should be pointed out that I don't necessarily think you're a bigot. Most Christians know very little about the bible...

Please clarify your comments, as they do not make any sense to me. No one said if someone doesn't like gays, there should be no gay marriage. That was never said, nor was it implied. I have gay friends, and yet I am against same sex unions. The verbiage of the Virginia legislation is poorly worded, therefore I would vote no, based on that alone. Again, Christians are NOT the only religion that is anti same sex union. To say MOST Christians know very little about the bible is a very week argument based solely on your immediate sphere of influence or social observations, whether in person or in the press. Christians are such an easy target. However, stereotyping does not help once stance or opinion, and this is certainly the argumentation used to advance the pro-union position.

If an individual is a Christian, and is against same sex marriages, and homosexuality, does not make them a bigot. However, that argument is used frequently, because that is a great way to cover up a weak or invalid assertion and advancement of a principle. By used frequently, I mean that in a generalization in logical argumentation. That commentary therefore implies that everyone who takes an opposite stance to a subject or individual makes them a bigot.

This form of argumentation is seen by the right wing and left wing extremist groups. Impartiality is difficult to maintain when one feels passionately about a subject matter, thereby removing any logical debate or advancement of an idea or assertion.

And no, I didn't take your comment that I was a bigot as such.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

on this topic, i always have 2 standing questions for the proponents of same-sex marriage:

1: if a law being put to vote (by either the state congress or voters) is flawed due to its roots in religion, shall we then abolish (or at least re-write) all such laws?

Yes. The state does not have the ability to impose religious sensibilities on me.

2: inter-familial marriage has a richer history throughout civilization; this is a precedent still alive today. shall we reinstate this first by incrementally repealing various lineal consanguinity laws before we consider setting a u.s. legal precedent?

It's usually the opponents of same-sex marriage that trot out the tradition argument. I know of no proponents of same-sex marriage that are pushing for inter-familial marriage. Even if they were, the state does have an interest (secular) in prohibiting this type of marriage as the off-spring has a much higher chance of genetic deformities.

Let me ask you a question now.

What non-religious, compelling reason is there to deny same-sex marriage. Really, my argument is that it should be allowed unless there is some reason not to allow it. The burden of proof really should lie on those who would restrict freedoms, not on those who would allow more freedom.

 

[SK6]

Whoa. The slippery slope argument is going just a wee bit too far. We have other laws that affect whether a 10 yr old boy or girl can wed, and those laws were put into effect to protect children from predatory adults. That is a compelling reason for the state to continue to outlaw that sort of union.

Sadly, no it is not going too far, because, it opens the door to make more, or create more arguments to amend what a marriage is. This in essence is a great example of slippery slope.

Again, the assumption that predatory laws would be invalidated is not truly relevant; take for example arranged marriages in different religions. Of course the Mormons would have a field day with the marriage argument. As a side note, some of the FBI's most wanted would no longer be fugitives, because polygamy could be legalized. So the slippery slope can take on many derivatives of the discussed issue.

For the record, I AM NOT a proponent of the aforementioned argument; however I use it as a very real example of what could happen.

 

[SK6]

What non-religious, compelling reason is there to deny same-sex marriage. Really, my argument is that it should be allowed unless there is some reason not to allow it. The burden of proof really should lie on those who would restrict freedoms, not on those who would allow more freedom.

Great question! Now thats a great way to continue a debate!

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Please clarify your comments, as they do not make any sense to me. No one said if someone doesn't like gays, there should be no gay marriage. That was never said, nor was it implied. I have gay friends, and yet I am against same sex unions. The verbiage of the Virginia legislation is poorly worded, therefore I would vote no, based on that alone. Again, Christians are NOT the only religion that is anti same sex union. To say MOST Christians know very little about the bible is a very week argument based solely on your immediate sphere of influence or social observations, whether in person or in the press. Christians are such an easy target. However, stereotyping does not help once stance or opinion, and this is certainly the argumentation used to advance the pro-union position.

If an individual is a Christian, and is against same sex marriages, and homosexuality, does not make them a bigot. However, that argument is used frequently, because that is a great way to cover up a weak or invalid assertion and advancement of a principle. By used frequently, I mean that in a generalization in logical argumentation. That commentary therefore implies that everyone who takes an opposite stance to a subject or individual makes them a bigot.

This form of argumentation is seen by the right wing and left wing extremist groups. Impartiality is difficult to maintain when one feels passionately about a subject matter, thereby removing any logical debate or advancement of an idea or assertion.

