Good article on the Massachussetts Marriage Decision

[Florin]

Changing the definition to two individuals, is not fundumentaly different than changing it to include multiple individuals.

I disagree with that statement. Gay couples are merely asking for equality. I'm not sure why anyone would consider it unreasonable that they should have the very same rights that straight couples do. Polygamists on the other hand want something that noone else has.

 

[London Geezer]

Polygamists on the other hand want something that noone else has.

yeah... loads of sex...

 

[Silent_One]

I understand what you're saying, but as I said earlier, 100 years ago Webster's dictionary may have been so inclined to say:

Marriage: the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife of the same race : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women of the same race are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.

This coming from Natoma whom likes to argue Websters is the definitive and final say on "natural".

Unless of course you want to argue with Webster. If you can somehow get the definition changed or retracted, I will admit my fault and back down. Until then, sorry......Don't blame me. Blame English Canon.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6492&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=200

 

[Natoma]

There is a stark difference. That whole argument with regarding what is natural and what isn't was started as "homosexuality is wrong because it isn't natural". That was a case where I showed conclusively that that was an erroneous statement to try and build an argument on.

In this case, I'm merely stating a fact of US history and the history of allowed marriages. 100 years ago the dictionary could have easily said marriage is a man and woman of the same race. 400 years ago it could have easily said (though it wouldn't have been Webster's. hehe) marriage is a man and woman of the same religion. The point I made remains.

 

[epicstruggle]

But then who am I to judge. Hindus have been betrothing their 12 year old daughters to 30 year old men for centuries as marriages made in heaven. So maybe it isn't wrong.

Im leaving for South Africa in like 4 hours, to be with my wife for the next 20+days. Havent seen her in about 8 months. Hope to get her visa situation straightened out while there. So... I wont be able to post for a while.

Now on to the quote above. Yes that does happen from time to time. But its not only hindus. Other religions do this. In america this has also been common practice, depending on the time period. Elvis got married to a 13/14 priscilla. The guy who sang great balls of fire married his 12/13 year old cousin. Charlie chapplin i think had realitions with a minor.

This does not make it right, but if a minor is already having sex/relationship with another minor, whats the big deal with getting hooked up with an older man/women? Dont they have free will? Or should we just plain ban sex before a certain age.

later,
epic
ps see you all in few weeks. Hope you all have a good holiday. Merry Christmas.

 

[Natoma]

Holy Brahman and Vishnu! 8 months?? Damn you need to see your wife more often. Happy holidays.

Now, I wasn't trying to say it's only Hindus. Just pointing out that it does happen in your religion, so maybe I don't know if underage sex with minors is actually wrong since it's practiced by a major religion.

My whole thing with underage sex is that children and teens don't fully understand the implications of what they're doing. They don't understand what it means to protect themselves, and that if they don't they could die or be seriously debilitated. They don't understand that if they don't use birth control they could get pregnant and be stuck with a child when they're only a child themselves. We've all been teenagers and I think it's safe to say that we all had, at one point or another, a god complex thinking we were invincible and could do anything and everything without consequence. That's why so many kids get in trouble with drugs, alcohol, sex, et al. I think that's the impetus behind prohibiting sexual interactions between an adult and a minor. A generalized lack of clear headed judgement on the part of the minor. Obviously there are exceptions to every "rule", but the law in this case is meant to try and cover everyone as much as possible.

As for sexual interactions between two minors, well there's really nothing that you can do. I seriously doubt that would be passed into law, and even if it is, what do you do if the two minors are caught? Put them in jail for 3-5 years? The choice of punishments at least in terms of the law are pretty dubious imo.

Btw, since when did you start celebrating christmas Mr. Mahabharata?

 

[Silent_One]

Natoma wrote:

There is a stark difference.

Not really. You like to use definitions to fit you argument(s).

100 years ago the dictionary could have easily said marriage is a man and woman of the same race.

But it didn't.
Natoma wrote:

I go by what is defined by Webster.

