| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/13/2008 04:49:54 PM · #851 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
but the notion that homosexuality is some recent event due to our godless society is demonstrably false. |
Well, I totally agree with that. If you think I'm arguing otherwise you need to pay more attention. :) |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 04:51:03 PM · #852 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Your assumption that the strict definition of a word is fixed because of historical precedent is wrong. The English language and most other languages in use today are alive and changing. |
Ah, I gotcha. Well that's a whole 'nuther argument isn't it? But just because a language can change doesn't mean it should or does change. Time will, of course, tell. It would be interesting to see if the common definition of marriage includes gay marriage down the line, will religions then appropriate another word to succeed the term "marriage" to indicate their own feeling about it. |
Not really another argument. Just because one group doesn't want a word to be used a different way, doesn't mean that another group has to abide by their wishes. I'm sure there's a great many English teachers who despise the the way the words "like" and "goes" have been given new and greatly varied meanings. In this case, the shift is more subtle. The outrage of the religious groups over the use of the word by those whose unions they would not sanction is irrelevant there's nothing they can do. In any event, your argument in this regard is etymological only and has no bearing on the legal definition of the word. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 04:51:58 PM · #853 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Then your quarrel is one of semantics? It seems to be a lot of energy expended to defend vocabulary. :/ |
Tell me about it. But it takes two to quarrel. ;) |
Ok. Then I think you would agree to the state getting completely out of the marriage business, declaring everyone to be civilly unionized (?) for the purposes of tax and other rights and obligations, and leave the definition of "marriage" out of the whole thing. If your religious group wants to define it one way, and two same-sex partners want to define it another, so be it. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 04:56:46 PM · #854 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Then your quarrel is one of semantics? It seems to be a lot of energy expended to defend vocabulary. :/ |
Tell me about it. But it takes two to quarrel. ;) |
Ok. Then I think you would agree to the state getting completely out of the marriage business, declaring everyone to be civilly unionized (?) for the purposes of tax and other rights and obligations, and leave the definition of "marriage" out of the whole thing. If your religious group wants to define it one way, and two same-sex partners want to define it another, so be it. |
The problem is that people used Doc's arguments when they voted for Proposition 8 in California, which has a very real detrimental effect on homosexuals. We're also ignoring the fact that many Christians accept that homosexuality is not a sin. The Episcopalians, for example. Bigotry against homosexuals is not part and parcel of the Christian faith. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 04:57:06 PM · #855 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Not really another argument. Just because one group doesn't want a word to be used a different way, doesn't mean that another group has to abide by their wishes. I'm sure there's a great many English teachers who despise the the way the words "like" and "goes" have been given new and greatly varied meanings. In this case, the shift is more subtle. The outrage of the religious groups over the use of the word by those whose unions they would not sanction is irrelevant there's nothing they can do. In any event, your argument in this regard is etymological only and has no bearing on the legal definition of the word. |
I agree with you all the way up to the end. The legal definition of a word has often, often, often relied on precedent. When a court is faced with making a judgement and the case depends on how a word is defined, you don't think they look back to previous legal discourse regarding the use of the word? |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 05:04:34 PM · #856 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
The problem is that people used Doc's arguments when they voted for Proposition 8 in California, which has a very real detrimental effect on homosexuals. |
Given that California has domestic partnership which has all the rights of marriage and given that no state is required to accept another state's gay marriage as legal, what harm is being done here other than semantics? |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 05:05:17 PM · #857 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Then your quarrel is one of semantics? It seems to be a lot of energy expended to defend vocabulary. :/ |
Tell me about it. But it takes two to quarrel. ;) |
Ok. Then I think you would agree to the state getting completely out of the marriage business, declaring everyone to be civilly unionized (?) for the purposes of tax and other rights and obligations, and leave the definition of "marriage" out of the whole thing. If your religious group wants to define it one way, and two same-sex partners want to define it another, so be it. |
Do you want me to find the post where I basically said exactly that about two weeks ago in this argument? :)
EDIT: Quote on 10/16..."I'd be happy if they were all called civil unions in the sight of the law. "
Message edited by author 2008-11-13 17:09:24. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 05:07:31 PM · #858 |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 05:07:59 PM · #859 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Not really another argument. Just because one group doesn't want a word to be used a different way, doesn't mean that another group has to abide by their wishes. I'm sure there's a great many English teachers who despise the the way the words "like" and "goes" have been given new and greatly varied meanings. In this case, the shift is more subtle. The outrage of the religious groups over the use of the word by those whose unions they would not sanction is irrelevant there's nothing they can do. In any event, your argument in this regard is etymological only and has no bearing on the legal definition of the word. |
I agree with you all the way up to the end. The legal definition of a word has often, often, often relied on precedent. When a court is faced with making a judgement and the case depends on how a word is defined, you don't think they look back to previous legal discourse regarding the use of the word? |
The courts do look at precedence, but if that precedence leads to moral wrong, should precedence then trump the rights of those that are denied what is accorded others?
