BlockHead Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 BadMan I would as I said earlier like the chance to vote on it.Your vote doesn’t count. Why? Because you are homophobic! Gay Marriage Supporters What is marriage? What do you think is the purpose of marriage? What is its function? Heads roll in a revolution. Mine won’t be one of them. Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 Blockhead, shame on you for not recognizing the difference between allowing citizens to be homophobic, and enabling them to legislate their homophobia. I respect every American's right to be an ignorant prick. I object to allowing them to legislate their support of something wickedly unjust. What is marriage? Marriage is a nonsecular sacrament of which homosexuals are not lobbying to receive. However, our government has chosen to recognize a religious sacrament as a civil institution entailing federal rights. As such, they have a responsibility to not discriminate against which pair of people to whom they afford such federal rights. What do you think is the purpose of marriage? It depends on the purposes of the people choosing to marry. Some marry for love, for money, for stability, for children. It's none of our business, and certainly not the business of the state. What is its function? I believe marriage no longer has any place as a civil institution, but as we're giving rights to heterosexuals, it's antiamerican to decline them to homosexuals as well. --- The biblical argument sucks. Leviticus 18:22 specifically states that Homosexuality is an abomination. Leviticus 11:12 states: "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that [shall be] an abomination unto you." Where are the anti-shellfish lobbies? How dare we as a nation defile the sanctity of ingestion by allowing such a crime against our one true God? Ergo, Your reasoning sucks as well. Shellfish eating doesn't give you the creeps, but gay sex does. I don't believe in legislating morality, nor legislating arrogant phobias, and certainly not legislating against things on the grounds of it giving you the creeps. Link to post Share on other sites
jester Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 Heads roll in a revolution. Mine won’t be one of them. Last time I checked, City Hall was issuing marriage licenses in San Francisco, not operating guillotines. Plus, I've heard tell of Gay bashing, never "straight" bashing. What is marriage? The voluntary union for life (one hopes) of two persons to the exclusion (again, one can always hope)of all others. What do you think is the purpose of marriage? What is its function? Marriage is two people living together in a family or economic partnership with intimate consensual relations. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 You'll want to put the / in the 'end' quote box rather than the 'begin' quote box. Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 Originally posted by jester The voluntary union for life (one hopes) of two persons to the exclusion (again, one can always hope)of all others. Marriage is two people living together in a family or economic partnership with intimate consensual relations. Are these prerequisites for straight marriage? Nope. What are? You gotta be eighteen, and of different genders. So why do we value it as a civil institution? Because we have something gays want, and hell if those filthy homos are going to take it from us Link to post Share on other sites
jester Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 Are these prerequisites for straight marriage? Nope. What are? There are none. So why do we value it as a civil institution? Sharp, Dyer. I was speaking of an ideal--but I understand, and appreciate, the point. Link to post Share on other sites
BlockHead Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 jester Last time I checked, City Hall was issuing marriage licenses in San Francisco, not operating guillotines.Axes, swords, and poorly maintained elevators can be used. dyermaker You gotta be eighteen, and of different genders.Why stop with gender? Is there a problem with a six or seven-year-old girl marrying a middle age man? How about a six or seven-year-old boy? Where do you draw the line? Marrying an alternate personality? Marrying a pet? Marrying an inflatable doll? Marrying a corpse? Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 Originally posted by BlockHead How about a six or seven-year-old boy? Where do you draw the line? Marrying an alternate personality? Marrying a pet? Marrying an inflatable doll? Marrying a corpse? Blockhead, you are entitled to the crown of fallacious analogies. Six/Seven year old children, emotional delusions, domesticated animals, inflatable novelties, and rotting human carcasses are all not capable of legal consent. Link to post Share on other sites
BlockHead Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 Marrying the dead. http://smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/11/1076388397691.html I see a trend. Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 Originally posted by BlockHead Marrying the dead. http://smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/11/1076388397691.html Your linking to foreign (French) press articles labelled "Unusual Tales" have no relevance to a discussion on United States Laws. As usual, you create a sardonic diversion to hide how wrong you are. Link to post Share on other sites
