I missed out on that burning question "Can't I get Married too"

[undine]

Society doesn't make laws, governments do.

If you are trying to say society can express its disapproval, that's fine.

[undine]

OK, I see the problem. When I say society should decide I don't mean politically through the state but socially in establishing norms, traditions, institutions.

I think we agree that an individual should be free from government interference as to whom he or she marries, but we should also be free to be against it and not pparticipate. A church congregation should be free to recognize and celebrate gays marrying just as another should be free to not do so, for example.

Just keep government out of it--or given the reality of its intrusive nature, as Alyosha points out, fight to make it, government, right.

Okay, then I suppose we agree. However, since the government currently regulates marriage it should not discriminate against consenting adults.

[Max Rockatansky]

Untrue, the forum is luckily represented by a vast number of libertarians who wish the government to cease oppressing our liberties, including the natural right to form families of our choosing.

You assumed I was talking about Libertarians and not those who seek to oppress the rights of others based upon arbitrary, whimsical measures? That's fascinating. It's still a.m. where you are correct? Not after 5pm?

[Chris]

Okay, then I suppose we agree. However, since the government currently regulates marriage it should not discriminate against consenting adults.

Agree. And should extricate itself as it did in the Court finding DOMA unconstitutional.

[Codename Section]

You assumed I was talking about Libertarians and not those who seek to oppress the rights of others based upon arbitrary, whimsical measures? That's fascinating. It's still a.m. where you are correct? Not after 5pm?

Naw, I think she's just saying that this forum doesn't have tons of the type you're used to without saying it. BTW, how loud is that echo now? Gotta be deafening.

[Chris]

If you are trying to say society can express its disapproval, that's fine.

Yes, that's one way to put it.

[Max Rockatansky]

Naw, I think she's just saying that this forum doesn't have tons of the type you're used to without saying it. BTW, how loud is that echo now? Gotta be deafening.

Not tons. It only takes a handful with 10,000 posts each.

[Mr Happy]

1. I still think you misunderstand me. I'm sure anyone that believes in limited government is a right winger to you, myself included. My point is I absolutely do not identify with labels like that because they're meaningless and discourage intellectual debate. I blatantly do not accept the notion of being defined or confined to a left-right spectral dichotomy based on distinctions without differences. In other words, left and right do not exist and I refuse to go along with it.
2. You're using terms, it would seem, without knowing their meaning. Bigotry means complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. We're standing on religious, moral, social, historical and legal principles. Firmly so. Having a belief isn't intolerant. I think the opposite could be true. That repeatedly accusing the other side of an argument of being bigoted or prejudiced, in order to either silence or pressure them into submission or guilt, is intolerant as well as blatantly lazy, ignorant and disingenuous.
3. Many things should change. Something that's not broken has no reason to.
.

It is not lazy to call bigotted behaviour what it is. And I am not misusing the term. You are trying to intellectualise an argument to further your own agenda. There is not need to do so for such simple subject matter.

And it is broken, which is why people are seeking the change.

As for the political spectrum and which side you fall, when you have a sig line like yours, well, you make your own bed. I think most of us don't like being labelled left or right.

[Dr. Who]

The problem with originalism isn't a problem at all unless you're lazy. If you're not going to reference something in context then you shouldn't reference it. If no heed is paid to intent then there's no inherent truth to be taken from said citation. Yes it can take time to flesh out meaning from old language, and I think the time spent quibbling is worth it.


No one said anyone was in charge... I believe you're ascribing actions and intention to me that are not so.

...What? I think we're having another breakdown in communication.

Words change in meaning over time. For instance the word gay means something very different now than it did 60 years ago.

The word marriage Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or considered to be compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity. When defined broadly, marriage is considered a cultural universal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

It is not in the realm of human history a very old concept, having only developed in the 11th or 12th century, and according to some, evolved only to create a demand right of sexual access and legitimize offspring for the purposes of legal rights to children and inheritance. Subsequent to that time it essentially establishes legal rights and duties between the partners to each other, to the offspring and with the state. Since the idea of legal marriage does not date back to the beginning of time, it does not have any natural right not to evolve with the customs and mores of humanity.