Democratic Agenda

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

'Marriage' (or 'the right to bear arms') has no such immutability. It's a question of mores and laws, and can be changed to suit the prevailing wishes of the populace at any time.

You're wrong.  These sorts of things are NOT mutable.  They are what they are, and they aren't what they aren't.  You don't get to change them on a whim.

This is a common liberal/leftist/Democrat fallacy.  They seem to think they can change the rules of the game in order to gain themselves certain benefits they haven't earned. 

As an example, notice how many Democrats are trying to rewrite the notion of "patriotism" so that it will apply to themselves.  They clearly dislike their country and want it to lose its wars, but they still want the social benefits that come from being patriotic.  They could earn the benefits by changing their actions and attitudes becoming patriotic.  But no, instead they try to change patriotism into something that includes their anti-American selves.  Then they demand that society go along with their charade.  "Don't question my patriotism!"

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.  Patriotism is what it is (love of your country), and it isn't what it isn't (anti-Americanism of the sort professed by too many Democrats), and no amount of wishful thinking will change it.

Likewise, marriage is what it is, and isn't what it isn't.  You don't get to change it to suite your whims.

[Perd Hapley]

Like marriage, 'equality' and 'rights' are what a given society decides they are. There certainly isn't an unchanging, objective definition for either

So, on what do you base your argument for homosexual marriage?  Anything solid to base it on? 

Language does not modify physical properties.

Where do you get this idea that marriage will change, just by using the word differently?  Why do you think that concepts and language are identical? 

[Strings]

And herein lies the problem.

I'm pretty sure fistful and I pretty much agree on this, we maybe just use slightly different terms. If folks like me and folks like him were to sit down and hash it out, we would probably get this all worked out.

 But we've got folks like wooderson (as a good example), who are going to push things absolutely as far as they can. INSIST on using the term "gay marriage", that there is absolutely no difference between a gay couple and a married couple, etc. And these people make folks like fistful dig their heels in...

 And folks wonder why we're in the mess we are as a society... 

[Perd Hapley]

I'm pretty sure fistful and I pretty much agree on this, we maybe just use slightly different terms. If folks like me and folks like him were to sit down and hash it out, we would probably get this all worked out. 

We can get together, I'll just look for the guy in the kilt, this time.  But I honestly don't think we could work out this particular issue, unless the working out involves you coming around to my point of view.  Sorry.   

[wooderson]

You're wrong.  These sorts of things are NOT mutable.  They are what they are, and they aren't what they aren't.  You don't get to change them on a whim.

Nothing changes on a whim. Language evolves over generations, whether naturally or by direction. And, of course, changing laws and social attitudes is a painfully slow process. We're fourty years removed from Loving and in certain parts of the country, we're just now seeing the broad acceptance of interracial couples.

But yes, they do change (again, naturally or by direction). This is a basic part of human language and thinking, denying it is meaningless.

What is 'marriage'? Where can I see it? What about it unchangeable?

Patriotism is what it is (love of your country), and it isn't what it isn't (anti-Americanism of the sort professed by too many Democrats), and no amount of wishful thinking will change it.

What you call anti-Americanism they might call "letting America be America again" - if you don't understand how that works, how people can have disagreements over the best way to run the state, and how not sharing your viewpoint doesn't make one an enemy of the state, then you are beyond reason.

[wooderson]

So, on what do you base your argument for homosexual marriage?  Anything solid to base it on? 

Sure - there is no reason to prohibit it. There is no harm to another being or to society at large or to the state. If we're granting privileges to one class of person, we should grant them to all classes unless there is a good reason not to.

You're free to disagree about the role of the state and individual rights, of course. And if you can convince a majority of the people that we should prohibit same-sex unions because God said so - great, you win. And if I can convince enough people I win. The wonders of a democratic society - discourse and democracy.

Where do you get this idea that marriage will change, just by using the word differently?

Because 'marriage' is the 'the word.'

If you suddenly allow all classes of people to enjoy the privileges granted by the state to marriage - you've just changed 'marriage.'
 

Why do you think that concepts and language are identical?

Because they are.

[wooderson]

But we've got folks like wooderson (as a good example), who are going to push things absolutely as far as they can. INSIST on using the term "gay marriage",

No, I don't. You should read more carefully.
I said that turning 'marriage' into a legal contract between adults or 'civil union' is a reasonable conclusion.

