a thought on marriage

[zoltan]

It seems to me that marriage has been distorted to mean "a relationship that provides financial benefits". True, marriage is a sacrament, an institution of the church - of God. Since the state has its beginnings in the spiritulity of its citizens, the state has naturally recognized marriage as something special. But, as moral relativism spreads, people see marriage not as a religious institution support by state law, but a right, granted by the state. i.e. tax breaks, etc. Sad...so many are looking for love in false gods.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 23 2004, 07:51 PM'] Yes, I know that Tom and Toni's marriage would be legally recognized - I was just making the point that I don't think people they should get married for trivial reasons - that's all, and how we've trivialized marriage. I know this has no bearing on the legality of the matter. (I may have phrased this poorly originally).
[/quote]
Okay, as long as we're clear on that. The thing is that the legal issue [b]is[/b] what were debating. People shouldn't do lots of things, but we have a system of personal freedom in this country (at least for the time being) that allows us to do a lot of things we shouldn't. Everyone knows that you shouldn't drink until you puke, but many people go out and do just that every weekend. It's one thing to say "you shouldn't do this" and another completely to say "you shouldn't do this and we've passed a law against it".

[quote]
And I'm sure marriage would be defined as between man and woman for the purpose of family, etc. in any dictionary prior to the "gay marriage" movement.  I'm comparing centuries of common usage with a new, politically charged definition.  I'm simply proving that it's the gay-rights crowd, not me, that's changing (I would say "perverting") the meaning of the word "marriage." 

Got to get to work, but I'll be back.[/quote]

Even in the old definition there was no mention of children or family. I'm sure people were equally upset when common usage changed marriage from polygyny to monogamy. One person using a word a certain way can't change the definition of that word. It has to be widespread. Just because you don't use a word a certain way doesn't mean that millions of others don't. Call them the "gay-rights crowd" if you want, but it doesn't matter who it is -- just like it didn't matter who used the word "D'oh".

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 23 2004, 08:46 PM'] The like? [/quote]
the other social ills Catholics oppose: abortion, euthanasia etc. etc.

[Socrates]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 23 2004, 08:02 PM']


Even in the old definition there was no mention of children or family. [/quote]
Obviously, you didn't read definition "c" in the "old" (1993) Meririam Webster dictionary definition.

"c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence [b][i]for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family [/i][/b]"

(emphasis added)

This shows you aren't paying any attention to my posts - just shooting off at the mouth (fingers?)

And (falsely) changing the definition of a word isn't going to change what marriage really is. You can call a cow a fish - it doens't make it one.

Edited November 24, 2004 by Socrates

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 23 2004, 11:22 PM'] Obviously, you didn't read definition "c" in the "old" (1993) Meririam Webster dictionary definition.

"c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence [b][i]for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family [/i][/b]"

(emphasis added)

This shows you aren't paying any attention to my posts - just shooting off at the mouth (fingers?)

And (falsely) changing the definition of a word isn't going to change what marriage really is. You can call a cow a fish - it doens't make it one. [/quote]
Most likely I just missed it. In fact, I do pay attention to what you write and this is obvious in my responses. Don't try to dismiss me with such an obviously false line.

I'm not sure you understand how the language works. Dictionaries are descriptive -- they describe the way the language is used. Thus, if pervasive use of the word fish in reference to cows occurred the definition of the word fish would have changed and the dictionary would change its definition accordingly. A change can't be false. People rail against changes to the language, but they can't stop them. You may not like the word "Bollywood" but it's a part of the language anyway.

[jasJis]

but you didn't respond to my rebuttal...

chicken?

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 23 2004, 12:33 PM'] It should be noted that I was making two separate arguments with two separate parts of the Constitution.

Argument 1:

Currently states grant marriage licenses to heterosexual couples who want to get married. Under the 14th Amendment, which states: "No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", states are required to grant homosexual couples marriage licenses. Thus, it does apply to this discussion.

Argument 2:

Currently Massachusets' law allows same-sex couples to marry. Your assessment that the "Full Faith and Credit" clause is not absolute, however, precendence shows that all states currently give full faith and credit to marriage licenses obtained in other states. This would hold true to marriage licenses obtained by same-sex couples. [/quote]
Neither of the above two arguments are adequate in the least.

In the case of Argument 1, the dispute on the definition of Marriage is most certainly still an issue of question and, as such, the general claim you make is unfounded. It can be easily argued that marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman, and, as such, some sort of legally recognized union between two peoples of the same sex is a completely different issue. In light of this, your conclusion does not follow whatsoever.

In the case of Argument 2, your conclusion is also thoroughly insufficient. First and foremost, I have already established, by point of legal precedent, that the "Full Faith and Credit" clause is not universal, so the issue now is whether or not is to be applied in this case. The only claim you have made to further your position is simply to make the statement that no civil suit regarding the issue has come to the Supreme Court as of yet.

