Hiding In Plain Sight.
- Thread starter hrmwrm
- Start date
We should come up with a term that means marraige between 2 gay people.
How about Narraige
Sounds the same but is different.
Why not just call it a civil union.
Just a civil contract between two adults. It doesn't mean anything sexual, It doesn't make a judgment of the relationship. It doesn't even have to be a homosexual relationship, or have any issue of "consummation."
no, you said it was without meaning.
i said it wasn't limited to your narrow definition.
marriage [ˈmærɪdʒ]
n 1. the state or relationship of being husband and wife
2. the legal union or contract made by a man and woman to live as husband and wife, (as modifier) marriage licence, marriage certificate
3. the religious or legal ceremony formalizing this union; wedding
4. a close or intimate union, relationship, etc
mind you, this doesn't include the meaning where it means a mixing of things either.
where a chef may call it a marriage of flavours to something he cooks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
so the christians outlawed it. go figure!
Why didn't you just say that earlier. I didn't realize that the Kikuyu and Nuer tribes of Africa embraced a form of same sex union! That clearly ends the debate and is completely relevant..... Perhaps we should model the rest of our society and definitions on the highly successful and culturally developed tribes of Saharan Africa or Ming dynasty China.
Do you not realize how absurd your argument is.
And what's even more absurd is that this is a "pro-homosexual marriage" talking point. That the politically activists actually think that this example is substantive and relevant to Western culture.
Perhaps we should model the rest of our society and definitions on the highly successful and culturally developed tribes of Saharan Africa or Ming dynasty China.Do you not realize how absurd your argument is.
And what's even more absurd is that this is a "pro-homosexual marriage" talking point. That the politically activists actually think that this example is substantive and relevant to Western culture.
Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
A dictionary has to cover any and every possible usage of the term. It doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of any and every society has historically understood marriage as a union between a man and a woman that serves a very specific purpose; a fact confirmed by the first three definitions in your citation.
Your little "definition" proves absolutely nothing except you unwillingness to look at this issue from an opposing point of view.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
How was Roe V Wade bad constitutional law?
I want to say that that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard, but first I will wait to hear your reasoning.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
Marriage spent most of human history not being a religious institution. People eventually turned to the church to sanctify their unions as the approval of the church for all matters was important to the people, and because the church had the power to enforce the union so that they were not left on their own to defend their union. When you lived in a culture or community where a religious group held such great power, no person could come and claim your wife or anything like that. No person could dispute your union. Early on marriage was suitable as a "ritual" between family members or as something approved by the village or chief or whatever. Times eventually changed, and said vows needed more power. People stood to benefit by getting the church to join them, the church stood to benefit by incorporating marriage into its functions, thereby strengthening the churches influence in peoples lives.
Besides, if it is ONLY a religious institution, why should marriage come with so many legal and tax benefits? Would you approve of civil unions if they universally provided every single benefit and drawback of marriage and were treated exactly the same in the eyes of the law or the IRS?
Really, I can't see why people are against gay marriage. They should suffer just the same as the rest of us.
You are all for rule of law vs rule of man in any other situation, why not now?
Because this is not an issue of law nor should it be.
That has to be the most ignorant, close minded comment I have ever read on this forum.
We a have seen that when you're challenged, you'll invest countless of pages of text into avoiding or justifying why you feel no need to respond directly. So, I'm hard pressed to understand why I should invest any more time discussing this with? It's really not interesting. Worse than being wrong, worse than being stubborn, you've identified yourself as really boring. There's no reason to even attempt to dialog with you. I'll give you another opportunity, but my expectations for you are understandably low.
Do you know anything about the decision?
Do you know what the legal argument and logic supporting the majority opinion was? Do you understand what precedent was used? Do you recognize the role of the political process when it comes to the issue of abortion? Because, while you seem quite confident in yourself, you've demonstrate a vast ignorance of virtually everything you speak of.
The fact that you belittled my comment demonstrates that you clearly don't know much about this issue. Even on the political left, amongst people who agreed with the political outcome, it's widely recognized that the legal arguments and process used to arrive at the decision were wrong. People ranging from Justice Ginsberg to attorney Alan Dershowitz to Obama's regulation czar, Cass Sunstein all disagree with the legal decision. But, apparently you didn't know that.
I guess they're all stupid?
