| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/16/2009 05:07:29 PM · #2276 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK, we need to get a new term for ourselves. Let them have "marriage". We're gonna have holy "shazmat". I guess that would theoretically work. ... |
I'm reminded of Dr. Seuss's story about star-bellied Sneetches vs. those Sneetches without stars upon thars. :-)
|
|
|
|
04/16/2009 05:08:53 PM · #2277 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
And this is where we get back to my "but I'm ssppppeeeccciiiaalll! This book says so!!! And if I can't be special, no one can! I don't wanna share this word. It's mine."
Talking like that makes me want cookies... :P |
I can certainly see how you make your life harder than it need be. I bet the chip on your shoulder grows every year because somehow people don't respond well to your "in your face" style. How dare they?!? |
No my life isn't really harder than it needs to be. How can you see that? BEcause I don't let people step on me any more? I did that for years, it didn't work out.
I know people don't respond well to this "in your face" style. You also didn't respond well to my "I'm going to play along and try to be rational" style either. If I'm gunna lose either way (in your eyes) I'd rather at least be amused. It's a way for me not to get too upset. See before, I got upset at your insistence that my views weren't thought out, that I was wishy washy, that I was this or that. Because I was really trying to play nice. And it didn't work.
I don't have a chip on my shoulder, I'm not a hummingbird, or Jell-O or helter skelter, or ____. I'm just hungry for some damn cookies! |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 05:13:27 PM · #2278 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Is adultery morally wrong between two consenting adults? |
Trick question. In most cases, the jilted spouse was NOT consenting. If he or she was, then who cares since none of the parties involved were offended?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So I suppose I could begrudingly say, OK, we need to get a new term for ourselves. Let them have "marriage". We're gonna have holy "shazmat". I guess that would theoretically work. |
Since you're so tenaciously opposed to any use of the word marriage that isn't sanctioned by the church, let me ask you this... who issued your marriage license? Could you not have have taken that license to a Justice of the Peace or Judge and been fully married in the eyes of the law without any church involvement whatsoever? If someone did that, would you rush to congress, petitions in hand, to invalidate that union or demand they use another term? If not, then how can you possibly claim the term as a Christian monopoly?
Message edited by author 2009-04-16 17:15:15. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 05:14:05 PM · #2279 |
Originally posted by citymars:
I'm reminded of Dr. Seuss's story about star-bellied Sneetches vs. those Sneetches without stars upon thars. :-) |
;-D |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 05:15:11 PM · #2280 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I don't have a chip on my shoulder, I'm not a hummingbird, or Jell-O or helter skelter, or ____. I'm just hungry for some damn cookies! |
Maybe you are just cranky because the cabbage is chaffing... :) |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 05:17:10 PM · #2281 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Is adultery morally wrong between two consenting adults? |
Trick question. In most cases, the jilted spouse was NOT consenting. If he or she was, then who cares since none of the parties involved were offended? |
Whoa. You mean to tell me that the morality of a situation can depend on a third party's consent who is not directly involved in the act in question? |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 05:17:58 PM · #2282 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Can you drop the interracial thing? We've discussed it and I am not aware of the bible condemning it. Interreligious? Perhaps. Interracial. No. |
"God's will" against interracial marriage was famously the basis for the Loving vs. Virginia decision in 1959, later overturned by the Supreme Court. It's not really important to the argument though. Muslims will suffice. If marriage is a Christian covenant, then any non-Christian marriage should be just as invalid as gay marriage. I don't see any Prop 8-style rallies to deny atheists or Hindus the right to marry. Why aren't ALL people who don't follow Christian moral ideals prohibited from marriage? |
I suppose that in the eyes of Christianity two atheiests are not "married". I suppose I would consider that a civil union as well. I suppose it is harder to undo something than to keep it from being done. I suppose two atheists probably couldn't care less whether a Christian sees their marriage as sacred or not. I suppose it would all be solved if we called everything a civil union. |
Or called everything a marriage. |
Ahhh, but there's the rub. If you really want to make progress on the issue, don't try to co-opt a term that some people, rightly or wrongly, have already defined.
Why not take a nutural term and apply it all and leave the controversional term to "those" people. Then it's a non-issue. To the state, there is a civil union that carries all the rights and responsibilies of that union. "Marriage" no longer has any legal status, so churches, glee clubs, bird watching societies can perform ceremonial marriages to the ones they see fit. and also refuse to perfrom for those they don't.