wideawake Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Originally posted by BlockHead Heads roll in a revolution. Mine won’t be one of them. Yeah well, it's a block and by design they suck at rolling. Now if you only had a nice standard round head like everyone else you know, than everything would be just dandy. Link to post Share on other sites
hedder Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 I agree with your thoughts jester on how most americans would rather keep the term "marriage" for men and women, and let gays have their civil unions with the same basic rights. I think reasoning behind this is that marriage denotes approval, while civil unions denote tolerance. Most people will tolerate this activity, but a majority dont seem to want to give their stamp of approval of it, for historical or religious reasons. It really is semantics, and i think it will eventually end up this way. I think that by definition a constitutional amendment cannot be unconstitutional. With our tri- branches of govt., the ultimate power still rests with the people, which is the beauty of this document. If the Supreme court interpretes a law to be unconstitutional, and the people dont agree, its over-ridden by the amendment process. If there were to be a situation where the Supreme Court could look at the amendment before it passes and declare it to be unconstitutional, that would gut the amendment process and insulate the Supreme Court from the balance of power. This process was made to be very difficult so as to protect the integrity of the document from knee-jerk reactions like Bush is doing-----his actions are just candy for the conservative base, nothing more. It will go away like the Equal Rights Amendment. Prohibition was not unconstitutional - it was just bad law that was later changed by the people in another Amendment. IF this banning of gay marriage were to pass, then I think it would then be constitutional until repealed. In essense though, the people thru the vote will decide these issues. Not everyone will ever like it, but its better than Sadaam doing it. Link to post Share on other sites
meanon Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 This article reminded me of the discussion on this thread: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1179629,00.html Link to post Share on other sites
Phayze Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 Hello all, there are quite a few threads I would like to add to, however I find that these concepts are the basis of our discussion and therefore deserve to be addressed first. What is marriage? I understand marriage to be (in this particular context), the union under the law of two consenting adults who intend on sharing a home, intimacy (physical), as well as extending certain rights to the spouse, in theory this contract is for the couple's lifespan, however in practice the law allows the dissolution of this contract by showing cause. What is it's funcion? It's function (of the institution or contract), is to aknowledge legally that both people involved in the contract are bound together (rights and obligations). What is the purpose of marriage? This issue is even more subjective I fear than the previous two, in my opinion, the purpose of marriage is to legitimize a union as far as domestic and international law is concerned so that the people united by marriage enjoy the rights it legally conffers upon them as well as abide by the responsibilities it entails. I do not wish to offend anyone's beliefs, as I have stated...this is my personal opinion, not a criticism of reality. Link to post Share on other sites
Bill Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 All of you seem to miss something, the definition of marriage. Main Entry: mar·riage Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij Function: noun Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law Source: Merriam-Webster This issue is also about changing the definition of marriage. Although it sickens me to see public shows of affection between gay people, it's not my say as to what they do. I'm heterosexual, of course that would sicken me. You are trying to change the definition of marriage, a term that is over 2000 years old. (Not in English) What's to stop people from wanting Polyandry and Polygamy next? Deviations do not stop, and there must be a line somewhere. I have no problem with the union of two homosexual people, but trying to make other people pay for it is going too far. Link to post Share on other sites