There was a lot of precedence for Jim Crow laws as well, did precedence make them OK? The overturning of those laws wasn't voted on, it wasn't necessarily popular and it certainly didn't follow precedence. Does that mean overturning those laws was wrong?
Message edited by author 2008-11-13 17:08:58. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 05:11:18 PM · #860 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Not really another argument. Just because one group doesn't want a word to be used a different way, doesn't mean that another group has to abide by their wishes. I'm sure there's a great many English teachers who despise the the way the words "like" and "goes" have been given new and greatly varied meanings. In this case, the shift is more subtle. The outrage of the religious groups over the use of the word by those whose unions they would not sanction is irrelevant there's nothing they can do. In any event, your argument in this regard is etymological only and has no bearing on the legal definition of the word. |
I agree with you all the way up to the end. The legal definition of a word has often, often, often relied on precedent. When a court is faced with making a judgement and the case depends on how a word is defined, you don't think they look back to previous legal discourse regarding the use of the word? |
The courts do look at precedence, but if that precedence leads to moral wrong, should precedence then trump the rights of those that are denied what is accorded others?
There was a lot of precedence for Jim Crow laws as well, did precedence make them OK? The overturning of those laws wasn't voted on, it wasn't necessarily popular and it certainly didn't follow precedence. Does that mean overturning those laws was wrong? |
Your argument is a mishmash of legal and moral. Tell me which you are arguing. If it's legal, then the precedent of the definition of the word is relevant. If it's moral, then the argument is going to be based on something else like discrimination although definitions will play a role. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 05:11:51 PM · #861 |
Semantics are important, and are the nub of this argument. Greeks have 5 words that translate to our word love.Gaelic has a dozen words for the color green. Icelantic has something like 200 words for ice and snow.
Our word marriage has a few meanings but only one word, primarily a legal contract that makes two individuals into a single legal entity, and a religious ceremony which binds two souls. These two overlapping agreements are carried out at the same time.
In France you choose which of three broad types of régime matrimonial you choose from with different legal obligations for each, get married legally at the city hall, then go out and perform any religious ceremony you wish. That my friends is separation of church and state. If we took God out of a civil contract, and legality out of holy matrimony, this would be so much simpler. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 05:15:46 PM · #862 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Given that California has domestic partnership which has all the rights of marriage ... |
But it doesn't. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 05:16:31 PM · #863 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
In France you choose which of three broad types of régime matrimonial you choose from with different legal obligations for each |
Interesting. I've never heard of this. Got a link or something to educate? |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 05:16:45 PM · #864 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Given that California has domestic partnership which has all the rights of marriage ... |
But it doesn't. |
What doesn't it?
From the wiki:
It affords the couple "the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law.." [1]
Message edited by author 2008-11-13 17:17:46. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 05:17:59 PM · #865 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Then your quarrel is one of semantics? It seems to be a lot of energy expended to defend vocabulary. :/ |
Tell me about it. But it takes two to quarrel. ;) |
Ok. Then I think you would agree to the state getting completely out of the marriage business, declaring everyone to be civilly unionized (?) for the purposes of tax and other rights and obligations, and leave the definition of "marriage" out of the whole thing. If your religious group wants to define it one way, and two same-sex partners want to define it another, so be it. |
Do you want me to find the post where I basically said exactly that about two weeks ago in this argument? :)
EDIT: Quote on 10/16..."I'd be happy if they were all called civil unions in the sight of the law. " |
Right. I was going to add "I think you may have conceded this" but didn't. Lazy. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 05:19:00 PM · #866 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Not really another argument. Just because one group doesn't want a word to be used a different way, doesn't mean that another group has to abide by their wishes. I'm sure there's a great many English teachers who despise the the way the words "like" and "goes" have been given new and greatly varied meanings. In this case, the shift is more subtle. The outrage of the religious groups over the use of the word by those whose unions they would not sanction is irrelevant there's nothing they can do. In any event, your argument in this regard is etymological only and has no bearing on the legal definition of the word. |
I agree with you all the way up to the end. The legal definition of a word has often, often, often relied on precedent. When a court is faced with making a judgement and the case depends on how a word is defined, you don't think they look back to previous legal discourse regarding the use of the word? |
The courts do look at precedence, but if that precedence leads to moral wrong, should precedence then trump the rights of those that are denied what is accorded others?