And no, I didn't take your comment that I was a bigot as such.

big·ot (bgt)
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

I'd have to say that if people are against gay marriage and against homosexuality as a whole ARE, by definition, bigots. You can sugar coat it all you want, but once you (and by "you", I don't mean anyone in particular) denounce a lifestyle as a whole, that's the only word that applies.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Sadly, no it is not going too far, because, it opens the door to make more, or create more arguments to amend what a marriage is. This in essence is a great example of slippery slope.

Again, the assumption that predatory laws would be invalidated is not truly relevant; take for example arranged marriages in different religions. Of course the Mormons would have a field day with the marriage argument. As a side note, some of the FBI's most wanted would no longer be fugitives, because polygamy could be legalized. So the slippery slope can take on many derivatives of the discussed issue.

But, my argument is that there are compelling reasons to make those restrictions. Underage marriage and polygamy can both be said to be outlawed in order to protect those who are forced into such arrangements. That is why the slippery slope argument doesn't work here. Yes, the Mormons (some of them anyway) would push for a law overturning the ban on polygamy, but we can also point to a legitimate reason to not allow that. If there were a legitimate reason not to allow same-sex marriage then I would like to hear it.

For the record, I don't think the argument that other groups will try to legitimize other forms of marriage is a legitimate argument, because by that logic we could outlaw the marriages that we have and say that they led down the slippery slope to gays wanting marriage, which leads further down the slope to polygamy, etc.

 

[SK6]

That would make everyone not Christian here a bigot. so, in essence and by definition, we are all bigots. I wanted to actually say that but I thought the sh!tstorm would be too much! LOL!!!

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Great question! Now thats a great way to continue a debate!

I stand by it though that I think the burden of proof lies on those who would bar same-sex marriage. I think it should be allowed unless we can find a compelling reason not to allow it.

 

[SK6]

But, my argument is that there are compelling reasons to make those restrictions. Underage marriage and polygamy can both be said to be outlawed in order to protect those who are forced into such arrangements. That is why the slippery slope argument doesn't work here. Yes, the Mormons (some of them anyway) would push for a law overturning the ban on polygamy, but we can also point to a legitimate reason to not allow that. If there were a legitimate reason not to allow same-sex marriage then I would like to hear it.

For the record, I don't think the argument that other groups will try to legitimize other forms of marriage is a legitimate argument, because by that logic we could outlaw the marriages that we have and say that they led down the slippery slope to gays wanting marriage, which leads further down the slope to polygamy, etc.

I see your reasoning, however, historically; this is usually how it begins. One group wants legislation to legalize same sex unions, which many people right now deem wrong. Now let’s say the same sex unions become legal and recognized, what separates them from arranged marriages? Isn’t that the State involving itself with religious beliefs? Where is the separation of church and state? It seems to me that what’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander mentality. The same applies to Mormonism.

This reasoning invalidates the same sex marriage argument. It’s kind of like you can’t have one without the other. Because if you do, then it would indicate selective reasoning based on ones own personal beliefs, and then the debate begins from scratch.

Do you see what I’m saying? I know you may disagree with it, but can you see what I mean by the slippery slope argument?

 

[SK6]

I stand by it though that I think the burden of proof lies on those who would bar same-sex marriage. I think it should be allowed unless we can find a compelling reason not to allow it.

However, as it stands, to remove the existing laws and beliefs, are where the burden of proof lies.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I see your reasoning, however, historically; this is usually how it begins. One group wants legislation to legalize same sex unions, which many people right now deem wrong. Now let’s say the same sex unions become legal and recognized, what separates them from arranged marriages? Isn’t that the State involving itself with religious beliefs? Where is the separation of church and state? It seems to me that what’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander mentality. The same applies to Mormonism.

This reasoning invalidates the same sex marriage argument. It’s kind of like you can’t have one without the other. Because if you do, then it would indicate selective reasoning based on ones own personal beliefs, and then the debate begins from scratch.

Do you see what I’m saying? I know you may disagree with it, but can you see what I mean by the slippery slope argument?

And, like I said, we should outlaw hetero marriage, because without that we won't have people pushing for gay marriage. That's the problem with the slippery slope. You're stopped somewhere on that slope and it's just as easy to argue that where you are stopped is leading us further down the slope.

But, it doesn't invalidate the same-sex argument anyway. As I said, there are secular reasons for restricting certain types of contracts. For instance, we restrict contracts that are made under duress.

And, who said arranged marriages are illegal? I know of no statutes that say that. As long as the arrangees (is that a word?) are one man and one woman, what does the current law care? Unless one of the people getting married indicates that it is happening against their will, the state doesn't care.