What do you really want, the "word" or the same legal standing? |
Both. It's not co-opting. When interracial marriage was made legal, there was no other word for it. A marriage is still a marriage. Legally it is called a marriage too. You can go to the court house and get married, no church involved. Why should they get to take over a word that has been used for all manner of religious and non religious unions for hundreds of years? That implies some sort of superiority does it not? We get to get married, you get to get union...ized? It doesn't follow.
Separate but equal is not true.. Unfortunately names mean a lot more than we realize. If someone goes through all the classes of a bachelors degree, but never actually gets the degree, you think they are as likely to get a job as someone who has the title? Would you go to a doctor if you found out he wasn't "technically" a doctor, even though he did the same work and schooling. Everyone will want to say sure, but they won't.
And this isn't to compare the 2. Obviously a degree is not the same as a marriage, its simply to illustrate the power of words. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 05:21:02 PM · #2283 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Is adultery morally wrong between two consenting adults? |
Trick question. In most cases, the jilted spouse was NOT consenting. If he or she was, then who cares since none of the parties involved were offended? |
Whoa. You mean to tell me that the morality of a situation can depend on a third party's consent who is not directly involved in the act in question? |
I'm telling you that, whether or not I personally disagree with the practice, it's none of my business. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 05:24:54 PM · #2284 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Is adultery morally wrong between two consenting adults? |
Trick question. In most cases, the jilted spouse was NOT consenting. If he or she was, then who cares since none of the parties involved were offended? |
Whoa. You mean to tell me that the morality of a situation can depend on a third party's consent who is not directly involved in the act in question? |
wow you really are something. You just set that trap right up. But the difference is, it's not some random 3rd party. It is someone who has been betrayed. In the case of marriage, a promise is broken to be faithful. The immoral act is more so the betrayal of trust not the physical act of sex. That person is directly involved. Swingers have sex with other partners consensually . I do not consider that immoral. That is their choice.
If Joe in Houston, TX cheats on his wife you will be in no way effected, but his wife will. If Joe in Houston, TX marries Tim, you will in no way be effected.
Your argument keeps failing over and over again.
Message edited by author 2009-04-16 17:26:32. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 05:30:51 PM · #2285 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Is adultery morally wrong between two consenting adults? |
Trick question. In most cases, the jilted spouse was NOT consenting. If he or she was, then who cares since none of the parties involved were offended? |
Whoa. You mean to tell me that the morality of a situation can depend on a third party's consent who is not directly involved in the act in question? |
I'm telling you that, whether or not I personally disagree with the practice, it's none of my business. |
Come on. You can't make moral judgements? Actually I think you have a good answer. The violation appears to be the breaking of a vow so the adulterer is guilty. But how about the moral action of the person not married (ie. the person the married person is having an affair with)? What are they guilty of? I'm just thinking this through. Perhaps we have a resolution to the problem.
Not everything is a trap tooz. I was honestly asking the question and if the answer makes sense to me, I accept it.
Message edited by author 2009-04-16 17:31:46. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 05:36:02 PM · #2286 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't mean to change gears, but this one came to mind today and I'd love to hear from the Liberty people on it.
Is adultery morally wrong between two consenting adults? |
I don't know who the Liberty people are, but I'll give you my answer as a liberal, left winger, LOL. It depends. That's my answer. There are many exceptions. Are the people involved in "open" relationships? Are people lying? Are the people involved sneaking behind their significant others back? Will people be hurt by their actions? Will disease be brought home to an unsuspecting spouse? You did pretty much pose this question in a disingenuous way, in order for there to be adultery, the lives of at least three adults and possibly four are involved. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 05:38:03 PM · #2287 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Is adultery morally wrong between two consenting adults? |
Trick question. In most cases, the jilted spouse was NOT consenting. If he or she was, then who cares since none of the parties involved were offended? |
Whoa. You mean to tell me that the morality of a situation can depend on a third party's consent who is not directly involved in the act in question? |
I'm telling you that, whether or not I personally disagree with the practice, it's none of my business. |
Come on. You can't make moral judgements? Actually I think you have a good answer. The violation appears to be the breaking of a vow so the adulterer is guilty. But how about the moral action of the person not married (ie. the person the married person is having an affair with)? What are they guilty of? I'm just thinking this through. Perhaps we have a resolution to the problem.