There was a lot of precedence for Jim Crow laws as well, did precedence make them OK? The overturning of those laws wasn't voted on, it wasn't necessarily popular and it certainly didn't follow precedence. Does that mean overturning those laws was wrong? |
Your argument is a mishmash of legal and moral. Tell me which you are arguing. If it's legal, then the precedent of the definition of the word is relevant. If it's moral, then the argument is going to be based on something else like discrimination although definitions will play a role. |
It's both, despite your desires to the contrary, you can't separate the two into neat little bins, no matter how you try. The law is, in part, based on morality and decides what is right and wrong.
If it helps you sort it out, substitute "discrimination" for "moral wrong" in my earlier post.
Message edited by author 2008-11-13 17:20:27. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 05:20:47 PM · #867 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If it helps you sort it out, substitute "discrimination" for "moral wrong" in my earlier post. |
OK, well I contend it is not immoral to keep the 100-meter dasher out of the 110-meter hurdles if we are willing to let him run in the dash. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 05:20:57 PM · #868 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
In France you choose which of three broad types of régime matrimonial you choose from with different legal obligations for each |
Interesting. I've never heard of this. Got a link or something to educate? |
This is mostly from an expat buisiness owners perspective, and this is a more general article on marriage in France
|
|
|
|
11/13/2008 05:23:01 PM · #869 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If it helps you sort it out, substitute "discrimination" for "moral wrong" in my earlier post. |
OK, well I contend it is not immoral to keep the 100-meter dasher out of the 110-meter hurdles if we are willing to let him run in the dash. |
That's one of the worst analogies...period. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 05:24:49 PM · #870 |
OK, man, I've spent way too much time here today. Gotta actually get some work done. Good talking.
Man, I'm sad to hear Spaz doesn't like my analogy. :(
Message edited by author 2008-11-13 17:25:27. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 05:26:32 PM · #871 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK, man, I've spent way too much time here today. Gotta actually get some work done. |
All my charts are written. :-)
But I have to be at work at 5:30 am tomorrow ... :-( |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 05:57:37 PM · #872 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Given that California has domestic partnership which has all the rights of marriage ... |
But it doesn't. |
What doesn't it?
|
Around and around we go... and where it stops nobody knows my rights get violated.
Did I not JUST port an artcle showing where people in non-marriage civil relationships in NJ were being denied rights because it was not called marriage? Didn't I?
Message edited by author 2008-11-13 17:59:56. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 06:00:44 PM · #873 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Mousie:
Nobody has addressed by question about sacredness.
How can the sacred truly be sacred if it's at the whim of popular appeal?
|
It isn't and that's why when we step into the religious argument realm it doesn't matter what arguments are presented the answer is simply "it's wrong". That's not nearly as fun a conversation, but it still stands. The majority of Christianity (just speaking about the religion I'm most versed in) views homosexuality as wrong and thus the idea of "gay marriage" is simply a non sequitur. Marriage is a sacred union between man, woman and God and the idea of altering this to allow a relationship viewed as wrong would indeed destroy the sacredness of the concept.
You'll have to again divorce this line of thought from the rest of my argument which has come from a secular point of view where marriage is not sacred but rather a legal institution. "Sacred" ("devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated." per dictionary.com's first definition) doesn't make sense in this realm. |
Sorry, your train of thought is not the only one on the rails. I am asking my own questions and hilighting my own issues of interest.
And I am telling you that my marriage is sacred because I believe it is, having providing two dictionary definitions that support my assertion. The only thing I have left out is an explicit deference to any higher power.
You seem to be suggesting that I do not have the right or ability to make a sacred vow, because other people say so. That is not freedom of religion.
So, instead of trying to refocus me on the civil aspects, you will have to address my direct questions and explain why 'sacred' is at the whim of popular appeal, justify why I should not be allowed to make a sacred vow because I'm gay, concede that I have an argument that completely undermines the conservative claim on the sanctity of marriage, or beg off answering me entirely. |
Still awaiting a response... |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 06:09:02 PM · #874 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Given that California has domestic partnership which has all the rights of marriage ... |
But it doesn't. |
What doesn't it?
|
Around and around we go... and where it stops nobody knows my rights get violated.
Did I not JUST port an artcle showing where people in non-marriage civil relationships in NJ were being denied rights because it was not called marriage? Didn't I? |
Yes, you did, but it's not relevant.
Doc asked about the effect of the laws in California, not New Jersey. I'm presuming that the denial of benefits in New Jersey would be viewed in light of their laws, not those of California. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 06:27:47 PM · #875 |
| FYI - the deal in Germany appears to be similar to that in France. Folks get married at the town hall or such - pigeons get to eat lots of rice. Then, if they so choose, I suppose they wander off to a church to get married in their God's eyes as well, though that part is not apparently necessary to obtain any of the benefits of being married. I shall ask one of my coworkers tomorrow for the details. |
|
