Gay Marriage Stuff
- Thread starter RBBailey
- Start date
Durda said:
That is a much better argument. In fact I agree. For most of human history, marriage has been a "common law" type arrangement. If two people said they were married, they were... simple as that. government had little to do with it, and not much to say about it. The Catholic church didn't even make it a sacrament until the 1200s. It wasn't a legal status requiring paperwork in England (or here) until the 1700s.
As far as I'm concerned, that was fine.
The trouble is that now marriage is a legal status, carrying a number of rights and privileges along with it, that require recognition by the government. If that could be eliminated in favor of a replacement legal status for couples/living partners (civil union or whatever), that'd be the end of the argument. That's the way it SHOULD be. The term "marriage" could revert back to what it typically used to mean (a long-term sexually paired couple), and if people wanted to incorporate their religious beliefs into it... that's fine, and between them and their religion.
On that basis, with that as my ideal (and of course unlikely) solution, I don't think the government should have any say in the matter of who gets to "marry" (in the legal status sense) who. And as long as "marriage" is the term for that legal status, that is the status that should be available to any couple, and what it should be called.
Creating a duplicate status by another name seems silly, redundant, wasteful, and beating around the bush. If the parties involved consider it a marriage... what right should the government have to say otherwise? It's none of their damned business.
Perhaps the distaste it produces for many could inspire people to demand the government to get out of the "marriage" business altogether.
Apparently you did stop there, or else you failed to comprehend what followed.
Or maybe you did get it... which means you should be equally comfortable calling a Defender a Jeep, simply because they share a few basic features. Hell, some people just call anything with a remote resemblance to an off-roading vehicle a "Jeep", so why should anyone ever need to be as specific as "Defender" or even "Land Rover"?
Here's the deal: Some jungles are rain forests. Some are not. Some rain forests are jungles. Some are not. All swamps are wetlands. Some wetlands are not swamps.
All of the above words have different definitions, and they have them for a reason, for the sake of accuracy in communication.
Calling a Pacific Northwest rain forest a "jungle" would be both misleading and stupid. Calling a marine estuary or marsh a "swamp" would be silly, too.
Or it might just get named the Okefenokee Swamp... because it IS a swamp.
I do understand your point. And you are right, language changes over time. Some terms fall out of common use in favor of others. However I don't subscribe to your "homo conspiracy" theory, or any other such coordinated effort by anyone as the basis for it.
Taking "wetlands" as an example, I think it has more to do with the fact that the distinctions between swamps, marshes, bogs, fens, and so on are becoming lost on most people. (Take your own post as additional evidence.) "Wetlands" communicates the basic point (there is land there, but it is very wet or mingled with a lot of water) to people that don't care about or know the difference between specific types.
Jeez at least everyone liked my Patriot Act example.
Yes. It was a perfect example, and fit your case well.
I have no idea. Without looking it up, my guess would be that because it is actually a man-made reservoir, and not a natural lake.
While there is certainly something to say for tradition, there is also a case to be made for accuracy. I don't think it matters that much either way. We have reservoirs around here named both ways and nobody seems to care.
Last edited:
RBBailey said:
For the most part, I follow you and even agree with some of your post.
Pretty close.
There are three separate meanings. Only one matters when talking about the law. Again, my opinion is that the law shouldn't be involved with it at all. Which leaves the other two meanings.
One is the simplest and perhaps oldest... a long-term sexual pairing of persons. (Earlier I specified two persons. That was a mistake... forgetting polygamy.) Respect for this old tradition is why many governments recognize "common-law" marriages in some fashion.
Finally there is the religious sense you refer to.
Why must it not be?
We are talking about the first definition I listed. What they are seeking has nothing to do with your values or religious belief system. They are seeking a legal status. Why did the government hijack a term with the religious implications you give... for something as mundane as a legal status?
Why must they use a different name, for the same set of "rights", than anyone else uses?
I think the whole thing ends up in a circular argument such as this one. Which is also why I think it might be best to agree to disagree, let it go, and focus on other stuff that really matters.
If you truly think this puts our country on a slippery slope of some kind, you can always pick out the next spot you feel is worth holding onto, and stand firm there. Some that disagree with you now might very well be with you on that one, and stand there too.
Cheers.
America wasn't founded on the family, God or little green men.
It was founded on the fact that business men did not want to pay taxes to a country that was to far away to really do much about it.
Remember this quote? "Life. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Well, we can have the life tha they want us to have, the liberty they give us and the happiness they believe match thier tenets that are in an arcahic book that has be rewritten be the very people that revere it and the governments that have controlled it that much of the lessons it taught are gone.
