The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

[Rstanley0312 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

That is not the proper way to correct injustice.

What is the proper way?

What are the pros/cons of that way--other than the pro of designation deference?

Simple - declare that all formalized unions between partners regardless of gender have the same rights under the law. Leave useful and descriptive dictionary definitions out of it.

Then by this standard you are agreeing that a different word should have been used to describe a black as a citizen since a different word has to be used for gays?

No, I think that is a very poor analogy for reasons already explained. The US is NOT the only English speaking nation, and sad episodes in US history should not usurp the language.

We'll have to agree to disagree then and stop beating a dead horse because I think it's actually a perfect and great analogy, and is laterally equal in describing exactly what is doing on in this situation with another. I think you'd rather not like the analogy then admit that by your theory you would have to change other words in the past like "citizen." Even if you don't want to take that one example with citizen you can not tell me that there are ZERO cases where in the pass the definition of a word has not been changed in a similar situation dealing with human rights issues.

It IS a poor analogy because nowhere in the Constitution, original or as amended, was citizenship denied to blacks. So claiming that "citizen" meant not-black is simply incorrect.

So then where in the constitution is marriage denied to gays??

Ask Matt, it's his analogy, not mine. I've explained why it is a poor analogy.

This has nothing to do with his analogy and has everything to do with your answer as to WHY it was a bad analogy. You said the reason it was bad was because "nowhere in the Constitution, original or as amended, was citizenship denied to blacks." So, with that reasoning you're saying that gays are denied marriage in the U.S constitution. I'd like you to link me to the section that says gays aren't allowed to marry. I don't think it's in there, which makes your reasoning wrong because BOTH of those things aren't in there, making them EQUAL and useful for an analogy.

The "word" citizen was never defined as a white man and not a black man. Black people where considered property which is still sad to type but the word property did not change in definition either. Minorities simply moved catagories. Citizen never needed to be changed in meaning because it still meant the same thing. Marriage is specifically defined as man and woman. That is why the analogy makes no sense.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[The111 1]

Quote

Quote

Citizenship - the right being denied blacks

Which article of the Constitution did that?

It only speaks to "free persons". Color is not mentioned anywhere.

And which article of the constitution defines marriage?

To the best of my understanding, the consitution does not mention marriage. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

My analogy was never about the letter of the constitution. It was about the laws that are in effect today. 99% of which we know aren't mentioned in the constitution (like income taxes, speed limits, and a dozen others). You made this about the constitution, so if you're going to call my analogy poor because of the constitution, then please back that up. Otherwise, accept my analogy.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[Rstanley0312 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Citizenship - the right being denied blacks

Which article of the Constitution did that?

It only speaks to "free persons". Color is not mentioned anywhere.

And which article of the constitution defines marriage?

To the best of my understanding, the consitution does not mention marriage. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

My analogy was never about the letter of the constitution. It was about the laws that are in effect today. 99% of which we know aren't mentioned in the constitution (like income taxes, speed limits, and a dozen others). You made this about the constitution, so if you're going to call my analogy poor because of the constitution, then please back that up. Otherwise, accept my analogy.

I'm talking about the legal definition not the constitution. Citizen was never defined as a white man or person. The same cannot be said of marriage as a legal definition.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[The111 1]

Quote

The "word" citizen was never defined as a white man and not a black man.

Not in the constitution, but it was culturally, socially defined that way. I'd even wager it existed in some sort of dictionary definition of it, somewhere, back then. Of course I have no way to prove that.

Quote

Marriage is specifically defined as man and woman.

Not by the constitution, it's not. Culturally, socially, it is. But that definition is already under debate, therefore it's a shaky "definition" at best (or the debate wouldn't exist). Many dictionaries already mention that there are more than one type of marriage (and I'm not just talking about homo vs hetero here).

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[billvon 2,435]

>Marriage is specifically defined as man and woman.

Not in the US Constitution. Not in many state's constitution. Not in the dictionary.

=================
Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: mar·riage
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.
=================
American Heritage:

marriage
1.
a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other.
==================

Your own private definition may be different; that's fine - as long as you don't try to impose your will on others.

[Rstanley0312 0]

Quote

Quote

The "word" citizen was never defined as a white man and not a black man.

Not in the constitution, but it was culturally, socially defined that way. I'd even wager it existed in some sort of dictionary definition of it, somewhere, back then. Of course I have no way to prove that.

Quote

Marriage is specifically defined as man and woman.

Not by the constitution, it's not. Culturally, socially, it is. But that definition is already under debate, therefore it's a shaky "definition" at best (or the debate wouldn't exist). Many dictionaries already mention that there are more than one type of marriage (and I'm not just talking about homo vs hetero here).

I am talking about the legal definition... like it or not thats what it says. That's not why it is under debate. It's under debate because a special interest group has the money to make it one.

Just to be clear I am for homosexuals having the same rights as I have previously postede but I agree with Kall on this one.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[The111 1]

Quote

I'm talking about the legal definition not the constitution. Citizen was never defined as a white man or person.