wideawake Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 This issue is also about changing the definition of marriage. Yup, values change and thus our language needs to reflect those changes. Not a hard concept to get your head around. Go back 60 years and tell me what the definition of 'gay' was....I bet it was pretty different than todays dictionary. Do you really make value based judgements based on the dictionary?!?!? Dude...that's so ill. Although it sickens me to see public shows of affection between gay people, it's not my say as to what they do. I'm heterosexual, of course that would sicken me. Please.... I'm hetro through and through. I have no probs with gay people and watching them kiss. My gay friends kiss all the time in front of me. Deal with it, you're just showing your prejudece against other people. People still hate to see black and white hetro couples kiss as well. Do you also find that offensive? You are trying to change the definition of marriage, a term that is over 2000 years old. Again, yeah, so f***in' what? It's just a word baby! What's to stop people from wanting Polyandry and Polygamy next? Deviations do not stop, and there must be a line somewhere. Whoa...I think you're sliding down the slope there bucky. I have no problem with the union of two homosexual people, but trying to make other people pay for it is going too far. BAHAHAHAHAA Yeah...as long as they don't hold hand and make you sick right? Yeah, you obviously have no probs in this regard. Hey, could you put a list together of what gay people can and can not be allowed to do? Just curious where you draw the line there laughing boy. And as far as paying for it? Are you kidding me? Do you really think yourself so important that your own minor little petty and insecurity based anxiety over gays kissing is worth the price of freedom? Link to post Share on other sites
Phayze Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 Originally posted by Bill What's to stop people from wanting Polyandry and Polygamy next? Deviations do not stop, and there must be a line somewhere. I have no problem with the union of two homosexual people, but trying to make other people pay for it is going too far. Polygamy is a current as well as olden issue, there have been and ARE places (as well as certain cultures), where polygamy is a practiced institution. However) I don't believe that polygamy and the right for gay people to marry are in the same category; gay marriage is something actively sought by some members of the gay community worldwide, while polygamy is a practice and those involved are not actively seeking a legal extension of rights. I am not sure if I understand correctly, but there is no implication as to you or anyone else paying for the right for gay marriage. You will not have taxes raised, you will not be billed for every wedding ceremony a gay/lesbian couple has, and you will not have to suffer for their choice to marry (if by pay you did not mean a monetary payment). Link to post Share on other sites
Phayze Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 Originally posted by BadMan Teaches children abnormal behavior. Homosexuality is by definition abnormal. Again gays have the right to marry just like me- not the same sex however. They can think and do whatever they want in the privacy of thier own home. Not me alone, but give the american people the chance to vote- don't let a bunch of liberal judges make that decision for me. No-they just shouldn't be allowed custody of any children No- if theres enough of them to vote on this issue(and theres enough heteros to support them) and they win the right to marry and raise children I'll have to accept it. Homosexuality by definition is not abnormal, it's abnormal by connotation (just to clarify), plus you have yet to define normal, which is a standard norm established by the majority just because it is the average. In any case an average is a middle range which simply has a higher occurance percentage than other non-average situations, these situations are simply non-average implying no judgement is being made on them. It does not teach children anything except what the married couple wish to teach it. Gay people do not have the right to marry...only heterosexuals do as you yourself are so clearly pointing out. I agree with you on this point since you are talking about legislation in a democratic society where all people are allowed to vote on any modifications made or proposed to their laws. I believe everyone has a right to legislate a population's rights as well as obligations, however that does not imply that the people legislated against will desist their call to recognition and they shouldn't. Custody of a child is to be awarded to a responsible caring adult or couple who has the means to provide for the childs future. While there are some gay people who do not qualify for the role of parent under these requirements, there are also some who do (a situation clearly seen in the heterosexual world where nobody decides if the parent is apt, and heterosexuals simply have babies because they can physiologically and not because they are responsible adults, whereas any adoption service thoroughly checks the parent/s in question). This is another point where I agree with you, for the same reasons as before. Link to post Share on other sites