Case in point, "Render unto Ceasar what is Caeser's". Nice, God says, pay your taxes or you'll go to hell.
It was founded on the fact that business men did not want to pay taxes to a country that was to far away to really do much about it.
Remember this quote? "Life. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Well, we can have the life tha they want us to have, the liberty they give us and the happiness they believe match thier tenets that are in an arcahic book that has be rewritten be the very people that revere it and the governments that have controlled it that much of the lessons it taught are gone.
Case in point, "Render unto Ceasar what is Caeser's". Nice, God says, pay your taxes or you'll go to hell.
Well, in our case, so she could live in the United States with me. And if we hadn't, we'd have yet another illegal alien here.Durda said:
So I guess your position is that if an illegal alien is living with someone they love, it's ok for them to be here.
Which takes me back to a previous argument. The same people who are railing against homosexuals "hijacking" the term "marriage" are many of the same people who rail against wasteful government spending. Oops, except when it's wasteful spending for something they want.
Let's assume it was decided the US would grant 100% of the same rights to "civil union" as they do to "marriage". It would cost millions, probably billions, of dollars to throw out all forms that say "marriage" and replace them with one's that say "marriage or civil union", not to mention all the legislative sessions that would be spent pouring over current laws to reword them.
Ok.RBBailey said:
1. Clerks wouldn't issue marriage licences to same sex couples. Without such a license, a same sex couple could not marry, legally speaking.
2. SF decided they'd issue Licenses to same sex couples.
3. Same sex couples got married in SF.
4. A law was passed in CA prohibiting same sex couples from getting married, and, I think, annuling the previous marriages in SF.
5. The State supreme court rulled the law passed in 4 was unconstitutional.
Tell me again how that is "legislating" from the bench.
Tell me what you would have a supreme court do if not rule on the constitutionality of laws that are passed by the legislature and signed in to law by the executive branch?
When I was in school I was taught that was exactly the purpose of the Supreme Court.
Oh really? Is that a fact?
So you're saying they aren't less of a person when you group them, by the mere fact of being homosexual, with drunks, thieves cheaters and slanderers? What about murderers? don't you think they are wrong? What about rapists?
The argument could be made that you are slandering a group of people by grouping them with criminals.
BTW, what exactly is the "gay lifestyle"?
Your choice of words is very telling about your true feelings.
Last edited:
RBBailey said:
But, you did...by starting a new thread in this section with the title of "Gay Marriage Stuff." If you had wanted it to get lost in the shuffle, you might have just replied to the old one. But you had a reason for making it obvious and putting it out there on top.
So, now you got the responses you didn't want/expect. Are you still glad that you brought it up, again?!
Let's all just concern ourselves with "the pursuit of happiness"
Wow..... I only have one comment and this video sums it all up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZCoeZn09ws&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZCoeZn09ws&NR=1
antichrist said:
I'll admit I haven't read more than half of the long posts to nowhere on this thread, but this caught my eye as I was scrolling past the meaningless jargon.
Are you seriously questioning the concept of a "gay lifestyle"? Are you telling us that you've never observed someone or some people and thought, "Hmmmm....I believe I am observing some indicators that tell me this person/these people could possibly be involved in a homosexual lifestyle."
Roverlady said:
You know what would make me happy? Some drugs and a shitload of money. I think I'll pull a pair of my wife's panty hose over my head and go do me some robbin & killin so I can get me some drugs & money. Pursuit of happiness, baby. It's in the Constituentation.
Gay Lifestyle
Dan at work is gay.
He wants to be called Daniele (Dan-Yell)
so we call him Danyell , he uses the girls locker room and toilet.
25 girls are ok with that(20 are beauties 5 ,well not so).He works alot of overtime and spends alot of time in the ladies locker room and booday.He shares a 6 room colonial on the water with 4 girls (He owns ,they rent).
I think hes fakeing
Dan at work is gay.
He wants to be called Daniele (Dan-Yell)
so we call him Danyell , he uses the girls locker room and toilet.
25 girls are ok with that(20 are beauties 5 ,well not so).He works alot of overtime and spends alot of time in the ladies locker room and booday.He shares a 6 room colonial on the water with 4 girls (He owns ,they rent).
I think hes fakeing
In answer to a few of you about what the Courts should do in a case like this. They should not hear it.
What does the government have to do getting involved in peoples' love lives like this? Nothing. This case does not fall under what the courts are supposed to be deciding. Several of you have pointed this out in a round about way when you make the point that marriage really isn't a government "thing", that if anything, it should simply be a common law issue, controlled by the churches, recognized by government, but not controlled by government.