(see above link)

Websters wrote:
the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family

Natoma wrote:

Webster's also says:

A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

...as in the following...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage

a.) The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
b.) The state of being married; wedlock.
3.) A common-law marriage.
4.) A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage

You, however, have professed preference for the institution which confers the social and legal dependence on each other as well as society's.. And the closest definition to that is a.) above. All other definitions have flaws insofar as being too broad in meaning by not recognizing the legal aspects of marriage, or indeed, as No. 4 points out, no legal aspects........

And that is why your interpretation is flawed

 

[Sxotty]

gays are not looking to redefine marriage to be anything more than what it is - a contract between *two* individuals of consensual age.

As I quoted earlier, he said gays are not looking to redefine marriage, well I just looked up the definition. The two are not the same, so it seems they certainly are trying to redefine it. Now whether redefining it is bad or good is unrelated.

Natoma what websters may have said or not said 100 years ago is not particularly relevant. Also I would be you that it did not say that either, perhaps it said something about church and what not though.

The argument over whether gay's should have the same rights is moot, Yes they should, but whether it falls under marriage or civil union or what have you is debateable.

 

[Natoma]

Natoma wrote:

There is a stark difference.

Not really. You like to use definitions to fit you argument(s).

Not at all. I used the primary definition for natural.

100 years ago the dictionary could have easily said marriage is a man and woman of the same race.

But it didn't.
Natoma wrote:

I go by what is defined by Webster.

(see above link)

You don't know that.

But again, you want to quibble semantics that's fine. I can play that game well when forced to, which I had to in the natural thread, but I don't like to. It's petty and ridiculous.

What I stated was for example purposes only, not as an end all be all. That is the stark difference that I referred to in my prior post.

You, however, have professed preference for the institution which confers the social and legal dependence on each other as well as society's.. And the closest definition to that is a.) above. All other definitions have flaws insofar as being too broad in meaning by not recognizing the legal aspects of marriage, or indeed, as No. 4 points out, no legal aspects........

And that is why your interpretation is flawed

If you really want to get nitpicky, it says usually no legally aspect, not flatly no legal aspects, as you inferred, which means that there is a strict opening to bring about the legal benefits for gays and lesbians without actually changing the definition of marriage.

Also, the definition speaks nothing regarding the social dependence on one another. Just the legal. If you really want to get nitpicky, the social implications of marriage have no bearing on changing the definition of marriage because it hasn't been defined in the first place. The only change of definition wrt to marriage is wrt the legal aspects, and that's a semantical "maybe".

But of course anti-gay marriage proponents would not make this argument, that gay marriage has no effect on changing the social status of marriage, would they? All if you want to get nitpicky.

 

[Natoma]

gays are not looking to redefine marriage to be anything more than what it is - a contract between *two* individuals of consensual age.

As I quoted earlier, he said gays are not looking to redefine marriage, well I just looked up the definition. The two are not the same, so it seems they certainly are trying to redefine it. Now whether redefining it is bad or good is unrelated.

Hehe I had fun with that one in the reply I just made to Silent_One.

Natoma what websters may have said or not said 100 years ago is not particularly relevant. Also I would be you that it did not say that either, perhaps it said something about church and what not though.

It is relevant when looking at the historical context. 100 years ago, actually 50 years ago, interracial marriage was outlawed. It was said to be an affront against God, the natural order, and what marriage was meant to be. You can see the judges rulings in cases such as Loving vs Virginia for example. There was another case that I posted about in an earlier thread with the same ruling.

As I said I don't know whether or not the dictionary stated that or not and as the dictionary is concerned you are right, it is indeed irrelevant. But we're talking about the legal dictionary, which is what affects my rights and all other gays and lesbians in this nation, as it affected the rights and privileges of interracial couples half a century ago. I care far more about that than what it says in Websters, to bring this conversation back to reality if I can.

The argument over whether gay's should have the same rights is moot, Yes they should, but whether it falls under marriage or civil union or what have you is debateable.