 

[$tinkle]

I know of no proponents of same-sex marriage that are pushing for inter-familial marriage.

nor do i think one would find any if they looked for good reason: it's not their concern. however, there are those fringe groups who argue to abolish all marriage laws, or at least re-write them to be merely "contracts" between interested parties

Even if they were, the state does have an interest (secular) in prohibiting this type of marriage as the off-spring has a much higher chance of genetic deformities.

so by this, the state should have an interest in preventing non-related couples from spawning who are at some arbitrary level of risk to procreate a burden on the state.

incest is defined more broadly than bloodline; adopted siblings or other family members-by-marriage are prevented from marrying each other irrespective of their abilities to pro-create (i.e., granny & her brother cannot marry past birthin' age). there is no sound genetic argument, but rather a societal one.

Let me ask you a question now.

What non-religious, compelling reason is there to deny same-sex marriage. Really, my argument is that it should be allowed unless there is some reason not to allow it. The burden of proof really should lie on those who would restrict freedoms, not on those who would allow more freedom.

compelling is in the eye of the reader.
i will certainly agree with you & dismiss out of hand religious beliefs, as differently sexed unbelievers (or "incorrectly believing" if you like) marry & the pious don't blink.

but taking your lead: if we (as a society) are to restrict plural marriage tween consenting adults, or inter-family marriage tween consenting adults (who pass genetic screening, say), what shall the compelling argument be? we cannot claim "legal precedent" and have the irony missed of abolishing interracial marriage.

the libertarian argument of "consenting adults", while appealing to our individual liberties, is not comprehensive enough. would you agree to this?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

However, as it stands, to remove the existing laws and beliefs, are where the burden of proof lies.

And, my reason for removing it is that there are no secular reasons for having it. Thus, my first amendment rights are violated by the existing laws. I should have the right to marry another man if I so choose without someone else's religion legally barring me from doing so.

Ball's in your court now. You can debate this reasoning, or you can give me some sort of secular reason.

 

[$tinkle]

big·ot (bgt)
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

I'd have to say that if people are against gay marriage and against homosexuality as a whole ARE, by definition, bigots. You can sugar coat it all you want, but once you (and by "you", I don't mean anyone in particular) denounce a lifestyle as a whole, that's the only word that applies.

i'm a bigot against polygamy, incest, and non-consensual (arranged) marriages for my own religious & political reasons. in fact, i am intolerant to those who differ. and yes, i realize my faith is replete with occurrances of all three flavors of these marriages in its past

no, i won't apologize for this position.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

nor do i think one would find any if they looked for good reason: it's not their concern. however, there are those fringe groups who argue to abolish all marriage laws, or at least re-write them to be merely "contracts" between interested parties

From the state's standpoint, that's exactly what they are, and there are restrictions on who may or may not enter into certain types of contracts. Being gay, however, doesn't seem to me to be a good restriction.

so by this, the state should have an interest in preventing non-related couples from spawning who are at some arbitrary level of risk to procreate a burden on the state.

incest is defined more broadly than bloodline; adopted siblings or other family members-by-marriage are prevented from marrying each other irrespective of their abilities to pro-create (i.e., granny & her brother cannot marry past birthin' age). there is no sound genetic argument, but rather a societal one.

I am open to more freedom in principle. If there is a compelling reason to deny certain marriages, then so be it, but if not then let people be. When it comes to brother/sister, incest-type relationships, however, there is usually an element of abuse intertwined in it, and it is a compelling reason to stop the cycle of abuse.

compelling is in the eye of the reader.
i will certainly agree with you & dismiss out of hand religious beliefs, as differently sexed unbelievers (or "incorrectly believing" if you like) marry & the pious don't blink.

So, your non religious reason is?

but taking your lead: if we (as a society) are to restrict plural marriage tween consenting adults, or inter-family marriage tween consenting adults (who pass genetic screening, say), what shall the compelling argument be? we cannot claim "legal precedent" and have the irony missed of abolishing interracial marriage.

the libertarian argument of "consenting adults", while appealing to our individual liberties, is not comprehensive enough. would you agree to this?

The compelling arguments are the ones I've been spelling out in other comments. Polygamous and incestual relationships are outlawed as protection for those who are victimized by being forced into such relationships.

 

[$tinkle]

Being gay, however, doesn't seem to me to be a good restriction.

ok, meet you half-way on this: what if they agree that one party must get a butch haircut.

if there's one thing that disturbs me is straight couples that have the same haircut. if ever there were an "ick" test for gay marriage, this would be the trial balloon floated.