Not everything is a trap tooz. I was honestly asking the question and if the answer makes sense to me, I accept it. |
Ok fair enough. You bring up a good point about the non-married person. In my opinion, I'd say if they knew they were hurting that 3rd party they acting immorally as well, though to a lesser extent since it was not their obligation to stay faithful. But if they had no idea the person was married, they are innocent in the act and could very well be hurt by it as well.
Why do I think that would be immoral? Because they know it will lead to the extreme distress of another, and possibly even the break up of a marriage.
Gay marriages are not going to break up any marriages by merely existing, and if they cause anyone extreme distress that person needs to take serious stock of their life... perhaps some counseling? |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 05:40:57 PM · #2288 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You can't make moral judgements? Actually I think you have a good answer. The violation appears to be the breaking of a vow so the adulterer is guilty. |
Doesn't the Bible include a little note about NOT judging others? I'm not in the business of classifying everything as good or evil, right or wrong, left or right. Some things just are. If someone cheats on a spouse, then it makes sense to have some justice for the offended party. But if everyone was consenting, there's where's the harm? It'd be like putting an old TV out on the side of the road hoping someone would take it, and then having the police charge the guy who does with theft.
BTW- you seem you have overlooked the second part of my post. The question about the marriage license.
Message edited by author 2009-04-16 17:46:11. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 05:46:58 PM · #2289 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
[quote=DrAchoo] [quote=scalvert] [quote=DrAchoo]Is adultery morally wrong between two consenting adults? |
You can't make moral judgements? Actually I think you have a good answer. The violation appears to be the breaking of a vow so the adulterer is guilty. |
Doesn't the Bible include a little note about NOT judging others? I'm not in the business of classifying everything as good or evil, right or wrong, left or right. Some things just are. If someone cheats on a spouse, then it makes sense to have some justice for the offended party. But if everyone was consenting, there's where's the harm? It'd be like putting an old TV out on the side of the road hoping someone would take it, and then having the police charge the guy who does with theft. |
No I get that. But look at it this way: Bruce sleeps with Jane who is married to Ralph. Bruce and Jane consent to have sex. Ralph does not consent (probably because the poor sap doesn't know about it). Jane appears to be guilty of breaking her vow to Ralph because she and he consented to be married. Looking at Bruce, is he guilty of a moral wrong? and what is it? I think it's an interesting question. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 05:48:46 PM · #2290 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So I suppose I could begrudingly say, OK, we need to get a new term for ourselves. Let them have "marriage". We're gonna have holy "shazmat". I guess that would theoretically work. |
Since you're so tenaciously opposed to any use of the word marriage that isn't sanctioned by the church, let me ask you this... who issued your marriage license? Could you not have have taken that license to a Justice of the Peace or Judge and been fully married in the eyes of the law without any church involvement whatsoever? If someone did that, would you rush to congress, petitions in hand, to invalidate that union or demand they use another term? If not, then how can you possibly claim the term as a Christian monopoly? |
I NEVER SAID WE OWN THE MONOPOLY. I am pointing out that the term has two meanings and the meanings can conflict. That conflict can lead to me disapproving of its use. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 05:50:24 PM · #2291 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Jane appears to be guilty of breaking her vow to Ralph because she and he consented to be married. Looking at Bruce, is he guilty of a moral wrong? and what is it? I think it's an interesting question. |
Like others have said, it depends. If Bruce knew Jane was married, then he was an accomplice in the robbery, so to speak. If not, then he's just as much as victim of betrayal as Ralph. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 05:53:40 PM · #2292 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So I suppose I could begrudingly say, OK, we need to get a new term for ourselves. Let them have "marriage". We're gonna have holy "shazmat". I guess that would theoretically work. |
Since you're so tenaciously opposed to any use of the word marriage that isn't sanctioned by the church, let me ask you this... who issued your marriage license? Could you not have have taken that license to a Justice of the Peace or Judge and been fully married in the eyes of the law without any church involvement whatsoever? If someone did that, would you rush to congress, petitions in hand, to invalidate that union or demand they use another term? If not, then how can you possibly claim the term as a Christian monopoly? |
I NEVER SAID WE OWN THE MONOPOLY. I am pointing out that the term has two meanings and the meanings can conflict. That conflict can lead to me disapproving of its use. |
Which conflicting meaning currently applies to an atheist married by a Judge that wouldn't equally apply to gay marriage?