Last edited by a moderator:
i see your going to dismiss the roman allowance of the practice. the point is, marriage has never been historically only a man and woman union. there are cultural instances that predate your christian doctrine and tradition.
i was pointing out the fact of your flawed, narrow minded definition of marriage as being historically incorrect.
since that seems to be the majority basis for your arguement against homosexual marriage.
well, not just yours, but of the anti gay marriage movement.
so actually, it is redefining it to what is historically correct.
But this construction is typical of human creation.
And Shag
it fits in with your view of humanity as how people are instead of how they could and should be.
The decision is a fait accompli and has become settled law.
There is nothing conservatives can do about it on the federal level other than stew and vent and make legalistic arguments.
All you can do is on a state level to make it more difficult to get one.
The court is not going to revisit this no matter how much you guys may wish.
But of course the soundly defeated are free to chatter on just to feel less impotent.
O.K. are you suggesting we also reform our society and model it after yet another, pre-Western society, pagan society that ultimately failed.
You'll have to clear this up for me.
Is your crusade against traditional marriage because you seek to destroy moral tradition or is it because you're a cultural relativist and think that these handful of societies spanning the course of human existence are all equal?
I don't find the premise of living in an era before modern Western society to be appealing, nor do I think we should be emulating the ancient pagans and tribal African and Asians that you, and other desperate defenders of homosexual MARRIAGE, have dug up and furiously repeat.
Furthermore, those homosexual unions that predated Western civilization that you are citing aren't marriage. They weren't called "marriage." And they aren't applicable to the debate concerning the redefining of the term "marriage."
Those are homosexual partnership that were tolerated, to varying degrees, by the communities. I think you'll find that the vast majority of people think that some sort of partnership should be established to accomodate the legal needs and commitments of consenting individuals.
The issue is whether we radically redefine, and fundamentally change, one HISTORIC institution in the process.
Rather than talking about African tribes, the Ming tribes, and the sketchy, poorly documented and understood laws in 300AD Roman, why don't we actually discuss the actual subject of debate.
Your examples are fair and applicable if the argument were whether a society should tolerate homosexual behavior. You've provided examples, for what they are worth, of societies that have tolerated openly homosexual couples. But none of us are arguing for intolerance, or social isolation, or hostility or violence directed at homosexual. Those are all things we would vigorously fight.
I do not object openly homosexual couples. I don't think there's anything wrong with providing all adults legal means of creating a social contract between the two. As I've stated, it needn't be limited to homosexuals but any two adults. It doesn't have to be limited or defined by the sexual orientation of the couple either. The government need not be involved in the bedroom.
On a slightly different, though completely related, point- if we did have a SMALL GOVERNMENT, if we did embrace classically liberal (libertarian) policies and federalism, these social issues would not be the contentious issues that they are. These issues become heated and contentious because once the all-powerful federal government becomes involved, there's no room for compromise, it becomes all pervasive, and there's no way to avoid it.
And this is made even worse by the political left's decision to advance their agenda through there court, achieving an all or nothing outcome. (And when they lose they just try again, shopping for a more accommodating judge.) This pursuit removes the political process from the system and eliminates any chance of reasoned debate or political compromise, making EVERYTHING extremely polarizing and contentious.
This is a far more complicated observation than it would initially seem. I presume your talking about Roe, and not the issue of marriage.
But, ultimately, the odds that Roe, or more importantly the precedent set by Roe is revisited or new precedent supersedes it is very likely within our lives. It honestly is badly written and conceived decision. As I mentioned, even judicial scholars who agree with the political outcome recognize it's legal weakness.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
No, that is shag.
Yes I do know, but I asked you what your reasoning is in saying that it was bad constitutional law. See, here you are again, saying I'm ignorant without a fact to speak of in your post. Heck, you don't even get close to touching the issue. So, are you going to completely dodge the question? Or do you want to try to be honest for a change instead of redirecting away from your own lack of logic or reasoning? You said it was bad constitutional law, I wanted to hear the reasoning for that statement, unless you wish to retract that comment and say you meant to say something else...... Constitutionally it is sound. The state has no right to investigate a woman's sexual practices and activity, as that would be unconstitutional. The findings of the supreme court recognizes that the state has an interest in protecting life. Sure, it is a weak decision, it is over-applied, it is not as clear-cut decision as there should be, and that there is no constitutional basis for the start of life, but that is a completely separate argument.
There made that easier for everyone else to read for you.