That's why I believe that as long as the same legal rights are given in Civil unions as they are under Marriage, I'd be fine with you heteros keeping the word. Sure I'd tell people that I'm married to my spouse either way, but that's a lexical distinction and not a legal distinction, which proponents of the sanctity of "the word" can't control anyway.

 

[Silent_One]

You don't know that.

But again, you want to quibble semantics that's fine. I can play that game well when forced to, ...........

Yes you can, quite well in fact....

.....which I had to in the natural thread, but I don't like to. It's petty and ridiculous.

I'm just breaking your balls.

 

[Natoma]

Yea I know. hehe. That's why I put winks and smiles all over my post so you'd know I knew.

 

[Sxotty]

with you heteros

Hmm would saying you homos be PC? (<-- politically correct) just curious .

Anyway I am glad about the word issue and here is why.

Trying to make an issue about the word itself (by gay rights groups) is fairly abitrary and wasteful of resources, when IMO it would be much better to expend effort on getting similar legal rights (like Health care tax breaks, and so on). In any case if enough "civil unions" are carried out and the people involved talk about getting married it will become incorporated into speech and eventually end up in the dictionary anyway.

random side note
My aunt had a "marriage" to another woman (it didn't work out btw) but anyway it seemed fairly normal because we always called her uncle anyway

 

[Natoma]

with you heteros

Hmm would saying you homos be PC? (<-- politically correct) just curious .

I knew I missed a wink in there somewhere.

Anyway I am glad about the word issue and here is why.

Trying to make an issue about the word itself (by gay rights groups) is fairly abitrary and wasteful of resources, when IMO it would be much better to expend effort on getting similar legal rights (like Health care tax breaks, and so on). In any case if enough "civil unions" are carried out and the people involved talk about getting married it will become incorporated into speech and eventually end up in the dictionary anyway.

Agreed completely. I just hope the gay establishment who is fighting this battle in the legal halls realize this important facet. The rights and privileges are far more important than "the word" imo, and people like me use "the word" anyways, despite what it says on the books. My gay and straight friends say Eddie and I are married anyways.

We just celebrated our 3rd anni last Friday, November 28th, and we have gold/platinum committment rings with the inscription, "Edgar & Malik Together Forever Always".

random side note
My aunt had a "marriage" to another woman (it didn't work out btw) but anyway it seemed fairly normal because we always called her uncle anyway

You sure your aunt wasn't "married" to a mediterranean man and mistook him for a woman? I hear those greek women have manly chin hair and it's a rather common mistake.

 

[Sage]

this whole thing pisses me off really bad. what's next? going back to making blacks not legally people, meaning they cant be legally married? I don't doubt many anti-gay marrage people (including Mr Bush) would just love that. Marriage is a legal right, and the law is not allowed to discriminate against people based on race/sex/creed, but these people are trying to take away the legal right to marriage from gays.

And just what is so wrong with it? Marriage is a special commitment that two people who really love each other make for the rest of their lives. If they both happen to be men or both happen to be women (or even somewhere in between ) what is the difference in their relationship vs the relationship between a man and a woman? Please, someone explain to me what this difference is. I've been in both straight and lesbian relationships and there really is no diffference except the role that I play.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Here's something for you guys and Sage.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/12/01/gay.mother.ap/index.html
http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/opinion_columnists/article/0,1713,BDC_2490_1882423,00.html

 

[Sage]

yeah, the first one is rediculous, the second one is just stupidity.

 

[Natoma]

Stories like this happen all over this country and are never reported. And people wonder why we fight so hard for what we have and what we're trying to get. I felt so bad for that 7yr old and his family. I hope it works out well for them.

As for using the word gay to express displeasure with someone or something, I've long advocated to people to avoid it for the very reason that most people use it. It's used as an insult largely by heterosexuals (I've yet to hear it used by a gay person) that even if they don't mean a homosexual, are still using a descriptive term that we use for ourselves in a negative light. Any bit of enlightenment helps. The guy who wrote that article just doesn't really understand I suppose.