It was certainly denied to blacks!

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[Rstanley0312 0]

Quote

>Marriage is specifically defined as man and woman.

Not in the US Constitution. Not in many state's constitution. Not in the dictionary.

=================
Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: mar·riage
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.
=================
American Heritage:

marriage
1.
a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other.
==================

Your own private definition may be different; that's fine - as long as you don't try to impose your will on others.

The legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which one man and one woman, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of Husband and Wife in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship.

Marriage is a legally sanctioned contract between a man and a woman. Entering into a marriage contract changes the legal status of both parties, giving husband and wife new rights and obligations. Public policy is strongly in favor of marriage based on the belief that it preserves the family unit. Traditionally, marriage has been viewed as vital to the preservation of morals and civilization.

The free dictionary



MARRIAGE - A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage.


The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Cornell University


I can keep going

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[Rstanley0312 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm talking about the legal definition not the constitution. Citizen was never defined as a white man or person.

It was certainly denied to blacks!

Denied but never defined as such thats the point.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[The111 1]

Quote

Denied but never defined as such thats the point.

Find me a couple dozen 200 year old legal libraries to prove that.

Doesn't matter, because it was never the point of my analogy anyway. The analogy was about rights being denied to minorities. Read it again... I never used the word "legal definition" anywhere.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[billvon 2,435]

>I can keep going

Sure you can. Like I said, you can have any private definition you like. So can an Internet dictionary. So can Larry's 'Lectric Law Library of Legal 'Lements, or Joe's Excellent Internet Encyclopedia, or Conservopedia.

But going by authoritative sources (Merriam-Webster, the US Constitution, state constitutions) marriage is NOT just between a man and a woman. Sorry, but that's reality. We have tens of thousands of legally married same-sex couples here. You can come here and scream till you're blue in the face that that's not really marriage, but the courts, the police etc will go with the legal definition, not yours.

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Citizenship - the right being denied blacks

Which article of the Constitution did that?

It only speaks to "free persons". Color is not mentioned anywhere.

And which article of the constitution defines marriage?

.

None - your analogy is invalid for the reasons I have given. Hence further discussion of your analogy is moot.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

>Marriage is specifically defined as man and woman.

Not in the US Constitution. Not in many state's constitution. Not in the dictionary.

=================
Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: mar·riage
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.
=================
American Heritage:

marriage
1.
a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other.
==================

Your own private definition may be different; that's fine - as long as you don't try to impose your will on others.

It's only there because a fairly small special interest group has chosen to force the issue on the rest of us.

Just like they did with "gay". "Gay" was a perfectly good descriptive word that has now become essentially useless in its original meaning.

This was not evolution of the language, whcih is perfectly normal. It was hijacking of the language by a special interest group.

I have no objection to homosexual unions having all the rights of a marriage. I object strongly to having the language hijacked.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm talking about the legal definition not the constitution. Citizen was never defined as a white man or person.

It was certainly denied to blacks!

Denied but never defined as such thats the point.

It's an invalid analogy. The correct analogy would be calling blacks "white" to give them their civil rights.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

None - your analogy is invalid for the reasons I have given. Hence further discussion of your analogy is moot.

When_I_don't think someone gets my point (after so many attempts), I either leave it alone and allow them the last word_or_I try to further discuss my position.

What is the purpose of repeating a refusal to respond, I wonder? You made your point--as you keep repeating. Why continue responding if you do not care to expand/throw someone a bone as to why the hell it all matters to you?

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[The111 1]

Quote

It's an invalid analogy. The correct analogy would be calling blacks "white" to give them their civil rights.

No, that would be an analogy for homosexuals wanting to be called heterosexual. Which they never asked for.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[billvon 2,435]

>It's only there because a fairly small special interest group has chosen to
>force the issue on the rest of us.

Agreed. Just as the fairly small special interest groups of blacks forced the issue on interracial marriage. Nevertheless, it's there.

>Just like they did with "gay". "Gay" was a perfectly good descriptive
>word that has now become essentially useless in its original meaning.

Yep. Like faggot (a burning stick) web (a network of lines, not a communications thingy!) wizard (once meant 'awesome') and colored (a perfectly good descriptive term for blacks.) Language evolves.

>I have no objection to homosexual unions having all the rights of
>a marriage. I object strongly to having the language hijacked.

Ah well. The definition has changed. Looks like you're going to have an uphill battle trying to change it back. (And if you try, odds are you will meet someone like yourself who will tell you you have no right to try to change the language for your own purposes.)

[The111 1]

Quote

What is the purpose of repeating a refusal to respond, I wonder? You made your point--as you keep repeating. Why continue responding if you do not care to expand/throw someone a bone as to why the hell it all matters to you?

Well, the way I see it is this:

He won't discuss my analogy anymore (as he keeps repeating).
But he WILL discuss his refusal to discuss it (as he keeps doing).
Pretty soon, he will no longer discuss the discussion regarding his refusal to discuss my analogy.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[The111 1]

Quote

>It's only there because a fairly small special interest group has chosen to
>force the issue on the rest of us.

