|
| Thread: Legal and Financial Benefits of Marriage Should be Removed |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted September 25, 2009 08:31 AM |
|
|
|
Nah, it makes no sense to make exceptions. If you want to reserve the word "marriage" for a specific kind of union than the state, who is only concerned about the LEGAL and ECONOMIC part (and not about any spiritual, moral or religious part), than the state is to find a new word for the whole of legally accepted unions, which marriages are just a part of.
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 25, 2009 06:48 PM |
|
|
If we went by all the definitions used by the Founding Fathers, Black people would still be private property and Asians wouldn't be allowed to own land...
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 25, 2009 09:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If we went by all the definitions used by the Founding Fathers, Black people would still be private property and Asians wouldn't be allowed to own land...
What a tired old leftist argument. Let me fill you in on some facts your leftist indoctrination did not give you.
1) The US did not invent slavery.
2) White people did not invent slavery as far as we know.
3) Europeans brought slaves into America.
4) "American Indians" had slaves before the "white man" arrived.
5) Slavery existed in Africa before the Europeans arrived.
6) Some African tribes sold others into slavery to the Europeans.
7) Slavery still exists in Africa today.
8) Many of the founding fathers worked to end slavery.
9) Slavery has existed for all of recorded history.
10) Some blacks bought slaves when they became freemen in America.
The fact is the US founding fathers establsihed the greatest nation on earth from which freedom has flowed out to the world.
Anyone who thinks the founding fathers were "evil white European males" is a moron. Unfortunately many have been indoctrinated into such foolish ideas by socialists attempting to undermine freedom. I'm not saying you hold to that view by the way, just making an observation.
Congratulations on your attempt to confuse the issue. The institution of slavery, that has existed for the known history of mankind has not the slightest thing to do with the institution of marriage.
There is no reason for the government to stop recognizing marriage, that has been recognized for the entire history of the country. Nor is their reason for the government to redefine it. Civil unions with identical rights to marriage are sufficient to protect gay rights.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 25, 2009 09:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Anyone who thinks the founding fathers were "evil white European males" is a moron.
That's because you have a weird definition of evil. Colonization was evil, no matter how much they thought "bring democracy and crap" to people was good, after all it was THEIR belief (but man, they didn't even do it for bringing "freedom"...  ).
Just let me ask you something, how is a "evil white European male" imposing his principles (aka "freedom" and "democracy" or whatever) on the native americans different from the STATE imposing its principles on YOU?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 25, 2009 10:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Let me fill you in on some facts your leftist indoctrination did not give you. *major snip*
I've always had the nagging feeling that I've seen Elodin's brand of logic somewhere else before, but I could never put my finger on where... until now, that is.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 26, 2009 01:21 AM |
|
Edited by Shyranis at 01:22, 26 Sep 2009.
|
What a tired old praranoid argument. "Let me fill you in on some facts your one party indoctrination did not give you."
Quote:
1) The US did not invent slavery.
Duh... anybody in grade 4 at the minumum generally knows that Slavery has been around nearly as long as the human race and has been a practice in ancient Babylon, Egypt and Greece among other less notables.
Quote:
2) White people did not invent slavery as far as we know.
Again... duh. Read the above sentence. You're trying to put words in my mouth and make it sound like I'm saying something I'm not.
Quote:
3) Europeans brought slaves into America.
Again, we all know this. Particularly the Spanish, who were some of the last Europeans to abolish Slavery.
Quote:
4) "American Indians" had slaves before the "white man" arrived.
Not all of them. They are very distinct cultures and many of them did not practice Slavery. You're still changing the subject. My point was if we went on all the intentions the country was founded on there wouldn't have been any point for removing Slavery. The Republicans you know used to be the "Liberals", but have certainly lost their way. If Norway were true to its roots, they'd still be raiding England, France and Germany for gold and wenches. England would still be trying to control an Empire over the entire world.
Quote:
5) Slavery existed in Africa before the Europeans arrived.