What does the government have to do getting involved in peoples' love lives like this? Nothing. This case does not fall under what the courts are supposed to be deciding. Several of you have pointed this out in a round about way when you make the point that marriage really isn't a government "thing", that if anything, it should simply be a common law issue, controlled by the churches, recognized by government, but not controlled by government.
but the government got involved when the passed a law stopping it correct? so the courts just pushed them back out of it. Correct?
Still waiting for the wording of the law the court passed.:seeya:
Still waiting for the wording of the law the court passed.:seeya:
Someone else asked what I mean by our country, society being founded on these principles of "traditional family". And another brought up a question along the same lines, that our country was founded on the principles of tax evasion -- where did your history instruction go wrong?
The last first. The founding of this country was prompted by the political and taxation issues the Colonists were having with the English. To say that it was founded on these issues as the principles of the founding is about as shallow an assessment as one can get. It ignores the fact that the men and women who really took up the cause at first had been doing so for a long time prior to the Revolution years. They had been reading John Locke, they had been writing and thinking and arguing in their own ways for years leading up to the point there the French & Indian war brought the issue to the forefront of all issues in America at the time. When the British soldiers were stationed in America, when they began to be taxed, and when they began to have laws placed over them in contrary fashion to how the British Constitution was set up, these were the things that became the flash point for the implementation of the theory of a free people responsible for their own government -- a Democratic Republic.
When I talk about society as a whole, it is impossible for me to put it more plainly than to say that we would not be here if it were not for the foundation of society being the family -- whether or not it is or was recognized under the law or the church in the ways we see it today. Until most recently, with the advent of modern science, it was impossible for two lesbians or two gay men to procreate. I'm surprised you don't know this, but let me continue. It then stands to reason, if the entire history of all mankind stems from this one fact, that it takes a male and a female to create the next generation of life, it is also logical to say that the gay lifestyle is opposite of what nature intended. We don't need a god, a bible, a church or anything ideological to come to this conclusion.
Once we have come this far, we realize also that all government had it's origins in the family unit. The first government, the first society, was the family unit as it is traditionally thought of with all of it's various modes, variations, and historical distinctions. Whether you like it or not, the society we have, have always had, is built on the family as the foundation. America is a family on a grand scale. Our system of government is a complicated outline of the simple family unit.
I defined the family as, in it's most standard terms, a man a woman and their children. I defined society, or the beginnings of society, as the family. Two basic parts which make up the whole -- if you distort or change one of those parts, the whole is also distorted and changed. It has happened before. So at the risk of sounding "tacky" I will say: if you don't know your history, you are doomed to repeat it. The breakdown of a societies norms and traditions has always been the harbinger of the end of that society, whether it is the cause of that end is anyone's guess, but a warning it is indisputably.
The last first. The founding of this country was prompted by the political and taxation issues the Colonists were having with the English. To say that it was founded on these issues as the principles of the founding is about as shallow an assessment as one can get. It ignores the fact that the men and women who really took up the cause at first had been doing so for a long time prior to the Revolution years. They had been reading John Locke, they had been writing and thinking and arguing in their own ways for years leading up to the point there the French & Indian war brought the issue to the forefront of all issues in America at the time. When the British soldiers were stationed in America, when they began to be taxed, and when they began to have laws placed over them in contrary fashion to how the British Constitution was set up, these were the things that became the flash point for the implementation of the theory of a free people responsible for their own government -- a Democratic Republic.
When I talk about society as a whole, it is impossible for me to put it more plainly than to say that we would not be here if it were not for the foundation of society being the family -- whether or not it is or was recognized under the law or the church in the ways we see it today. Until most recently, with the advent of modern science, it was impossible for two lesbians or two gay men to procreate. I'm surprised you don't know this, but let me continue. It then stands to reason, if the entire history of all mankind stems from this one fact, that it takes a male and a female to create the next generation of life, it is also logical to say that the gay lifestyle is opposite of what nature intended. We don't need a god, a bible, a church or anything ideological to come to this conclusion.
Once we have come this far, we realize also that all government had it's origins in the family unit. The first government, the first society, was the family unit as it is traditionally thought of with all of it's various modes, variations, and historical distinctions. Whether you like it or not, the society we have, have always had, is built on the family as the foundation. America is a family on a grand scale. Our system of government is a complicated outline of the simple family unit.
I defined the family as, in it's most standard terms, a man a woman and their children. I defined society, or the beginnings of society, as the family. Two basic parts which make up the whole -- if you distort or change one of those parts, the whole is also distorted and changed. It has happened before. So at the risk of sounding "tacky" I will say: if you don't know your history, you are doomed to repeat it. The breakdown of a societies norms and traditions has always been the harbinger of the end of that society, whether it is the cause of that end is anyone's guess, but a warning it is indisputably.