When it comes to brother/sister, incest-type relationships, however, there is usually an element of abuse intertwined in it, and it is a compelling reason to stop the cycle of abuse.

one man's abuse is burly's target-rich environment. (yet another x-post reference)

So, your non religious reason [to deny same-sex marriage] is?

the usual "fabric of our society", "tradition", "<insert hand-waving here>"

but seriously, if marriage were relegated to "notarized dating", how many people would come to one of your 20 marriages? how happy for someone could you be if they announce they are to be married? maybe no more than if they were shacked up. admitedly, this is speculative, but this is part of due diligence.

this is not to imply american marriages are the pinnacle in moral convenants, but why redefine it at a time when what it really needs is mending?

 

[Silver]

Please clarify your comments, as they do not make any sense to me. No one said if someone doesn't like gays, there should be no gay marriage. That was never said, nor was it implied. I have gay friends, and yet I am against same sex unions. The verbiage of the Virginia legislation is poorly worded, therefore I would vote no, based on that alone. Again, Christians are NOT the only religion that is anti same sex union. To say MOST Christians know very little about the bible is a very week argument based solely on your immediate sphere of influence or social observations, whether in person or in the press. Christians are such an easy target.

As soon as you said it was biblically a fact, I stopped reading. That's what I do when someone starts off with the really big (and really lazy) argument from authority.

The fact that Muslims are against same sex marriage is irrelevant, for the same invisible friend reason. And please don't do the "Christians are such an easy target" whine. It's patently false, and if Jesus existed I'm sure he'd be more than a little pissed off. You're hardly persecuted in this country (and no, not being able to force religious beliefs on others doesn't count as persecution.)

(One thing to clarify: When you say you're against gay marriage, do you mean that you wouldn't do it yourself, or do you think that no one should be allowed to? If it's merely the first, you have my apologies.)

Most Christians know very little about the Bible. I'm not the only one to make this claim, I know for a fact AndyMan has made it before, and it looks like even $tinkle agrees with me on that. I'm hardly speaking from a position of ignorance on the Bible (and especially on Calvinist theology), for what it's worth.

 

[Silver]

and yes, i realize my faith is replete with occurrances of all three flavors of these marriages in its past

no, i won't apologize for this position.

You're a professed monotheist who believes (I assume?) in the Trinity. If you're comfortable with that doozy, this is pretty minor. I wouldn't worry about it :biggrin:

 

[Secret Squirrel]

i'm a bigot against polygamy, incest, and non-consensual (arranged) marriages for my own religious & political reasons. in fact, i am intolerant to those who differ. and yes, i realize my faith is replete with occurrances of all three flavors of these marriages in its past

no, i won't apologize for this position.

I'm not asking for an apology, nor do I apologize for my bigotry on those aforementioned topics. I was merely pointing out the definition.

On a lighter note, I'm grown apethetic in the last few hours and no longer give a rat's ass. I guess the commies won.

GATTACA!!! GATTACA!!! GATTACA!!!

 

[Old Man G Funk]

but seriously, if marriage were relegated to "notarized dating", how many people would come to one of your 20 marriages? how happy for someone could you be if they announce they are to be married? maybe no more than if they were shacked up. admitedly, this is speculative, but this is part of due diligence.

Why would I all of a sudden have 20 marriages? Marriage wouldn't change, it would simply be available to others.

this is not to imply american marriages are the pinnacle in moral convenants, but why redefine it at a time when what it really needs is mending?

Divorce rates are sky high, this much is true. But, there is no reason why allowing same-sex marriage would either be harmful or would inhibit mending the process.

 

[ohio]

Now let’s say the same sex unions become legal and recognized, what separates them from arranged marriages?

Arranged marriages are not only legal, they're relatively common.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Arranged marriages are not only legal, they're relatively common.

As long as they are one man one woman at least.

 

[Transcend]

That SK6 quote doesn't even make any damn sense.

 

[ohio]

As long as they are one man one woman at least.

I tried to arrange a marriage between a carpenter ant and a slug once.

Didn't work out so well. In the end I had no choice but to pour salt on the mess that was their failed marriage and then try to light them on fire with a magnifying glass.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Well, lets have a look around the world and see which other governments allow gay marriages...

When we find that its just NZ and probably the Nederlands and maybe a few others, we can make the decision that human beings simply dont like mustache on mustache love.

Even tho some people like to drink their own urine, its not socially accepted. I highly doubt we'll see any urine fountains in public parks until the world decides thats acceptable.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I tried to arrange a marriage between a carpenter ant and a slug once.