What I said was
a) this is not a solution that is acceptable to religious conservatives on the whole. They maintain opposition to civil unions where they exist.
b) if you establish 'civil unions' as absolutely equal to 'marriage' there is no fundamental difference in them, and thus it's a pointless game of semantics. Why bother?
c) we have centuries of common law regarding 'marriage' - none for 'civil unions.' Is it easier to alter our entire legal system on that point, or simply to allow all classes of people to 'marry'?

Do you have a rejoinder to any of those?

that there is absolutely no difference between a gay couple and a married couple, etc.

One is straight and one is gay - what other difference is there?

Do you think one is superior to the other?
Should one be granted more privileges and benefits than the other?

If no to both, then what difference exists?

 And these people make folks like fistful dig their heels in...

[Perd Hapley]

Because 'marriage' is the 'the word.'

Why do you think that concepts and language are identical?

Because they are. 

My marriage to my wife is a word?  What does that even mean? 

You fail thinking.  I promise that I will try very hard to avoid responding to your future attempts to destroy all reason in regards to this topic. 

Strings, on the other hand, I'll be glad to talk with anytime. 

[grampster]

He means that marriage is mentioned in the bible. (The Word)  It is also defined in the bible as well.  The definition does not include the joining of two men or two women.  A Christian can never accept marriage between homosexuals.  It is not possible because Christian marriage is a spiritual joining of the two into the one, one male and one female.

  If the secular government wants to create a legal entity, a vehicle to grant secular legal rights to homosexuals, homosexual partners or groups of same, the government certainly may do that, because the government can.  Because it can, doesn't make it right.  But, again, it can.  Christians defer to the authority of government because they are counseled to do so in The Word.  But also Christians test the spirit because not all spirits are of God.  All things work for good for those who love the Lord and are called according to His purpose.  Christians are also counseled to put on the whole armor of Christ.  Further if He is for us who can be against us.  Further that He is stronger than he that is in the world.  Being a Christian is not an opinion.  Being a Christian is repentance of sins and accepting Jesus as Savior.  It is a living in the spirit while trapped in the flesh.  Now we only see things as through a glass darkly, then we shall see things as they truly are.

I have many homosexual acquaintances, some pretty good friends.  I do not reject them, nor do I judge them as the complete scripture goes on to say that If I do, I'll be judged in the same way.  So, the scripture teaches me not to not judge, but to be very careful in my judgment as I'll be looked at in the same way.  As a sinful man myself, I wouldn't stand that scrutiny very well.  If I would say to one of my homosexual friends that I would pray for them, I would in the same breath ask them to pray for me as well.

My position is that as American citizens we all must be treated equally under the law.  The government doesn't seem to do this very well, even though it is required to do so.  The question to me revolves more around the government's failure to, or that it actually create laws that treat equals as not equal.  I object to that and we as citizens should speak up in that regard.  Now the way that equality comes down, might not necessarily come down the same way.  But it should.  Marriage as a Christian entity needs to be accepted by government, but perhaps the contractual givens granted marriage should not be.  There should be tax policy and contracts that everyone needs to adhere to in order to gain or be a vehicle to gain certain secular legal (not human) rights.

[wooderson]

My marriage to my wife is a word?  What does that even mean?

No, 'marriage' is a word.
'Your' marriage is a concept, defined by society, codified in law.

You fail thinking.  I promise that I will try very hard to avoid responding to your future attempts to destroy all reason in regards to this topic.

You have an odd concept of reason.

Had you not stormed off, I was going to try a different tack, rather than arguing the last 150 years of linguistics...

If the word 'marriage' and the concept of 'marriage' are separate, unconnected - then why does the language matter? If the state chooses to grant the title 'marriage' to same-sex unions, that in no way alters the Godly/conceptual marriage you hold so dear, correct? It's just a word, and 'marriage' remains 'marriage' no matter what it is called or what is called by its name.

If, however, that's unacceptable because changing the laws of 'marriage' does, in fact, alter the concept of marriage, then you can't really argue with me about the mutability of language and concepts.

[Gewehr98]

Oh yeah, this one's going nowhere, and agitated to that destination by the usual suspects.

Next.