Still pedaling around confronting my point directly. Anybody with a modicum of education knows this. Some of the slaves sold to be brought to North America were even bought from rival tribes.
Quote:
6) Some African tribes sold others into slavery to the Europeans.
Wow... you can tell I'm not reading all of your points before I respond. I just find it incredible that somebody could honestly think that such facts weren't taught in schools. What is the world coming to?
Quote:
7) Slavery still exists in Africa today.
And in various other parts of the world. But it's being beaten out where countries modernize... mostly. Again... why would you think I hadn't learned this? Why are you beating around the bush?
Quote:
8) Many of the founding fathers worked to end slavery.
Yes, but some worked much harder to keep it. Hence why it wasn't outlawed. If we still went by those laws and the line of thinking tht they had then, today America would be one of the least free nations in the West.
Quote:
9) Slavery has existed for all of recorded history.Quote:
I said that in several points. Were you home schooled BTW? Nothing wrong with it in most cases, but sometimes parents choose to indoctrinate their Children into thinking other places don't teach simple 4th grade history. Then again, most people overall aren't smarter than a 5th grader.
Quote:
10) Some blacks bought slaves when they became freemen in America.
It didn't stop people from capturing free blacks and selling them back as "escaped slaves" but yes, that was taught as well. What else were you not taught, that people can think for themselves and ultimately make their own decisions based on their own views?
Quote:
The fact is the US founding fathers establsihed the greatest nation on earth from which freedom has flowed out to the world.
One of the, not necessarily the greatest. It is of course, all opinion and entirely semantics. I'd say America is certainly in the very top. It could do more for it's own people though.
Quote:
Anyone who thinks the founding fathers were "evil white European males" is a moron. Unfortunately many have been indoctrinated into such foolish ideas by socialists attempting to undermine freedom. I'm not saying you hold to that view by the way, just making an observation.
You've already accused me of being indoctrinated, and of being Liberal (which BTW, anybody who values Liberty is, even Conservatives, they are not exclusive).
Quote:
Congratulations on your attempt to confuse the issue. The institution of slavery, that has existed for the known history of mankind has not the slightest thing to do with the institution of marriage.
I was speaking about some of the draconian laws and viewpoints of a majority of the founding fathers. You're throwing off the issue by accusing me of being
Quote:
There is no reason for the government to stop recognizing marriage, that has been recognized for the entire history of the country. Nor is their reason for the government to redefine it. Civil unions with identical rights to marriage are sufficient to protect gay rights.
The government doesn't redefine it by accepting that gays can marry each other. It didn't redefine freedom when it liberated the slaves, merely accepted the community into a world they were denied without changing what it was. Marriage has existed as long as Slavery, before recorded history.
edit: fixed a typo of mine. spelled own as pwn
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 26, 2009 04:09 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 04:11, 26 Sep 2009.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Let me fill you in on some facts your leftist indoctrination did not give you. *major snip*
I've always had the nagging feeling that I've seen Elodin's brand of logic somewhere else before, but I could never put my finger on where... until now, that is.
I notice you could not refute my logic, only cast insults at me as you have done in the past.
Quote:
The government doesn't redefine it by accepting that gays can marry each other.
Sure it does because for all of the history of the US marriage has been one man and one woman. Gay sex was specifically outlawed by the founding fathers so there is no right to gay "marriage" in the Constitution.
Clicky
Quote:
One of the most frequent tactics employed to discredit America's Founding Fathers is to say that the Founding Fathers were all pro-slavery racists and hypocrites. Therefore, why should we care what their views were on any subject? African-American professor Walter Williams wisely explained the use of this tactic in these words:
“Politicians, news media, college professors and leftists of other stripes are selling us lies and propaganda. To lay the groundwork for their increasingly successful attack on our Constitution, they must demean and criticize its authors. As Senator Joe Biden demonstrated during the Clarence Thomas hearings, the framers' ideas about natural law must be trivialized or they must be seen as racists.”