Bill Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 Originally posted by wideawake This issue is also about changing the definition of marriage. Yup, values change and thus our language needs to reflect those changes. Not a hard concept to get your head around. Go back 60 years and tell me what the definition of 'gay' was....I bet it was pretty different than todays dictionary. Do you really make value based judgements based on the dictionary?!?!? Dude...that's so ill. Yes, I base my word definitions on the dictionary. That's why it was made, so people don't bastardize the English language. You can buy one at a book store, use one at a library, or use one online. Learn to use them. Although it sickens me to see public shows of affection between gay people, it's not my say as to what they do. I'm heterosexual, of course that would sicken me. Please.... I'm hetro through and through. I have no probs with gay people and watching them kiss. My gay friends kiss all the time in front of me. Deal with it, you're just showing your prejudece against other people. People still hate to see black and white hetro couples kiss as well. Do you also find that offensive? Skin color makes no difference. Sex of a person, does. It does make me sick seeing that. Obviously you are more tolerant. There's somewhere I draw the line. You said you watch gay people kiss, maybe you aren't as straight as you thought. With you new dictionary, look up the definition of the term "watch". It is possible that you are bisexual. Don't judge me on what I get sick seeing, because, I can get sick at anything I want. I'm not judging, just it is not "pleasing" for me to see, quite the opposite. You are trying to change the definition of marriage, a term that is over 2000 years old. Again, yeah, so f***in' what? It's just a word baby! You should write your concerns to: For queries about the English language in general, visit AskOxford.com or contact the Oxford Word and Language Service at: OWLS Oxford University Press Great Clarendon St. Oxford OX2 6DP Tel: +44 (0) 1865 353660 As you know, the Oxford English Dictionary is the definitive record of the English language. What's to stop people from wanting Polyandry and Polygamy next? Deviations do not stop, and there must be a line somewhere. Whoa...I think you're sliding down the slope there bucky. Dominoes, when one falls, more are bound to follow suit. Think about it. It's a chain reaction. I have no problem with the union of two homosexual people, but trying to make other people pay for it is going too far. BAHAHAHAHAA Yeah...as long as they don't hold hand and make you sick right? Yeah, you obviously have no probs in this regard. Hey, could you put a list together of what gay people can and can not be allowed to do? Just curious where you draw the line there laughing boy. And as far as paying for it? Are you kidding me? Do you really think yourself so important that your own minor little petty and insecurity based anxiety over gays kissing is worth the price of freedom? I have no say in what gay people can and cannot be allowed to do. I just said that it's not something that appeals to me. You should look up how social security works. You can find this information at: http://people.howstuffworks.com/question385.htm, "How the Social Security System Works". As added notes: Spell Check is YOUR friend So is the the dictionary Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 That's why it was made, so people don't bastardize the English language Well, guess what, Bill? Every year or so, the editors of these sacred dictionaries announce the new additions and changes made to the dictionary. If, as you seem to think, the English language is sacrosanct, why are you not speaking in the manner of Chaucer? How dare you use a word like 'bastardize'? That certainly wasn't around 2000 years ago. Conclusion: the above argument was not logical. Skin color makes no difference. Sex of a person, does. It does make me sick seeing that Oh well. That is your opinion. Country music makes me sick, however that is my opinion and I am not entitled to impose it on others. I can ensure that no country music is played in my home or car, but that's where my rights stop. NOBODY has a right to impose his taste on anyone else. You said you watch gay people kiss, maybe you aren't as straight as you thought Oh, that's cute. Now we leave the arena of reasoned debate and head for ad hominem land. because, I can get sick at anything I want As can we all. Some people get extremely sick when I see people act bigoted. Some people think all bigots should be herded up and sent to an island by themselves. Oh - was that some people trying to impose their thoughts on others? Not as pleasant or enjoyable when somebody else does it, is it? I'm not judging, just it is not "pleasing" for me to see, quite the opposite. Yes you are. You did it right there, just after 'judging'. I just said that it's not something that appeals to me Well, the good news is you're safe. I can pretty much guarantee that no gay man will ever want to marry you and you certainly will never be forced into marrying a gay man. Therefore - problem solved! Live, Bill, and let live. Link to post Share on other sites