Agreed. Just as the fairly small special interest groups of blacks forced the issue on interracial marriage. Nevertheless, it's there.

True enough, I'm not sure what he is trying to prove by repeatedly mentioning how "small" the group is. Size has no bearing on right or wrong. It's one of the most evil logical fallacies around that the majority is right (or the converse, that the minority is wrong).

Quote

Looks like you're going to have an uphill battle trying to change it back. (And if you try, odds are you will meet someone like yourself who will tell you you have no right to try to change the language for your own purposes.)

Man, that description conjured up an amusing picture.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[Rstanley0312 0]

Quote

>I can keep going

Sure you can. Like I said, you can have any private definition you like. So can an Internet dictionary. So can Larry's 'Lectric Law Library of Legal 'Lements, or Joe's Excellent Internet Encyclopedia, or Conservopedia.

But going by authoritative sources (Merriam-Webster, the US Constitution, state constitutions) marriage is NOT just between a man and a woman. Sorry, but that's reality. We have tens of thousands of legally married same-sex couples here. You can come here and scream till you're blue in the face that that's not really marriage, but the courts, the police etc will go with the legal definition, not yours.

I figured you would say that which is why I used Cornell's site but you ignored that one. You are right some states have "married" gay couples but it does not negate the legal definition it simply shows a state redifined the word which is my point and I believe Kall's. I don't like the changing of the defined word either.

I love that you use a dictionary as as source when dictionaries are now adding any word ever used including sland yet a legal definition as referenced by Cornell U is not valid?

Anyway.... I really don't care this much.... I think homosexuals should have their rights but I guess these days nothing is sacred anymore not even language. Everything is up for interpretation right..... I hate post modernism.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

Language evolves.

Yep!



While I understand kallend's point, it...well...it reminds me of my grandpa later in life. (there's not a emoticon for my "EEEy! I hope that was OK to say and not taken the wrong way" face.)

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[Southern_Man 0]

The more people argue about semantics and the meaning of a word the more convinced I am that my answer is the right one.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Citizenship - the right being denied blacks

Which article of the Constitution did that?

It only speaks to "free persons". Color is not mentioned anywhere.

Very few people seem to remember that the founders knew damn well that not all slaves were black. The English in the preceding 120 years managed to reduce the population of Ireland by more than half..and many of those were sold as slaves when transported to the Indies. Some of those men were desendants of those slaves.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/SLAVES.TXT

Snip

In 1641, Ireland's population was 1,466,000 and in 1652,
616,000. According to Sir William Petty, 850,000 were wasted by
the sword, plague, famine, hardship and banishment during the
Confederation War 1641-1652. At the end of the war, vast numbers
of Irish men, women and children were forcibly transported to the
American colonies by the English government.(

Snip

Estimates vary between 80,000 and 130,000 regarding the
amount of Irish sent into slavery in America and the West Indies
during the years of 1651 - 1660: Prendergast says 80,000(17);
Boudin 100,000(18); Emmet 120,000 to 130,000(19); Lingard 60,000
up until 1656(20); and Condon estimates "the number of Irish
transported to the British colonies in America from 1651 - 1660
exceeded the total number of their inhabitants at that period, a
fact which ought not to be lost sight of by those who undertake
to estimate the strength of the Celtic element in this
nation..."(21)

It is impossible to ascertain the exact number of those
unfortunate victims of English injustice during this period, but
we do know the amount was massive. Even though the figures given
above are but estimates, they are estimates from eminent
historians.

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

>Just like they did with "gay". "Gay" was a perfectly good descriptive
>word that has now become essentially useless in its original meaning.

Yep. Like faggot (a burning stick) web (a network of lines, not a communications thingy!) wizard (once meant 'awesome') and colored (a perfectly good descriptive term for blacks.) Language evolves.

Evolution and hijacking are not the same thing. This is NOT a case of evolution, it's a case of hijacking.

Quote

>I have no objection to homosexual unions having all the rights of
>a marriage. I object strongly to having the language hijacked.

Ah well. The definition has changed.

No, it hasn't. A special interest group is trying to force a change. That is what the debate is all about.
If it had changed no-one would be using the expression "gay marriage". The adjective "gay" wouldn't be needed in the thread title if you were correct.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

Quote

None - your analogy is invalid for the reasons I have given. Hence further discussion of your analogy is moot.

When_I_don't think someone gets my point (after so many attempts), I either leave it alone and allow them the last word_or_I try to further discuss my position.

What is the purpose of repeating a refusal to respond, I wonder? You made your point--as you keep repeating. Why continue responding if you do not care to expand/throw someone a bone as to why the hell it all matters to you?

What is the point of repeating a request to respond to an invalid argument? As long as people repeatedly request a response to an invalid point, I can repeat that their point is invalid and any response is moot.

You wouldn't be having a double standard, would you?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.