These people paint a false picture of the Founding Fathers and the issue of slavery. The historical fact is that slavery was not the product of, nor was it an evil introduced by the Founders; slavery was introduced in America nearly two centuries before the Founders. In fact, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay noted that there had been few serious efforts to dismantle the institution of slavery prior to the Founding Fathers.
The Revolution was a turning point in the national attitude against slavery - and it was the Founders who contributed greatly to that change. In fact, one of the reasons given by Thomas Jefferson for the separation from Great Britain was a desire to rid America of the evil of slavery imposed on them by the British.
Benjamin Franklin explained that this separation from Britain was necessary since every attempt among the Colonies to end slavery had been thwarted or reversed by the British Crown. In fact, in the years following America's separation from Great Britain, many of the Founding Fathers who had owned slaves released them (e.g., John Dickinson, Ceasar Rodney, William Livingston, George Washington, George Wythe, John Randolph, and others).
It is true, however, that not all of the Founders from the South opposed slavery. According to the testimony of Thomas Jefferson, John Rutledge, and James Madison, those from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia favored slavery.
Nevertheless, despite the support in those states for slavery, the clear majority of the Founders was opposed to this evil--and their support went beyond words.
For example, in 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America's first antislavery society; John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. When Constitution signer William Livingston heard of the New York society, he, as Governor of New Jersey, wrote them, offering:
“I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the society in New York] and... I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity... May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke.”
Other prominent Founding Fathers who were members of societies for ending slavery included Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, and many more.
In fact, based in part on the efforts of these Founders, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts abolished slavery in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island did so in 1784; New Hampshire in 1792; Vermont in 1793; New York in 1799; and New Jersey in 1804. Furthermore, the reason that the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery was a federal act authored by Rufus King (signer of the Constitution) and signed into law by President George Washington which prohibited slavery in those territories.
It is not surprising that Washington would sign such a law, for it was he who had declared:
“I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].”
-George Washington
Notice a few additional examples of the Founder's strong antislavery sentiments:
"[M]y opinion against it [slavery] has always been known... [N]ever in my life did I own a slave."
-John Adams, Signer of the Declaration of Independence and U.S. President. The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1854), vol IX pp. 92-93. In a letter to George Churchman and Jacob Lindley on January 24, 1801.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"[W]hy keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil."
-Charles Carroll, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Kate Mason Rowland, Life and Correspondence of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York and London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1898), Vol. II, pg. 231.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"As Congress is now to legislate for our extensive territory lately acquired, I pray to Heaven that they ...[c]urse not the inhabitants of those regions, and of the United States in general, with a permission to introduce bondage [slavery]."
-John Dickinson, Signer of the Constitution and Governor of Pennsylvania. Charles J. Stille, The Life and Times of John Dickinson (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1898) p. 324.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent as well as unjust and perhaps impious part."
-John Jay, President of Continental Congress, Chief-Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Governor of New York. Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York and London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1891), Vol. III, pp. 168-169. In a letter to Dr. Richard Price on Sep. 27, 1785.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us who profess the same religion practice its precepts... by agreeing to this duty."
-Richard Henry Lee, President of Continental Congress and Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Memoir of the Life of Richard Henry Lee and His Correspondence With the Most Distinguised Men in America and Europe (Philadelphia: H.C. Carey and I. Lea, 1825), Vol. I, pp. 17-19. The first speech of Richard Henry Lee in the House of Burgesses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"t ought to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master."
-Luther Martin, Constitutional Convention Delegate. James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. III, pg. 211.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity... It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men."
-Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Minutes of the Proceedings of a Convention of Delegates From the Abolition Societies Established in Different Parts of the United States, Assembled at Philadelphia, on the First Day of January, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety-Four... (Philadelphia: Zachariah Poulson, 1794), p. 24. "To the Citizens of the United States."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law... The reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment of their persons and of their property, the common law protects all."
-James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court Justice. James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson, Robert Green McCloskey, editor (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), Vol. II, pg. 605.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is certainly unlawful to make inroads upon others...and take away their liberty by no better right than superior force."