This type of claim is not a legitimate logical argument, because it claims a thing as truth simply because it has yet to happen (ie, "gay-marriage is protected by law because no one has brought a case against it). This would be like me saying "Miami is protected from meteorites" and justifying my claim by pointing out that it has yet to be hit.

No offense intended, but this is just a poor argument on your part.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Nov 24 2004, 09:08 PM'] In the case of Argument 2, your conclusion is also thoroughly insufficient. First and foremost, I have already established, by point of legal precedent, that the "Full Faith and Credit" clause is not universal, so the issue now is whether or not is to be applied in this case. The only claim you have made to further your position is simply to make the statement that no civil suit regarding the issue has come to the Supreme Court as of yet.

This type of claim is not a legitimate logical argument, because it claims a thing as truth simply because it has yet to happen (ie, "gay-marriage is protected by law because no one has brought a case against it). This would be like me saying "Miami is protected from meteorites" and justifying my claim by pointing out that it has yet to be hit.

No offense intended, but this is just a poor argument on your part. [/quote]
Somehow I think you missed the point of my argument.

[quote]precendence shows that all states currently give full faith and credit to marriage licenses obtained in other states.[/quote]

Thus, marriage licenses obtained by same-sex couples in Massachusets must be as valid as marriage licenses obtained by opposite-sex couples in Massachusets.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Nov 24 2004, 08:32 PM'] but you didn't respond to my rebuttal...

chicken? [/quote]
Is this directed at me? I responded to your last post unless I am missing something.

[CreepyCrawler]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 20 2004, 08:33 PM'] Actually emergency contraceptives are ultra high doses of regular birth control hormones given within 72 hours of unprotected sex. [/quote]
emergency contraceptives have a sketchy health record, are routinely given to women even after 72 hours of unprotected sex, and can cause an abortion, if fertilization has already occurred. i find it insulting that giving women "ultra high doses of hormones" is acceptable to society. as if we were animals or something....it's dangerous and disgusting! :angry:

[CreepyCrawler]

i think it's interesting that in both debate and in the dictionary definition that burnsspivey gave, it's called "same-sex marriage" and not just 'marriage...' if it's all the same, then why does the modification need to be made? i think it's because marriage IS the union of a man and woman and anything else is just an imitation of it.


and as i understand it, homosexuals are free to engage in homosexual activity as they want to -- it's not against the law and no one is stepping on their 'rights' to have sex. marriage is something more than just sex, and if you think marriage is simply sex with tax benefits, then you should be arguing for no marriage for anyone rather than marriage for homosexuals. if marriage is such a bad, archaic, and inherently flawed and stupid idea, why would you want to invite homosexuals into this prison? it's like inviting white people into slavery instead of giving black people their freedom.

[amarkich]

Just to clarify, even the United States had laws forbidding [color=red][Edited by dUSt: homosexuals] [/color]to practice their sodomy with each other (laws also forbade unnatural acts between men and women--forms of sex that are not procreative--apparently there were some laws also forbidding, pardon the bluntness, women from being on top). These laws were supposedly struck down by the Supreme Court (I believe) in 2001. That is what led to the gay "marriage" debate to begin with. In any event, these laws had (wrongly) not been enforced for some time.

[God Conquers]

what's wrong with a woman being on top?

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='CreepyCrawler' date='Nov 30 2004, 07:23 PM'] emergency contraceptives have a sketchy health record, are routinely given to women even after 72 hours of unprotected sex, and can cause an abortion, if fertilization has already occurred. i find it insulting that giving women "ultra high doses of hormones" is acceptable to society. as if we were animals or something....it's dangerous and disgusting! :angry: [/quote]
You'll note that EC is voluntary. Women take ultra-high doses of hormones -- saying that they are given to them makes it seem like a passive thing. It isn't. You have to ask for them and get a prescription filled in most cases.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='CreepyCrawler' date='Nov 30 2004, 07:47 PM'] i think it's interesting that in both debate and in the dictionary definition that burnsspivey gave, it's called "same-sex marriage" and not just 'marriage...' if it's all the same, then why does the modification need to be made? i think it's because marriage IS the union of a man and woman and anything else is just an imitation of it.
[/quote]
In the definition I quoted "same-sex marriage" is an example of how the word would be used. It isn't actually part of the definition. For example:

3 : an intimate or close union <the [i]marriage[/i] of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

Words that are in < > brackets are examples.

[quote]and as i understand it, homosexuals are free to engage in homosexual activity as they want to -- it's not against the law and no one is stepping on their 'rights' to have sex. marriage is something more than just sex, and if you think marriage is simply sex with tax benefits, then you should be arguing for no marriage for anyone rather than marriage for homosexuals. if marriage is such a bad, archaic, and inherently flawed and stupid idea, why would you want to invite homosexuals into this prison? it's like inviting white people into slavery instead of giving black people their freedom.[/quote]

I've said this multiple times before.

I would prefer that marriage be removed completely from the legal sphere. However, if marriage is to remain a legal institiution it should be available to everyone.