Hey, while you are at it, I'll repost the other questions you are running from.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
Obviously you have never read your own posts then. At least I was going to wait to see his reasoning first.... Though, as expected, he had none, he went straight to ad hominem instead. Of course, you were there too, another weak-minded sheep joining in the insults, just to defend your pitiful statements that, as usual, are not based in any reality.
Why is this not an issue of law? Why shouldn't it be? You are saying that gay marriage should be illegal, but marriage is not an issue of law? Marriage should come with legal rights and responsibilities but it is not an issue of law?
I don't know what point you are trying to raise but this comment has very profound implications. Are you proposing that policy by directed by how people could and should be? That is a recipe for tyranny.
When "the right" takes precedent over "the good", when "ought" is viewed as synonymous with "can" the rule of law ends up being torn asunder and arbitrary power reigns.
When "the perfect" is made the enemy of "the good", society suffers. This basic fact is at the heart of George Orwell's 1984. Societies are oppressed in pursuit of ideals; especially when those ideals are incompatible with human nature. The view that human nature is a variable to be changed, a means to an end, is a view that leads to tyranny.
Even the suggestion that policy should be made according to what "should be" is a very scary proposition.
There is no safety for honest men but by believing all possible evil of evil men.
-Edmund Burke
In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution
-Thomas Jefferson
individual freedom cannot be reconciled with the supremacy of one single purpose to which the whole society must be entirely and permanently subordinated.
-F.A. Hayek
-Edmund Burke
In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution
-Thomas Jefferson
individual freedom cannot be reconciled with the supremacy of one single purpose to which the whole society must be entirely and permanently subordinated.
-F.A. Hayek
It is bad law that is inconsistent with the Constitution. It should be overturned. But even ignoring that, it is not simply "stewing" in pointing out that it is bad law. The fact that the law distorts the constitution as it does is a teachable moment and should be viewed as an example of why judges should not engage in activism.
At least with other trolls, there is occasionally something worth taking the time to counter as it sharpens your skills and can serve as a learning experience. Unfortunately, FIND, you don't even offer that. All you offer is contention for it's own sake and condescension (and not much else)...
There is really no point in wasting time on you and, considering my unfortunate inability to suffer fools very well, it is best that I simply do this...
There is really no point in wasting time on you and, considering my unfortunate inability to suffer fools very well, it is best that I simply do this...
FIND said:
The Roe v wade decision is a decision of imperfect humanity.
You're the one on the should be side of the argument on this one.
Usually you dismiss idealism and liberalism by bringing up human nature
as being imperfect ie the it is what it is argument.
This time it has cut the other way although you perhaps did not realize it.
Ideally Roe v Wade should be resettled but since IMO the resettlement would ultimately wind up in such a way as to not change anything on a practical basis there is no point in revisiting and expending great energy and divisiveness and strong feelings on what would turn out to be just an intellectual exersize.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
It's repetitive, but no more so than his posts, and far less insulting.FIND said:
The Roe decision circumvents the rule of law the limits of power on the Supreme Court (through the legal fiction of substantive due process). The rule of law and those limits on power are the primary mechanism to keep those negative aspects of a flawed humanity in check; specifically among the ruling class.
I understand what you are saying, but I think you may have it a bit backwards here. The ruling is a reflection of the inherent flaws in on the part of the judges and, not so much of the populace meant to abide by that ruling.
The fact that the judges were able to get away with this activism reflects on how far we have come from the rule of law being taken seriously by those in power. That is the bigger point. Not simply that the ruling reflects an imperfection of human nature, but that it goes beyond that to violating the law; that it is unconstitutional.
Ideology (in the technical sense) is at best unnecessary and at worst, trends toward tyranny.
The decision has been returned to, and the precedent set in this area is now different (don't remember the exact case, offhand). But another ruling by the SCOTUS could very easily kick this back to the states and nullify the Roe decision. That is, in large part, why the confirmation process is so hard for non-liberal judges appointed to the SCOTUS. A woman's "right to choose" is almost always used specifically as a litmus test on these judges.
In this case the idealism I was refering to was also on your side.
Not idealism as a philosophy but just your ideal wish.
Ideally Roe v Wade should be revisited but I contend it will not
for the very human reasons that I have outlined and that you use in other arguments as justification for your positions.
There is a great weariness on the court for this issue which is also part of the human nature here.
Ok, I see what you are saying. But I don't see how this specific idealism ties into human nature. How does a desire for the issue to be reexamined by the court touch on human nature?