|
Re: homosexual Marriage: Who Cares?
From: flipper@fish.net (flipper)
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 08:44:19 -0700, Jenn
<jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac.com> wrote:
In article <6uje76d54io1fejh7dnb4jcabmo28sn5me@4ax.com>,
flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:27:09 -0700, Jenn
<jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac.com> wrote:
In article <j8ee761jd5uepe5em7c5dq1ivku0pfajap@4ax.com>,
flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:38:34 -0700 (PDT), Jenn <jennconducts@mac.com>
wrote:
On Aug 26, 8:21 pm, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:11:00 -0700, Jenn
<jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
In article <5u1e76hjc3mb3j37qdu0ujvqein31at...@4ax.com>,
flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:59:07 -0700, Jenn
<jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
In article <iivd76lv8j3tdte70et7kvc8f60m0rs...@4ax.com>,
flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:26:35 -0700, Jenn
<jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
In article <9htd76lulep5ob2l6fibsbgjout0d22...@4ax.com>,
flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:47 -0700, Jenn
<jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
In article <4c76d51a.153638...@news.eternal-september.org>,
s...@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote:
Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:
Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with
defective
genes
(the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes
by
artificial
means,
or otherwise.
I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality
?
How
about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.
Graham
A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool
pretty
quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.
d
That might be true if homosexual people never parented children.
Not really because it could be recessive.
True.
There's also experimental evidence to suggest it's environmental
or,
if genetic, environmentally triggered as you can alter the
incidence
in rats by manipulating population density.
Humans are, of course, more complex but that would indicate it,
assuming genetic, could propagate 'the common way', absent
environmental triggers, even if dominate.
That also suggests if population density is a consistent trigger
it
could be a 'natural' population control mechanism. Or not. No one
really knows.
The oxymoron " homosexual marriage" is an altogether different issue,
though.
As opposed to the moronic (without the oxy) legal argument against
it.
;-)
So far, the only thing 'moronic' is your suggestion that any
differing
opinion is, without even having heard it, 'moronic'.
Oh, I've heard the legal arguments. Why would you jump to the
conclusion that I consider any opinion different than mine to be
moronic?
Because you said as much.
I said "oxymoron." a figure of speech that combines
normally-contradictory terms,
I know the word. I was doing a "play" on the word.
because it is.
Marriage is, and has been for thousands of years, defined as a
heterosexual relationship with " homosexual," by definition, 'monosexual',
so
the term, substituting definitions, claims a "monosexual
heterosexual
relationship."
Have you looked up the definition of monosexual? I happen to be
monosexual, and I presume that you are as well, since most people are.
I used it as an adjective to relationship and you know darn good and
well what was meant by it.
Kind of like you knew darn good and well that the onymoron/moron thing
was a play on words, right?
Nice try but that's not a 'play on words', it's just an opportunistic
excuse for using it.
Bottom line: definitions change.
Then give it a few thousand years.
If and when definitions change they do so gradually through colloquial
usage and not by arbitrarily deciding it suits someone's political
goals to mangle the language.
There is no logical reason to not
legalize same- hug marriage.
There are lots of logical reasons with one being there is no such
thing as "same- hug marriage" and it's Orwellian newspeak gibberish to
mangle the language.
Too bad we didn't think of this 50 years ago. We could have solved the
'race problem' by simply declaring everyone is 'white'.
The Prop. 8 decision states it perfectly.
The Prop 8 decision is 'PC' gibberish.
I see, counselor.
I doubt it.
What in the decision isn't legally sound?
No decision that fails to understand the definition of words can be
sound, legally or otherwise.
To wit, a court decision that applied 14'th amendment protections to
cats would be unsound because cats, regardless of how affectionately
we may view them, are simply not, by definition, persons. Similarly a
'same hug union', regardless of how affectionately we may view it, is
simply not, by definition, a "marriage."
(I picked cat and Pictures of People">person merely for the obviousness of it. No 'hidden
meaning' implied).
I'll note that the wording of Prop 8 suffers the same affliction.
But credit where credit's due, the proponents of, so called, " homosexual
marriage" have done an excellent job of framing the matter as fete
accompli with hardly a soul noticing.
Did Loving vs. Virginia "mangle the language"? Was it "PC gibberish"?
You tell me. Just what words do you imagine the court saw fit to
redefine against thousand year meaning or oxymoron to invent?
Loving changed the definition of marriage in the U.S.
That is simply not so. The meaning of marriage was not changed by
Loving v. Virginia nor was it changed by the "Racial Integrity Act of
1924" that had prohibited interracial "marriages," just as the
prohibition, or not, of possessing marijuana doesn't alter the
definition of possession or of marijuana.
In fact, you cannot prohibit, or make illegal, a thing, whatever that
thing might be, unless you know what the definition of the thing is.
The meaning of "marriage" has, on average, always been the union of
man and woman, including the well know ramifications of such, and, in
fact, it is precisely the well known ramifications of such a
relationship that motivated the "Racial Integrity" laws as well as all
the other, whether just or unjust, attendant laws; not to mention
culture, social morays, religious ceremony, and so on. These things
were not whole cloth inventions but, rather, evolved from conditions
and behavior, including the ramifications of such, well known long
before even recorded history. That is why the word exists: to describe
that well known condition and behavior, including the ramifications of
such.
The word has no meaning and purpose the way you wish to 'redefine' it.
| Subject |
 | |
|