BTW- there's no cause for shouting. You HAVE attempted to limit the word "marriage" to a Christian usage, but at least you've been willing to keep your hand in the hornet's nest as you poke it. I'm not sure if that's bravery or foolishness, but I'll give you credit for guts. ;-)
Message edited by author 2009-04-16 18:00:11. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 06:19:00 PM · #2293 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So I suppose I could begrudingly say, OK, we need to get a new term for ourselves. Let them have "marriage". We're gonna have holy "shazmat". I guess that would theoretically work. |
The Aramaic (Western) word for marriage is pronounced " ZuOOaG,aA " according to this on-line dictionary. It is a bit rubbish, but if the deal is that holy language must be protected from sinners then this would seem to be a good start.
Message edited by author 2009-04-16 18:23:52.
|
|
|
|
04/16/2009 07:28:10 PM · #2294 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So I suppose I could begrudingly say, OK, we need to get a new term for ourselves. Let them have "marriage". We're gonna have holy "shazmat". I guess that would theoretically work. |
Since you're so tenaciously opposed to any use of the word marriage that isn't sanctioned by the church, let me ask you this... who issued your marriage license? Could you not have have taken that license to a Justice of the Peace or Judge and been fully married in the eyes of the law without any church involvement whatsoever? If someone did that, would you rush to congress, petitions in hand, to invalidate that union or demand they use another term? If not, then how can you possibly claim the term as a Christian monopoly? |
I NEVER SAID WE OWN THE MONOPOLY. I am pointing out that the term has two meanings and the meanings can conflict. That conflict can lead to me disapproving of its use. |
Which conflicting meaning currently applies to an atheist married by a Judge that wouldn't equally apply to gay marriage?
BTW- there's no cause for shouting. You HAVE attempted to limit the word "marriage" to a Christian usage, but at least you've been willing to keep your hand in the hornet's nest as you poke it. I'm not sure if that's bravery or foolishness, but I'll give you credit for guts. ;-) |
I feel like this has possibly been asked before, but let me post this. If two groups want to define a term and are arguing about it and one group has been right 99% of the time, what is the issue with keeping the definition that way? That's looking at it from a heterosexual/homosexual standard. Even if you look at it as a religious/non-religious standard the majority for the history of the term is going to be religious (not necessarily Christian...religious). And if you divide it up into different religions and "non-religious" the largest portion could very well still be Christian seeing as it has the largest current amount of adherents. Anyway, I guess my point is, if someone has to use to the term, why is it obvious Christians shouldn't get it? This is divorcing the question from any matter of legal rights and protections.
In this country we tend to settle such matters with votes. We all get one vote. Proposition 8 was a time when people could cast their vote on what the term meant. I think we are all in agreement, however, that we should also insure legal protections for gay couples. I heard Washington State just enacted some civil union recognition for gay couples and I am happy to hear it (although I don't know the details). |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 08:02:36 PM · #2295 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If two groups want to define a term and are arguing about it and one group has been right 99% of the time, what is the issue with keeping the definition that way? |
I don't think that any particular interest group gets to define the meaning of a word (nor does the vote have anything to do with it - the way in which words are used is not democratic).
The last time I heard this line of absurd reasoning was when someone tried to have the word McJobs removed from the Oxford English Dictionary as the word was considered demeaning to low paid unskilled workers.
Words have meanings independently of any definition. A definition is an attempt at recording how a word *is* used, not one that sets rules on how it may be used. The word marriage is used in the context of all kinds of union - even mechanical objects can marry.