Bill Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 Originally posted by moimeme That's why it was made, so people don't bastardize the English language Well, guess what, Bill? Every year or so, the editors of these sacred dictionaries announce the new additions and changes made to the dictionary. If, as you seem to think, the English language is sacrosanct, why are you not speaking in the manner of Chaucer? How dare you use a word like 'bastardize'? That certainly wasn't around 2000 years ago. Conclusion: the above argument was not logical. Skin color makes no difference. Sex of a person, does. It does make me sick seeing that Oh well. That is your opinion. Country music makes me sick, however that is my opinion and I am not entitled to impose it on others. I can ensure that no country music is played in my home or car, but that's where my rights stop. NOBODY has a right to impose his taste on anyone else. You said you watch gay people kiss, maybe you aren't as straight as you thought Oh, that's cute. Now we leave the arena of reasoned debate and head for ad hominem land. because, I can get sick at anything I want As can we all. Some people get extremely sick when I see people act bigoted. Some people think all bigots should be herded up and sent to an island by themselves. Oh - was that some people trying to impose their thoughts on others? Not as pleasant or enjoyable when somebody else does it, is it? I'm not judging, just it is not "pleasing" for me to see, quite the opposite. Yes you are. You did it right there, just after 'judging'. I just said that it's not something that appeals to me Well, the good news is you're safe. I can pretty much guarantee that no gay man will ever want to marry you and you certainly will never be forced into marrying a gay man. Therefore - problem solved! Live, Bill, and let live. To change a word that has sacred meaning is not right. You really do not understand how judging and "getting sick" because of seeing something is different. If you can't see the difference, have it your way. Natural behavior isn't a judgement. Judgements are conscious opinions and declarations. Guess what moimeme? I know the English language changes, but to try to change words where there is no concensus, that's wrong. Conclusion: Marriage is sacred. Don't f*ck with it. By the way, in the Old Testament the rendering of the Hebrew word _mamzer'_, which means "polluted."-(Deut. 23:2), basterdized is mentioned. Learn your History before trying to act smart. Perhaps you should consider college. Link to post Share on other sites
Kat Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 Bush's lapdog good old Johnnie Howard has decided to ban gay marriages too. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 To change a word that has sacred meaning is not right Um. And how did this, of the tens of thousands of words in the English language, manage to have a 'sacred meaning'? Plenty of English-speaking people don't believe in a God, and therefore 'sacred' could not possibly apply. Why doesn't 'love' have sacred meaning? What about 'trust'? How's about 'fidelity'? Why aren't you fighting the perpetrators of indignities upon these words? Natural behavior isn't a judgement What of those of us who don't get sick? Apparently, you believe that your behaviour is 'natural' and that of others is 'unnatural'. Please cite scientific research to back up your contention. but to try to change words where there is no concensus, that's wrong. Nope. Not in the least. Nothing immoral about it, and 'wrong' is a word belonging to morality, not to linguistics. Nobody has ever asked me to vote on Oxford's next additions or changes - how about you? I gotta tell you, Bill, that I used to take translation classes. You could spend an entire class arguing the meaning of a paragraph. When it comes to semantics, and how words are nuanced, 'consensus' is the last thing one can logically expect. Marriage is sacred. Oh no it is not. Every abused man or woman, every betrayed spouse, every forgotten birthday, every golf widow, every workaholic's partner, and all their fellows in similar situations will assure you there is nothing 'sacred' about marriage. I would absolutely love it if everybody who is so loudly proclaiming the 'sanctity' of marriage would spend their time demonstrating their belief in this concept by working very hard to become loving people so that they could honour this 'sanctity' in deed rather than in battles over semantics. Link to post Share on other sites
Phayze Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 Originally posted by Bill Conclusion: Marriage is sacred. Since you appear to be so fond of dictionaries, here's a definition you might not have come across; it can be found on the Merriam Webster online dictionary. Notice the absence of the word sacred, holy, or any other religious connotation, I would refer you as well to notice the (2) definition. So I believe one might argue that the word you are so adamant in defending has indeed been modified. Main Entry: mar·riage Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij Function: noun Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities 3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross> Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts