I can't help but wonder why those who are so passionately opposed to homosexual marriages, because they believe it is against Gawd's laws, don't appear to be equally passionately against adultery, divorce, the pornography industry, etc. etc.
Aren't those things against God's laws too?
I was wondering about this too.
There are many things that are against "Gods laws" and specifically sited as 'abominations" to God.
I have no idea why they want to zero in on this one. (Well I do , but I'll keep that to myself for now)
Eating shellfish (crab, lobster, clams, mussels etc..)is an abomination to God. Its mentioned 3 times as an 'abomination'
Ive yet to see such passionate protests against this great "atrocity" at the Clam Hut or Red Lobster where this abomination is openly practiced! Our government even subsidizes fishermen who bring this...this.. horrible pox of ..lobsters .. into our country...
Why no equal outcry against this abomination to God and his laws?
It would make an interesting study see the underlying psychological factors contributory to why people pick and choose as they do...
well, i was kinda interested about what you wrote... and so i wanted to check it out for myself...
and what i found was that you didn't quite give us the whole story here...
in fact, i would like to add some information that seems to NEGATE your original statement about it not being instinctive for the actual parent to care more...
so evidently it is NOT the ACTUAL PARENT who is killing its own offspring in most cases...
from these examples in nature, it appears that most killing of young animals is the work of UNRELATED members of the same species, who in fact do it toprotect their OWN OFFSPRING...
so this reference to nature shows the opposite of what you intended...
it does appear that it is instinctive for the actual parentto care more about the kids!
WOW ... very good work there jen-o ... I was wondering too, where that list came from. But it seems to prove not only that the blood parent instinctively protects very strongly, but also that those "foster parents or adopted parents" care very much less, and look out for their own first.
I think there is evidence that there is a higher incidence of abuse from non blood "parents". Hence the phrase "beat him like a red-headed step-child". It is only natural. (but mstar is only abusing lobsters, so I don't care about that ... does he boil them alive? call PETA :o )
It also shows how people are willing to change facts to support their political preference.
We did this for blacks too. Mulatto for for a half white- half black person. There were other names that escape me now, for half black- half mexican, half black- half indian, etc. They didn't pass judgement, but gave a more accurate description of a person's race, as if it was any of our business or should have made any difference. What they did do was made it more clear on how to discriminate against each group.
Of course it makes a difference it tells us about the person and heritage. We classify dogs as well does breed make it more lovable ? No , but it is helpful in many other purposes. So let me get this straight if I call a boxer a boxer because that's what he is ,it makes it easier to discriminate against him?
Civil union as marriage doesn't do much in terms of communication, other than tells everyone, discriminator and non-discriminator, that this person is homosexual. Maybe we could have different rings too. Maybe on a different finger, so we could just know by looking at them. What about husband and wife? We need new words for that too. We MUST know who is the "giver" in the gay male relationship and who is the "taker"... not to pass judgement, just so we really know who is the "husband" and who is the "wife." It is just for clarification.
Sure it does it tells us they are not married which is man and wife male and female. It tells us they have acommittment as a couple but not as a married man and wife. It tells us it is something else, it does not say it is good or bad only different. That's what words do a car is a car a truck is a truck, neither is good or bad from their identifying word just not the same thing.
Communication? Is there really going to be any confusion over Bob coming over to you and introducing his new husband Jim? "Wait a second when you said you were getting 'married' to Jim, I thought that was your pet name for your future wife 'Jimbolina.' You said 'married." Not that there's anything wrong with that."
A perversion of the language? We're talking about adding an additional "man" and/or "woman" to the definition. That's perverting the language? Oh, oh wait, you probably meant they are perverts and thus they are perverting the language, perhaps even your own marriage by etymological association.
Honestly, this is ridiculous.
There is no point to changing a word that communicates. Even today as we discover new things we also add new words to coincide with them we don't change other words as a rule for no point. When computers came along Gee we added a new word we did not call them TV's just because they had a screen. Why because we already had a word for what a TV is.
Of course it makes a difference it tells us about the person and heritage. We classify dogs as well does breed make it more lovable ? No , but it is helpful in many other purposes. So let me get this straight if I call a boxer a boxer because that's what he is ,it makes it easier to discriminate against him?
Try calling someone a "mulatto" today. It is a derogatory term now. Probably because it was a derogatory term then, just no one cared. Funny how no one seemed to care about making up a new word for your or my personal heritage. Is there a special word for a half German half- Irish person. NO. Why? Because no one CARES. "White" or "caucasian" communicates enough. "Marriage" communicates enough.
Sure it does it tells us they are not married which is man and wife male and female. It tells us they have acommittment as a couple but not as a married man and wife. It tells us it is something else, it does not say it is good or bad only different. That's what words do a car is a car a truck is a truck, neither is good or bad from their identifying word just not the same thing.
Really? They have a different commitment as a couple than a married man and woman? How so? I thought it was more about having sex in a different way. How is their commitment different? You know what else would make it sound different? Call it GAY marriage. No confusion there. You won't mistake Joe for Judy or vise versa. You might not know "exactly" how they have sex, but then you can always just ask, if you feel so inclined.
A car is a car and a truck is a truck, but they are both vehicles. You can have a Jewish wedding or a Catholic wedding, you can have a civil ceremony, but afterward, they are all married. Everyone understands what that means, it didn't suddenly define their sex as individuals or their sexuality, it just describes the commitment and the legal contract and benefits you both have. Whether you choose to acknowledge it as such, it is what it is.
There is no point to changing a word that communicates.
Exactly, why it doesn't communicate to you and others is beyond me. But I think we have all been able to follow this conversation pretty clearly from the start. If you need any clarification, please just ask.
Try calling someone a "mulatto" today. It is a derogatory term now. Probably because it was a derogatory term then, just no one cared. Funny how no one seemed to care about making up a new word for your or my personal heritage. Is there a special word for a half German half- Irish person. NO. Why? Because no one CARES. "White" or "caucasian" communicates enough. "Marriage" communicates enough.
Really? They have a different commitment as a couple than a married man and woman? How so? I thought it was more about having sex in a different way. How is their commitment different? You know what else would make it sound different? Call it GAY marriage. No confusion there. You won't mistake Joe for Judy or vise versa. You might not know "exactly" how they have sex, but then you can always just ask, if you feel so inclined.
I never said they have a different commitment What I said was
It tells us they have a commitment as a couple but not as a married man and wife( by definition.) That said I suspect most couples have different commitments based on beliefs.
Marriage by definition is male female historically they may commit as a couple but they lack the perimeters to be married.
I thought it was more about having sex in a different way.
No it is about male and female as married not male and male or female and female. You added the stipulation of having sex, it is possible to be married without sex. That can't define marriage as such then.
A car is a car and a truck is a truck, but they are both vehicles. You can have a Jewish wedding or a Catholic wedding, you can have a civil ceremony, but afterward, they are all married. Everyone understands what that means, it didn't suddenly define their sex as individuals or their sexuality, it just describes the commitment and the legal contract and benefits you both have. Whether you choose to acknowledge it as such, it is what it is.
That's where you are wrong it does not simply just describe the commitment and the legal contract and benefits you both have. Marriage defines male female man woman as perimeters in definition. You missed that part......
By the way Whether you choose to acknowledge it as such, it is what it is.
You can have a Jewish wedding or a Catholic wedding, you can have a civil ceremony, but afterward, they are all married
Note your example I think you answered your own question ,all participating in such would be male female. So yes as such as I pointed out they would all be married. Just because I might like my bicycle to be called a car because they are both vehicles does not make it so . Some may say it qualifies as such because it has a horn, some may say it qualifies as such because it has tires, some may say it qualifies as such because it has gears, but we all know that it really is not the same as a car. That's why we have a different word for it . I think you get the picture.......
Exactly, why it doesn't communicate to you and others is beyond me. But I think we have all been able to follow this conversation pretty clearly from the start. If you need any clarification, please just ask.
So exactly why are you trying so hard to change a word that does not mean what you are trying to add as definition?
I thought this horse was dead, but it seems everyone feels a need to beat on it anyway.
I think most everyone is missing the real point here. Why must the state confer or withhold legitimacy to a practice that people have engaged in for thousands of years before the existence of the state and will continue for generations and generations after that state has fallen?
Why should the state have control over that which people do anyway? In a condition of total anarchy, people would pair off into exclusive unions and laisons and be happy with their choices, living their lives well without harming others.
Why does the state confer licenses to ANY marriage? Why is that necessary? Why should the state have anything to do with how private, individual citizens conduct their private, individual affairs?
Why is the state in the marriage business in the first place?
I thought this horse was dead, but it seems everyone feels a need to beat on it anyway.
I think most everyone is missing the real point here. Why must the state confer or withhold legitimacy to a practice that people have engaged in for thousands of years before the existence of the state and will continue for generations and generations after that state has fallen?
Why should the state have control over that which people do anyway? In a condition of total anarchy, people would pair off into exclusive unions and laisons and be happy with their choices, living their lives well without harming others.
Why does the state confer licenses to ANY marriage? Why is that necessary? Why should the state have anything to do with how private, individual citizens conduct their private, individual affairs?
Why is the state in the marriage business in the first place?
The major issue seems to be protection or providing for children. The state does get to decide who to collect money from ... so to provide more children for the future of the nation, I guess, they have an interest in "promoting" that, plus better cared for kids make a better society ... and the more maternal nature of our government has interest in more control of the family.
Of course deadbeat dads are a big issue ... the courts decide that a family consists of the blood mom and dad, and that dad may just be a one night stand guy that didn't know he was a dad till he gets told the mom would like to start getting money.
So even then, the courts set up this family, with the man legally required to provide.They are legally required to be bound to the mom and child, even without the rest of the "marriage".
This seems a different aspect of the gay "marriage" type commitment. There is at most one blood parent. There is not the same commitment to stay together for the kids' sake.There is not the same legal level of commitment of the Dad or the Mom to a child.
Ron brings up an interesting point. Rhino the states can and do regulate and protect the children financially, outside the confines of marriage, all of the time. There are millions of unwed mother's and fathers who were never married. Despite the lack of a binding license, the state decides who has the kids when and who pays and how much for support.
It's interesting and very telling what the responses to my little post were. Quite accurate, too. These were perceptive replies.
I just wonder how differently the Declaration of Independence and subsequent Constitution would have been worded had Jefferson, Washington, Franklin etc. been indoctrinated and reared by King George's state funded and standardized systems (village) like the state uses today.
When the state presumes to manage the private lives of citizens and their progeny like that, whether it legitimizes "gay" marriage or deligitimizes it by codification, it's TYRANNY.
The people of California voted to delegitimize "gay" marriage and the court overturned that.
We have a dillemma where the coersive power of the state is being invoked to force one side or the other. The ultimate evil here is NOT "gay" marriage, nor is it the will of the people. It's the coersive power of the state.
When the state presumes to manage the private lives of citizens and their progeny like that, whether it legitimizes "gay" marriage or deligitimizes it by codification, it's TYRANNY.
The people of California voted to delegitimize "gay" marriage and the court overturned that.
We have a dillemma where the coersive power of the state is being invoked to force one side or the other. The ultimate evil here is NOT "gay" marriage, nor is it the will of the people. It's the coersive power of the state.
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
Like it or not, the definition of words change. I would think that the word itself has meant different things in different places at different times. Language is not static.
If the state is going to confer a legal civil identification on the relationship between two people, whether man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman why not call that legal identification a civil union, without discrimination against any two consenting adults. If couples wish to have their religion further sanction it, they can do so and call it whatever their church wishes. For that matter, if a couple wishes to ONLY have their church sanction it, they should be able to do so. In the latter case, none of the legal benefits which might accrue do to a civil union by the State would apply, i.e tax benefits, survivorship, SS benefits etc.
On the other hand, as Ron suggests, maybe the government should not be in the role of sanctioning ANY relationships, but then it would have to do away with any tax relief (if there is any) and do away with the current structure of SS benefits given to the surviving spouse. That might tick off some widows or widowers who would no longer get the higher of the two individual spouse's benefit when the other person dies. They would only continue to get the SS retirement benefit they themselves earned, even if their deceased spouse had been getting a larger benefit.
If the government ceased giving legal sanction to relationships, churches could still sanction them, but this would have NO standing regarding any legal definitions. Marriage would simply be a feel good thing that the church does. The way people leave their churches, that would certainly not bode well for marriage longevity.
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
Like it or not, the definition of words change. I would think that the word itself has meant different things in different places at different times. Language is not static.
If the state is going to confer a legal civil identification on the relationship between two people, whether man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman why not call that legal identification a civil union, without discrimination against any two consenting adults. If couples wish to have their religion further sanction it, they can do so and call it whatever their church wishes. For that matter, if a couple wishes to ONLY have their church sanction it, they should be able to do so. In the latter case, none of the legal benefits which might accrue do to a civil union by the State would apply, i.e tax benefits, survivorship, SS benefits etc.
On the other hand, as Ron suggests, maybe the government should not be in the role of sanctioning ANY relationships, but then it would have to do away with any tax relief (if there is any) and do away with the current structure of SS benefits given to the surviving spouse. That might tick off some widows or widowers who would no longer get the higher of the two individual spouse's benefit when the other person dies. They would only continue to get the SS retirement benefit they themselves earned, even if their deceased spouse had been getting a larger benefit.
If the government ceased giving legal sanction to relationships, churches could still sanction them, but this would have NO standing regarding any legal definitions. Marriage would simply be a feel good thing that the church does. The way people leave their churches, that would certainly not bode well for marriage longevity.
It has only changed in later years due to liberal pressure to appease the gay culture. It takes a villiage to raise a gay you know, for centuries before that it had no mention of gay marriage. Of course people can chage words that does not make it right. A gay person publishing a dictionary can print whatever they want just as some judges think they can.
"...government should not be in the role of sanctioning ANY relationships, but then it would have to do away with any tax relief (if there is any) and do away with the current structure of SS benefits given to the surviving spouse...."
Not necessarily if the state is forced to recognize or acknowledge what the people sanction themselves. The people shouldn't seek permission (license) or legitimacy from the state to do what is a natural right. The state should merely acknowledge what the people decide to sanction to themselves, and administer such programs accordingly.
And the state does rule in cases of divorce sometimes it is agreed upon sometimes it is far from that. I suppose if they have to break them up they feel they should have something to do with putting them together.
Thank you HAP. Saved me cutting and pasting. The times they are a changin'.
I think this is the least of our problems when it comes to the coercive power of the state. Actually, no one is forcing anyone to get a marriage license. You just miss out on the "benefits."
If only the state would honer and trust what we say...
Cause people are so honest. Legal shmeagle. Let us do what we feel like and give us the benefits we ask for. Thank you very much.
Of course deadbeat dads are a big issue ... the courts decide that a family consists of the blood mom and dad, and that dad may just be a one night stand guy that didn't know he was a dad till he gets told the mom would like to start getting money.
So even then, the courts set up this family, with the man legally required to provide.They are legally required to be bound to the mom and child, even without the rest of the "marriage".
I'm sorry, am I reading you correctly, Rhino. You make it sound as though this poor guy thinking he was having a one night stand is now FORCED by the state to help pay to raise his child. Are you saying this is a bad thing? Smack yourself twice and dump a bucket of cold water over your head if you are.
I'm sorry, am I reading you correctly, Rhino. You make it sound as though this poor guy thinking he was having a one night stand is now FORCED by the state to help pay to raise his child. Are you saying this is a bad thing? Smack yourself twice and dump a bucket of cold water over your head if you are.
I'm saying the state has a very strong opinion about the role of the real parents, even when there is no relationship.
It is a different thing than marriage, so I'm not actually clear on how to tie my point in smoothly. But it seems the state recognizes the importance of the real family unit, even if it can only enforce the financial part. The blood makes the difference, not the relationship.
That makes a heterosexual marriage potentially a very strong family unit ... a place where kids are supposed to be raised. Not all produce families, but it seems a significant distinction from homosexual marriages, and one the state recognizes. They just don't apply it to marriage ... only to "family" I guess. Still ...
Now smack yourself twice and dump a bucket of cold water over your head Lindyhopper ... :o
I'm saying the state has a very strong opinion about the role of the real parents, even when there is no relationship.
It is a different thing than marriage, so I'm not actually clear on how to tie my point in smoothly. But it seems the state recognizes the importance of the real family unit, even if it can only enforce the financial part. The blood makes the difference, not the relationship.
That makes a heterosexual marriage potentially a very strong family unit ... a place where kids are supposed to be raised. Not all produce families, but it seems a significant distinction from homosexual marriages, and one the state recognizes. They just don't apply it to marriage ... only to "family" I guess. Still ...
Now smack yourself twice and dump a bucket of cold water over your head Lindyhopper ... :o
Here is a new word for you..
In the 70's the homsexual community called us" Breeder's."
Im proud to be a breeder..
Geeeze, they have become so much classier..I have to hand it to them.
RHino, this is realy not a reply to what you said in the above post.Its 5:30 and I have to leave in a scurry..:)
Exactly what I said centuries of word meanings were discarded why because of a court decision, not because the word changed,because a court said so in this recent case four people said so.
This casual dismissal reveals her antipathy toward marriage as an institution central to human life for millennia. But then, what does the wisdom of the ages have to do with her task of updating The Canadian Oxford Dictionary? Ms. Barber is a thoroughly modern woman--and an advocate of the homosexual agenda.
We know this because she chose to editorialize about the issue, explaining that the only reason anyone would object to her new gender-free definition of marriage is--you guessed it--"homophobia." Opponents of this new definition, she charged, "don't want to admit that gay people can have relationships that are just like their ideal heterosexual relationship." Clearly, Ms. Barber is not just concerned about words. She's out to change the world.
This casual dismissal reveals her antipathy toward marriage as an institution central to human life for millennia. But then, what does the wisdom of the ages have to do with her task of updating The Canadian Oxford Dictionary? Ms. Barber is a thoroughly modern woman--and an advocate of the homosexual agenda.
We know this because she chose to editorialize about the issue, explaining that the only reason anyone would object to her new gender-free definition of marriage is--you guessed it--"homophobia." Opponents of this new definition, she charged, "don't want to admit that gay people can have relationships that are just like their ideal heterosexual relationship." Clearly, Ms. Barber is not just concerned about words. She's out to change the world.
He, she, or in Barber's case, it who controls language controls thinking. All politically correct speech protocols (cultural Marxism) and "hate" speech rules and laws are designed to control the thinking of the people and ultimately society as a whole. Evidently, not many libtards or neocons ever read Orwell...or if they did, it went over their heads.
You'd think ex Way people would be keenly aware of that since language is such an important part of control, every cult has it's own nomenclature, phraseology and rhetoric. TWI was certainly no different. It had it's share of unique catch phrases and esoterica with the intent to control the thinking patterns of it's adherents while giving us the illusion of having unique and esoteric knowledge, when in truth, we had nothing.
This is an example of the state, as the ultimate cult, oppressing the people by disallowing free speech/free thought and now codifying it into law. It's all about control and shaping society by shaping peoples thinking patterns. this is just one of many reasons why the state has no business dictating terms to or for either side of this issue and staying out of the marriage business...as well as anything else concerning the individual's private choices.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
22
52
16
Popular Days
May 18
57
May 17
34
May 25
29
May 21
27
Top Posters In This Topic
jen-o 22 posts
WhiteDove 22 posts
rhino 52 posts
bfh 16 posts
Popular Days
May 18 2008
57 posts
May 17 2008
34 posts
May 25 2008
29 posts
May 21 2008
27 posts
Posted Images
mstar1
I was wondering about this too.
There are many things that are against "Gods laws" and specifically sited as 'abominations" to God.
I have no idea why they want to zero in on this one. (Well I do , but I'll keep that to myself for now)
Eating shellfish (crab, lobster, clams, mussels etc..)is an abomination to God. Its mentioned 3 times as an 'abomination'
Ive yet to see such passionate protests against this great "atrocity" at the Clam Hut or Red Lobster where this abomination is openly practiced! Our government even subsidizes fishermen who bring this...this.. horrible pox of ..lobsters .. into our country...
Why no equal outcry against this abomination to God and his laws?
It would make an interesting study see the underlying psychological factors contributory to why people pick and choose as they do...
Im gonna go make some crabcakes for breakfast
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
WOW ... very good work there jen-o ... I was wondering too, where that list came from. But it seems to prove not only that the blood parent instinctively protects very strongly, but also that those "foster parents or adopted parents" care very much less, and look out for their own first.
I think there is evidence that there is a higher incidence of abuse from non blood "parents". Hence the phrase "beat him like a red-headed step-child". It is only natural. (but mstar is only abusing lobsters, so I don't care about that ... does he boil them alive? call PETA :o )
It also shows how people are willing to change facts to support their political preference.
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Really? They have a different commitment as a couple than a married man and woman? How so? I thought it was more about having sex in a different way. How is their commitment different? You know what else would make it sound different? Call it GAY marriage. No confusion there. You won't mistake Joe for Judy or vise versa. You might not know "exactly" how they have sex, but then you can always just ask, if you feel so inclined.
A car is a car and a truck is a truck, but they are both vehicles. You can have a Jewish wedding or a Catholic wedding, you can have a civil ceremony, but afterward, they are all married. Everyone understands what that means, it didn't suddenly define their sex as individuals or their sexuality, it just describes the commitment and the legal contract and benefits you both have. Whether you choose to acknowledge it as such, it is what it is.
Exactly, why it doesn't communicate to you and others is beyond me. But I think we have all been able to follow this conversation pretty clearly from the start. If you need any clarification, please just ask.
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Now THAT my friend is unnatural!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
I thought this horse was dead, but it seems everyone feels a need to beat on it anyway.
I think most everyone is missing the real point here. Why must the state confer or withhold legitimacy to a practice that people have engaged in for thousands of years before the existence of the state and will continue for generations and generations after that state has fallen?
Why should the state have control over that which people do anyway? In a condition of total anarchy, people would pair off into exclusive unions and laisons and be happy with their choices, living their lives well without harming others.
Why does the state confer licenses to ANY marriage? Why is that necessary? Why should the state have anything to do with how private, individual citizens conduct their private, individual affairs?
Why is the state in the marriage business in the first place?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
The major issue seems to be protection or providing for children. The state does get to decide who to collect money from ... so to provide more children for the future of the nation, I guess, they have an interest in "promoting" that, plus better cared for kids make a better society ... and the more maternal nature of our government has interest in more control of the family.
Of course deadbeat dads are a big issue ... the courts decide that a family consists of the blood mom and dad, and that dad may just be a one night stand guy that didn't know he was a dad till he gets told the mom would like to start getting money.
So even then, the courts set up this family, with the man legally required to provide.They are legally required to be bound to the mom and child, even without the rest of the "marriage".
This seems a different aspect of the gay "marriage" type commitment. There is at most one blood parent. There is not the same commitment to stay together for the kids' sake.There is not the same legal level of commitment of the Dad or the Mom to a child.
That really seems a pretty big difference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Ron brings up an interesting point. Rhino the states can and do regulate and protect the children financially, outside the confines of marriage, all of the time. There are millions of unwed mother's and fathers who were never married. Despite the lack of a binding license, the state decides who has the kids when and who pays and how much for support.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Well better go quick make yourself a constitutional amendment---
I like em..
---and bacon too (which is also another ungodly abomination biblically)
Two abominations before I even finished my coffee this morning.
Maybe Im going to hell and bringing the country down but
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
America. The land of liberty. That's right. It sure is.
We hear everybody shouting, "Give me liberty, or give me death!"
(Funny how this is becoming the only liberty American's want.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
It's interesting and very telling what the responses to my little post were. Quite accurate, too. These were perceptive replies.
I just wonder how differently the Declaration of Independence and subsequent Constitution would have been worded had Jefferson, Washington, Franklin etc. been indoctrinated and reared by King George's state funded and standardized systems (village) like the state uses today.
When the state presumes to manage the private lives of citizens and their progeny like that, whether it legitimizes "gay" marriage or deligitimizes it by codification, it's TYRANNY.
The people of California voted to delegitimize "gay" marriage and the court overturned that.
We have a dillemma where the coersive power of the state is being invoked to force one side or the other. The ultimate evil here is NOT "gay" marriage, nor is it the will of the people. It's the coersive power of the state.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Amen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
From Merriam Webster Dictionary- on-line
Main Entry: mar·riage
Function: noun
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
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
Like it or not, the definition of words change. I would think that the word itself has meant different things in different places at different times. Language is not static.
If the state is going to confer a legal civil identification on the relationship between two people, whether man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman why not call that legal identification a civil union, without discrimination against any two consenting adults. If couples wish to have their religion further sanction it, they can do so and call it whatever their church wishes. For that matter, if a couple wishes to ONLY have their church sanction it, they should be able to do so. In the latter case, none of the legal benefits which might accrue do to a civil union by the State would apply, i.e tax benefits, survivorship, SS benefits etc.
On the other hand, as Ron suggests, maybe the government should not be in the role of sanctioning ANY relationships, but then it would have to do away with any tax relief (if there is any) and do away with the current structure of SS benefits given to the surviving spouse. That might tick off some widows or widowers who would no longer get the higher of the two individual spouse's benefit when the other person dies. They would only continue to get the SS retirement benefit they themselves earned, even if their deceased spouse had been getting a larger benefit.
If the government ceased giving legal sanction to relationships, churches could still sanction them, but this would have NO standing regarding any legal definitions. Marriage would simply be a feel good thing that the church does. The way people leave their churches, that would certainly not bode well for marriage longevity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
It has only changed in later years due to liberal pressure to appease the gay culture. It takes a villiage to raise a gay you know, for centuries before that it had no mention of gay marriage. Of course people can chage words that does not make it right. A gay person publishing a dictionary can print whatever they want just as some judges think they can.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
"...government should not be in the role of sanctioning ANY relationships, but then it would have to do away with any tax relief (if there is any) and do away with the current structure of SS benefits given to the surviving spouse...."
Not necessarily if the state is forced to recognize or acknowledge what the people sanction themselves. The people shouldn't seek permission (license) or legitimacy from the state to do what is a natural right. The state should merely acknowledge what the people decide to sanction to themselves, and administer such programs accordingly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
And the state does rule in cases of divorce sometimes it is agreed upon sometimes it is far from that. I suppose if they have to break them up they feel they should have something to do with putting them together.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Thank you HAP. Saved me cutting and pasting.
The times they are a changin'.
I think this is the least of our problems when it comes to the coercive power of the state. Actually, no one is forcing anyone to get a marriage license. You just miss out on the "benefits."
If only the state would honer and trust what we say...
Cause people are so honest. Legal shmeagle. Let us do what we feel like and give us the benefits we ask for. Thank you very much.
I'm sorry, am I reading you correctly, Rhino. You make it sound as though this poor guy thinking he was having a one night stand is now FORCED by the state to help pay to raise his child. Are you saying this is a bad thing? Smack yourself twice and dump a bucket of cold water over your head if you are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I'm saying the state has a very strong opinion about the role of the real parents, even when there is no relationship.
It is a different thing than marriage, so I'm not actually clear on how to tie my point in smoothly. But it seems the state recognizes the importance of the real family unit, even if it can only enforce the financial part. The blood makes the difference, not the relationship.
That makes a heterosexual marriage potentially a very strong family unit ... a place where kids are supposed to be raised. Not all produce families, but it seems a significant distinction from homosexual marriages, and one the state recognizes. They just don't apply it to marriage ... only to "family" I guess. Still ...
Now smack yourself twice and dump a bucket of cold water over your head Lindyhopper ... :o
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
Here is a new word for you..
In the 70's the homsexual community called us" Breeder's."
Im proud to be a breeder..
Geeeze, they have become so much classier..I have to hand it to them.
RHino, this is realy not a reply to what you said in the above post.Its 5:30 and I have to leave in a scurry..:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Speaking of altering a Dictionary in 2004
Here
here
Exactly what I said centuries of word meanings were discarded why because of a court decision, not because the word changed,because a court said so in this recent case four people said so.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
And this little tidbit from Here
This casual dismissal reveals her antipathy toward marriage as an institution central to human life for millennia. But then, what does the wisdom of the ages have to do with her task of updating The Canadian Oxford Dictionary? Ms. Barber is a thoroughly modern woman--and an advocate of the homosexual agenda.
We know this because she chose to editorialize about the issue, explaining that the only reason anyone would object to her new gender-free definition of marriage is--you guessed it--"homophobia." Opponents of this new definition, she charged, "don't want to admit that gay people can have relationships that are just like their ideal heterosexual relationship." Clearly, Ms. Barber is not just concerned about words. She's out to change the world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
He, she, or in Barber's case, it who controls language controls thinking. All politically correct speech protocols (cultural Marxism) and "hate" speech rules and laws are designed to control the thinking of the people and ultimately society as a whole. Evidently, not many libtards or neocons ever read Orwell...or if they did, it went over their heads.
You'd think ex Way people would be keenly aware of that since language is such an important part of control, every cult has it's own nomenclature, phraseology and rhetoric. TWI was certainly no different. It had it's share of unique catch phrases and esoterica with the intent to control the thinking patterns of it's adherents while giving us the illusion of having unique and esoteric knowledge, when in truth, we had nothing.
This is an example of the state, as the ultimate cult, oppressing the people by disallowing free speech/free thought and now codifying it into law. It's all about control and shaping society by shaping peoples thinking patterns. this is just one of many reasons why the state has no business dictating terms to or for either side of this issue and staying out of the marriage business...as well as anything else concerning the individual's private choices.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.