-John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), p. 81, "Lectures on Moral Philosophy."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numerous similar quotes could be cited.
Yet despite the progress made by many of the Founders to end the institution of slavery and to recognize in practice that "all men are created equal," it is currently charged that in the Constitution, the Founders considered a black to be only three-fifths of a person. This charge is yet another misportrayal of the truth.
The records of the Constitutional Convention make clear that the three-fifths clause was actually an antislavery provision. As Professor Walter Williams explains:
"It was slavery's opponents who succeeded in restricting the political power of the South by allowing them to count only three-fifths of their slave population in determining the number of congressional representatives. The three-fifths of a vote provision applied only to slaves, not to free blacks in either the North or South." (emphasis added)
The three-fifths clause was not a measurement of human worth; it was an attempt to reduce the number of pro-slavery proponents in Congress. By including only three-fifths of the total numbers of slaves into the congressional calculations, Southern states were actually being denied additional pro-slavery representatives in Congress.
While there were a few Founding Fathers who were pro-slavery, the truth is that it was the Founders who were responsible for planting and nurturing the first seeds for the recognition of black equality and for the eventual end of slavery. This is a fact made clear by Richard Allen.
Allen had been a slave in Pennsylvania, but was freed after he converted his master to Christianity. A close friend of Benjamin Rush and several other Founding Fathers, he went on to become the founder of the A.M.E. Church in America. In an early address entitled "To the People of Color," Allen reminded them:
"Many of the white people [who] have been instruments in the hands of God for our good, even such as have held us in captivity, are now pleading our cause with earnestness and zeal."
-Richard Allen
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 26, 2009 05:05 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 05:07, 26 Sep 2009.
|
Quote:
I notice you could not refute my logic, only cast insults at me as you have done in the past.
Elodin, I long ago realized there was no point in refuting any of your gibberish. I read your posts for their entertainment value, and that's about it.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 26, 2009 09:29 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I notice you could not refute my logic, only cast insults at me as you have done in the past.
Elodin, I long ago realized there was no point in refuting any of your gibberish. I read your posts for their entertainment value, and that's about it.
Again, all you have is insults. Your "debate style" seems to be that of Saul Alinsky who says to focus on insulting and ridiculing your opponent rather than addressing his arguments. You try to discredit the person since you can't discredit the arguments.
I addressed your arguments and you are evidently unable to counter the points I made and so chose to make a post (your last two now) that were only personal insults.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 26, 2009 10:06 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You try to discredit the person since you can't discredit the arguments.
you are evidently unable to counter the points I made.
Elodin, that's your problem: what you call "arguments" and "points" is often indeed gibberish. For illustration let's take this "point" of yours:
Quote:
1) The US didn't invent slavery.
That is a point? Al Quaida didn't invent terrorism, nor did any of the murderers currently on death row or life sentence invent murder or killing. What kind of twisted, nonsensical. moronic "logic" woul even MAKE such a "point" - you don't seem to be short on mental capacity, at least that's my impression.
what would you say in court, if the lawyer defended the perp, saying, "Your honour, my client here didn't invent rape, did he?" Would the judge say, "well, in that case your client is free to go home." Or would he even say, "We will consider that as mitigating circumstances"? Nah, not really.
Now, if someone comes up with a point, where it's difficult to see the flaw, ok.
But in this and many other cases, it's just PLAIN, so any arguing about it is completely useless, because you would expect from anyone worth discussing with NOT to come up with such nonsense in the first place.
I may add that you failed to address the main point, though.
Quote:
If you want to reserve the word "marriage" for a specific kind of union than the state, who is only concerned about the LEGAL and ECONOMIC part (and not about any spiritual, moral or religious part), than the state is to find a new word for the whole of legally accepted unions, which marriages are just a part of.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted September 26, 2009 10:47 AM |
|
|
Corribus' long post on page 3 just about said it all, very well as usual. Now me, I don't care if somebody calls it a civil union or Hausenfeper. However, I know it matter to a LOT of people in the LGBT community. So, although I seriously doubt it will make a wit of difference, here we go.