|
|
|
|
04/16/2009 08:16:54 PM · #2296 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Words have meanings independently of any definition. A definition is an attempt at recording how a word *is* used, not one that sets rules on how it may be used. The word marriage is used in the context of all kinds of union - even mechanical objects can marry. |
LEXICOGRAPHER, n. A pestilent fellow who, under the pretense of recording some particular stage in the development of a language, does what he can to arrest its growth, stiffen its flexibility and mechanize its methods. For your lexicographer, having written his dictionary, comes to be considered "as one having authority," whereas his function is only to make a record, not to give a law. The natural servility of the human understanding having invested him with judicial power, surrenders its right of reason and submits itself to a chronicle as if it were a statue. Let the dictionary (for example) mark a good word as "obsolete" or "obsolescent" and few men thereafter venture to use it, whatever their need of it and however desirable its restoration to favor—whereby the process of impoverishment is accelerated and speech decays. On the contrary, recognizing the truth that language must grow by innovation if it grow at all, makes new words and uses the old in an unfamiliar sense, has no following and is tartly reminded that "it isn't in the dictionary" —- although down to the time of the first lexicographer (Heaven forgive him!) no author ever had used a word that was in the dictionary. In the golden prime and high noon of English speech; when from the lips of the great Elizabethans fell words that made their own meaning and carried it in their very sound; when a Shakespeare and a Bacon were possible, and the language now rapidly perishing at one end and slowly renewed at the other was in vigorous growth and hardy preservation —- sweeter than honey and stronger than a lion —- the lexicographer was a person unknown, the dictionary a creation which his Creator had not created him to create.
God said: "Let Spirit perish into Form,"
And lexicographers arose, a swarm!
Thought fled and left her clothing, which they took,
And catalogued each garment in a book.
Now, from her leafy covert when she cries:
"Give me my clothes and I'll return," they rise
And scan the list, and say without compassion:
"Excuse us—they are mostly out of fashion."
========
DICTIONARY, n. A malevolent literary device for cramping the growth of a language and making it hard and inelastic. This dictionary, however, is a most useful work.
--Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 08:55:51 PM · #2297 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Obviously a degree is not the same as a marriage, its simply to illustrate the power of words. |
The battle over the word is silly to me.
Go for equal rights. Semantics will take care of itself.
Words change meaning over time and in different contexts. For example, "gay"
Message edited by author 2009-04-16 20:56:27. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 09:18:24 PM · #2298 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If two groups want to define a term and are arguing about it and one group has been right 99% of the time, what is the issue with keeping the definition that way? |
Then "gay marriage" should mean "happy marriage," and it's all the more perplexing that anyone would be against that.
Dang-  scarbrd beat me to it. What if that one group only thought they had been right 99% of the time? For most of history, Christians have defined property to include people.
Message edited by author 2009-04-16 21:21:17. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 09:51:15 PM · #2299 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So I suppose I could begrudingly say, OK, we need to get a new term for ourselves. Let them have "marriage". We're gonna have holy "shazmat". I guess that would theoretically work. Of course it works the other way too and I get a vote about which way it's gonna go. The only reason you want it recognized is to confer legal protections and I have always said I am in support of that. And legal protection can be established no matter whether the legal union happens to be the "marriage" or the "shazmat". |
I think that there should be a definite separation of church and state on the issue of the legality.
I don't think the church should be able to confer a legal status on anything, be it the actual existence of a child, or the joining of two people in some sort of ceremony of commitment.
Personally, I have as much trouble with some of the religious views as I do with some laws in my state covering bicyclists. And that's subjective, so it shouldn't have legal basis. It should be acceptable to worship the way you want, without anyone being able to impose their beliefs into your life legally.
If you want legality, let the state establish the legal guidelines based on the fair distribution of rights regardless of gender, race, religious affiliation, etc., and if the couple involved has a religious ceremony in mind, then it's on them to celebrate their love in whatever manner in the church of their choice.
Somewhere along the line though, everyone is going to have to accept that there's gonna be a name for both ceremonies, or contracted agreements, that might not suit some, BUT.....in the interest of equal rights, it's the only way it'll fly.
|
|
|
|
04/16/2009 09:57:11 PM · #2300 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't mean to change gears, but this one came to mind today and I'd love to hear from the Liberty people on it.
Is adultery morally wrong between two consenting adults? |
Yes. Adultery is morally wrong......also isn't it kind of a given that the adults would be consenting?
If one wasn't, wouldn't it be rape?.....8>)
Seriously, do you mean two people who are married to others, or the open marriage thing?
I have an issue with the open marriage thing because I don't see the point.....if you want to sleep with oithers, why get married.
Of course, I don't much believe in sex for sport.....I feel it should mean something, otherwise it makes fundamentally more sense to masturbate....less hassle, risk, and potential for misunderstanding.
The affair with two people married to others is IMNSHO morally wrong.
|
|