Didn't work out so well. In the end I had no choice but to pour salt on the mess that was their failed marriage and then try to light them on fire with a magnifying glass.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Well, lets have a look around the world and see which other governments allow gay marriages...

When we find that its just NZ and probably the Nederlands and maybe a few others, we can make the decision that human beings simply dont like mustache on mustache love.

Even tho some people like to drink their own urine, its not socially accepted. I highly doubt we'll see any urine fountains in public parks until the world decides thats acceptable.

Wow. It took you this long to figure out there was a thread where you could show up and fling some poo?

All I'll say is that it's not about popular opinion polls, but about rights.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Wow. It took you this long to figure out there was a thread where you could show up and fling some poo?

All I'll say is that it's not about popular opinion polls, but about rights.

So urine fountains should be installed so as not to alienate urine lovers?

 

[Slugman]

So urine fountains should be installed so as not to alienate urine lovers?

So where is the bill that will promote gay sex in public places? Because that is the equivalent to your brilliant example.

Just because something is allowed, does not mean that you have to promote it.

BTW - Is there any law in your area against drinking urine? Seriously... because I would never have thought such a law would be necessary - and I wonder if there is anything like that out here.

 

[BurlyShirley]

So where is the bill that will promote gay sex in public places? Because that is the equivalent to your brilliant example.

Just because something is allowed, does not mean that you have to promote it.

BTW - Is there any law in your area against drinking urine? Seriously... because I would never have thought such a law would be necessary - and I wonder if there is anything like that out here.

This has nothing to do with gay sex in public. It has to do with human nature. Most dudes like chicks. Most folks prefer water to urine. True, there's some folks out there that prefer otherwise to both, but there's no reason to change the entire world to accomodate their "way of life". Why are you so supportive of gay lovers as opposed to urine drinkers? Urine is sterile and some studies show it may even be healthful to drink in small amounts.

If you're so "open minded" then you theoretically should support urine fountains next to water fountains, no? Or is there some minimum number that has to be met before its a proper minority in your eyes?

 

[Secret Squirrel]

This has nothing to do with gay sex in public. It has to do with human nature. Most dudes like chicks. Most folks prefer water to urine. True, there's some folks out there that prefer otherwise to both, but there's no reason to change the entire world to accomodate their "way of life". Why are you so supportive of gay lovers as opposed to urine drinkers? Urine is sterile and some studies show it may even be healthful to drink in small amounts.

If you're so "open minded" then you theoretically should support urine fountains next to water fountains, no? Or is there some minimum number that has to be met before its a proper minority in your eyes?

Thank you, Adolf.....

What a lot of people lose on this subject is perspective. Why was slavery ended....why isn't radium used as a watch luminescent anymore....

C'mon, put a little thought into it....it's not freakin' rocket science.

Whatev....I'm done for good now.

 

[$tinkle]

If you're so "open minded" then you theoretically should support urine fountains next to water fountains, no? Or is there some minimum number that has to be met before its a proper minority in your eyes?

the problem with this is "separate but equal", which is a no-no. there should be 1 water fountain, which offers watered-down urine.

there.

 

[Westy]

Burley's urine analogy is stupid, comparing apples to oranges. The government offers benefits and protections to married couples, if they do so they should not be allowed to discriminate according to sex, same different or otherwise. Quite frankly I see marriage itself as a religious concept and should be ignored by the government altogether..

 

[BurlyShirley]

Burley's urine analogy is stupid, comparing apples to oranges. The government offers benefits and protections to married couples, if they do so they should not be allowed to discriminate according to sex, same different or otherwise. Quite frankly I see marriage itself as a religious concept and should be ignored by the government altogether..

Agreed on the second half, but the govt. currently offers water fountains to "straight" water drinkers. Its effectively the same thing.

 

[$tinkle]

Burley's urine analogy is stupid, comparing apples to oranges.

i can get water from urine, but cannot get an apple from an orange.

i would piss you a venn diagram in the snow, but it's too warm.

 

[Slugman]

<snip>True, there's some folks out there that prefer otherwise to both, but there's no reason to change the entire world to accomodate their "way of life".

Then why change the laws to prevent it?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Then why change the laws to prevent it?

Its obviously just to pre-empt laws in support.

 

[Westy]

Agreed on the second half, but the govt. currently offers water fountains to "straight" water drinkers. Its effectively the same thing.

But there is a need for the government to offer water fountains. Water drinkers and urine drinkers need it to survive. There isn't a basic human need for marriage.