Deffinitions of words evolve all the time. Take the word 'fag' or 'queer'. A fag was a cigarette a LONG time before it was used to describe a homosexual. Queer meant odd or unusual a LONG time before being used to describe a homosexual. What makes 'marriage' so special? Oh I know "Because it is from God". Sorry no. Church and state are SEPERATED, by the very FOUNDING FATHERS, that some people like to bring up. It doesn't matter if 1 or 10000 religions have the same deffinition of marriage, because that is a CHURCH matter not a government matter.
It is time for the definition of marriage to evolve in the Government. Like many other words have evolved. Church and State are seperate, and should remain that way. So it doesn't matter what the church (any church) defines as marriage. Let them change what THEY call it if they object to the same term being used. *shrugs*.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 26, 2009 12:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Elodin, that's your problem: what you call "arguments" and "points" is often indeed gibberish. For illustration let's take this "point" of yours:
I find the vast majority of what you post to be gibberish. Usually, it is just slamming Christianity, America, or capitalism or insulting someone.
Quote:
That is a point?
Yes. Slavery has existed for all of recorded history and was not invented by America. It was furthur introduced into America (sort of, since "Indians" owned slaves too) by Europeans.
So anyone trying to paint the founding fathers as evil is advancing a moronic argument. If you want to advance that argument you would have to say all of humankind for all of recorded history has been evil with the exception of a few individuals. That argument is moronic.
And of course I also listed a number of related points like slavery already existing in Africa when Europeans arrived, Africans selling slaves to Europeans, and freed slaves in America themselves buying slaves.
No, the founding fathers were great men who established the greatest nation on earth from with freedom has flowed to the rest of the world.
Based on your arguments I would say that the Americans cast off the evil the evil Europeans had introduced to America so I would have to say that the Europeans were evil and America cast off that evil.  That is if you insist that America is/was evil because the Europeans had introduced slavery of Africans into America. It took a little time but America cleansed itself of the evils Europe had introduced to America, based on your logic.
Quote:
I may add that you failed to address the main point, though.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to reserve the word "marriage" for a specific kind of union than the state, who is only concerned about the LEGAL and ECONOMIC part (and not about any spiritual, moral or religious part), than the state is to find a new word for the whole of legally accepted unions, which marriages are just a part of.
How exactly did I fail to address that?
America had laws against gay sex, premaritial sex, and adultury so it is impossible marriage was only an economic arrangement.
Marriage in America has always had a strong moral basis and has been defined as one-man and one-woman for the entire history of the nation.
Marriage has a specific historic meaning in the US, just as "dog", "cat", ect does. A civil union will protect gays. The government has no business redefining marriage because a special interest group wants to change what marriage is.
There is also no reason for the government to stop recognizing marriages, which have been recognized for the entire history of the nation.
Quote:
Oh I know "Because it is from God". Sorry no. Church and state are SEPERATED, by the very FOUNDING FATHERS, that some people like to bring up. It doesn't matter if 1 or 10000 religions have the same deffinition of marriage, because that is a CHURCH matter not a government matter.
I have not been advancing religious arguments but I will if you want to go there.
It doesn't matter if one or one-thousand gay couples want to change the definition of "cat", "dog", or marriage. The government has no business doing so.
What the founders said is that the government should keep its nose out of the business of the church. That was the point in Jerrerson's famous (and often misapplied) "wall of separation" letter.
Quote:
So it doesn't matter what the church (any church) defines as marriage. Let them change what THEY call it if they object to the same term being used. *shrugs*.
It doesn't matter what gays define marriage as. Marriage already has a specific meaning in the US. Let gays call their union whaterver thay want (other than marriage, since that is already defined.) I don't care what they call their ceremony. Like I said, I support civil unions. I don't support gays being able to redefine marriage.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted September 26, 2009 12:40 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 12:41, 26 Sep 2009.
|
As I said, words evolve and change meanings all the time, so I fail to see why a single word should be exempt. Without falling back on some religious basis, please logically tell me why it should be exempt? Do I need to get out a dictionary and go through all the words that have added or changed meanings throught history?
So the government needs to change the meaning. Let the churches do what they want, but the meaning of marriage would not change (not really). Because it would still be two people, who really love each other. Remember marriage definition has already changed once, as once pointed out, to fit interracial marriages. So the definition of marriage CAN adapt, and HAS adapted in the US. It is time for it to adapt again. Because deffinitions of words are not sacred or sacrosanct (spelling?). They change all the time.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 26, 2009 02:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As I said, words evolve and change meanings all the time, so I fail to see why a single word should be exempt. Without falling back on some religious basis, please logically tell me why it should be exempt? Do I need to get out a dictionary and go through all the words that have added or changed meanings throught history?
Sure, some words have changed over time, but not at the whim of a government bearurocrat. The word "gay" originally meant happy, then came to mean a person leading an immoral lifestyle, then came to mean male homosexual then came to mean a male or felae homosexual. But the government did not change the meanings. The word began to be used differently by the general population.
Quote:
So the government needs to change the meaning. Let the churches do what they want, but the meaning of marriage would not change (not really). Because it would still be two people, who really love each other. Remember marriage definition has already changed once, as once pointed out, to fit interracial marriages. So the definition of marriage CAN adapt, and HAS adapted in the US. It is time for it to adapt again. Because deffinitions of words are not sacred or sacrosanct (spelling?). They change all the time.
Nah, the government has no authority over the English language. Marriage means a specific thing in the US. One man and one woman.
If the gays want a legally recognized union I have no problem with that. I just don't think they have the right to change the meanings of words or the meanings of historical institutions. NAMBLA wants to change the definition of marriage to include a man and a boy. I don't think that radical gay pedophile group has the right to change the meaning of marriage either.
The fact is that marriage in the US haa always been one-man and one-woman and that it has always had a moral basis not a "merely economic" one.
Like I said, establish your own tradition. Don't try to destroy the traditions of others. I support gay civil unions or whatever you want to call them (except marriage) but I don't accept the right of a special interest group to redefine tradition to make it mean what they want it to mean.
Actually, "marriage" does carry a sacred meaning, but it is you bringing religion into the discussion.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 26, 2009 05:41 PM |
|
|
@Elodin
Quote:
I addressed your arguments and you are evidently unable to counter the points I made and so chose to make a post (your last two now) that were only personal insults.
Really, you made points? Funny, I didn't see any.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted February 07, 2012 07:58 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 19:58, 07 Feb 2012.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted February 07, 2012 11:20 PM |
|
|
Yay? It's about bloody time? Huzzah?
Why hasn't Elodin posted yet? I need someone to argue with about what is "Moral" or not... Until then I can only say that it is about time and that I am happy for people who this affects. Language begins to bend to human rights, and the world seems just a bit better. 
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 08, 2012 01:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Why hasn't Elodin posted yet? I need someone to argue with about what is "Moral" or not... Until then I can only say that it is about time and that I am happy for people who this affects. Language begins to bend to human rights, and the world seems just a bit better.
Elodin has yet to respond because he has a business to run to keep people working and money flowing to his pockets, his workers' pockets, and Uncle Sam's pockets.
Now, for my response. The Supreme Court will decide the issue, as if there was any doubt about that. The Supreme Court will uphold the will of the voters by a 5-4 vote. The voters say marriage is between a man and a woman.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 08, 2012 12:27 PM |
|
|
|
Except, that the Supreme Court is in no way obliged to "the will of the voters", whatever fickle beast that one might be, but exclusively to the spirit of the constitution, the way it may present itself to the judges.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted February 08, 2012 02:42 PM |
|
|
It should be an interesting decision when it comes down next session.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
| |
|
|
