redefining marriage

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

[reply
Having equal protection under the law is perfectly possible without hijacking a word with a well defined meaning.

Language, as a learned Professor like yourself should understand, is a dynamic, not static thing. Language changes and evolves over time to suit it's users.
I would have thought someone of your academic stature would be well aware of this and not look for stagnation in language

Evolution and hijacking are not synonyms. And if California is anything to go by, this hijacking does NOT suit the population at large.

...

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

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Quote

Quote

[reply
Having equal protection under the law is perfectly possible without hijacking a word with a well defined meaning.

Language, as a learned Professor like yourself should understand, is a dynamic, not static thing. Language changes and evolves over time to suit it's users.
I would have thought someone of your academic stature would be well aware of this and not look for stagnation in language

Evolution and hijacking are not synonyms. And if California is anything to go by, this hijacking does NOT suit the population at large.

It does not have to suit the population at large. it has to suit it's intended audience.
Language and words are methods of communication. you are most like not the traget audience so your consternaiton is largely irrelivent

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[sky722 0]

Quote

While discussing California's Prop H8 with some friends last night, one of them proposed something that even the guy who voted yes thought was a good idea. Perhaps it's time to rename the CIVIL portion of what we call marriage?

As it is now, you go to the government to get a marriage license, then you can go have a ceremony in a place and following whatever religious tradition (or not) that you choose. The core of my friends idea is to change the wording on what you get from the courthouse from "marriage license" to "certificate of domestic partnership." All couples, regardless of race or gender, would receive the same legal benefits and have the same legal obligations.

Quote

We then reserve the term "marriage" for those with religious beliefs, thus allowing each religion to define that word as they choose and follow whatever traditions they have established.

This country was founded on christan foundations.
As I see it, something along these lines would do several good things. It would increase separation of church and state. It would discriminate against no one. And it doesn't attempt to apply one religion's moral code upon the entire population.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

[reply
Having equal protection under the law is perfectly possible without hijacking a word with a well defined meaning.

Language, as a learned Professor like yourself should understand, is a dynamic, not static thing. Language changes and evolves over time to suit it's users.
I would have thought someone of your academic stature would be well aware of this and not look for stagnation in language

Yes. As understandings of things become muddled, effective communication becomes lost. When white becomes black and left becomes right, nobody can really be sure what each other are saying.

Does the word "arbitrary" have the samemeaning as it did 50 years ago? I hope so. Because changing a word's definition usually is just that.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[LOSTandCRAZY 0]

Who's business is it who marries whom? If two dudes or chicks want to get married?

I DON'T CARE. GET MARRIED. It really doesn't affect my life at all! Bone whomever you like! It's a free country (or IS IT???)

The rest of you? GET A FREAKING LIFE, and quit trying to CONTROL everyone, you communists!

Just because most of us choose to bone members of the opposite sex, doesn't mean that others can't bone whomever they want. The last time I checked, homosexuals and lesbians PAY TAXES in this country, thus giving them their rights to enjoy the benefits of living in this fine country, marriage TAX RELIEF being one of them.

These are, after all, consenting adults, whom control their own destiny, and PAY TAXES.

So they don't get to decide how to live their lives? Are you kidding me? Churches DON'T pay taxes, but get to tell their parishoners how to vote?

Please.....

Tax the churches if they have the RIGHT to a political voice. I'd vote for THAT. Billions of untaxed dollars flow in and out of them, and not one cent paid.....

Want to reduce the national debt? TAX CHURCHES. It appears that they DO have the right to a political voice, while not being held responsible for the ONE THING that makes the rest of us Americans:

PAYING TAXES.

"Get these balls!"

[livendive 8]

Quote

I find it equally annoying that the word "gay", with a well defined meaning, was co-opted by the same minority group, rendering its original meaning useless.

Don't forget "queer", "faggot", "dyke", "drag", and of course "queen".

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rushmc 23]

Want to reduce the national debt? TAX CHURCHES. It appears that they DO have the right to a political voice, while not being held responsible for the ONE THING that makes the rest of us Americans:

PAYING TAXES.

[sky722 0]

At least the churches help those in need, give to charity, and do things for the sick and the elderly with the money thats GIVED and DONATED.

[LOSTandCRAZY 0]

Quote

"At least the churches help those in need, give to charity, and do things for the sick and the elderly with the money thats GIVED and DONATED. "

So now you're a socialist? Giving to the poor? Helping people? Helping the sick, and people who can't afford healthcare? Helping old people with Social Security?

Wow, how NOT REPUBLICAN.

Sounds like "Spread the wealth" to me! GOBAMA!

"Get these balls!"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Yes. As understandings of things become muddled, effective communication becomes lost. When white becomes black and left becomes right, nobody can really be sure what each other are saying.

which implies people should get with the times, and not cling to older definitions.

If language did not evolve, we wouldn't be speaking English.

[LOSTandCRAZY 0]

Quote

Just the churches or all 501C's that take political positions?

Unions come to mind.........

ANY ORGANIZATION that's a political organization, PAY YOUR TAXES. Unions included.

My business pays taxes, the employees pay taxes, and then, I pay taxes on top of THAT on my earnings.

So should it be for all. Churches earn a LOT of money, otherwise, my minister would not have been able to afford that $150,000.00 motorhome.

Shit, I CAN'T afford a $150K motorhome.....

"Get these balls!"

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Yes. As understandings of things become muddled, effective communication becomes lost. When white becomes black and left becomes right, nobody can really be sure what each other are saying.

which implies people should get with the times, and not cling to older definitions.

If language did not evolve, we wouldn't be speaking English.

True, true. Middle English developed after William the Conqueror came over from Normandy in 1066. Old English mixed with French.

And English has evolved. Check out a dictionary from 30 years ago and "zit" wouldn't be in it.

But REDEFINING words is the issue. I think that "I" should mean "you." You have just as much right to change the definition of a word as anybody else does.

So when you continue to support Libertarian causes, something that you consider worthwhile (you even voted Libertarian yesterday despite my personal misgivings) you support the idea that that you think that redefining words is dangerous. You and you can both agree on that, right? Where do you and you differ?

You look forward to your response. And please, don't use "you" when speaking about "you."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

There's a guy arguing with a LAWYER over the use of words . . .

. . . heh . . . this isn't going to be pretty.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Quote

There's a guy arguing with a LAWYER over the use of words . . .

. . . heh . . . this isn't going to be pretty.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[sky722 0]

Quote

Quote

"At least the churches help those in need, give to charity, and do things for the sick and the elderly with the money thats GIVED and DONATED. "

Quote

So now you're a socialist? Giving to the poor? Helping people? Helping the sick, and people who can't afford healthcare? Helping old people with Social Security?

Quote

Wow, how NOT REPUBLICAN.

Sounds like "Spread the wealth" to me! GOBAMA!

BTW churches don't EARN the money it's GIVED to THEM by people who has already PAID TAXES on that money. Also, you got to keep in mind NON-PROFIT groups don't have to pay taxes.Believe it or not, you can start a non-profit organization, and as long as you spend a portion of that money for a cuase, hey think about ! Kinda make you want to start one doesn't it?

[quade 4]

Quote

Believe it or not, you can start a non-profit organization, and as long as you spend a portion of that money for a cuase, hey think about ! Kinda make you want to start one doesn't it?

No. Actually, it makes me want to be able to Amend the 1st and beat the shit out of a number of televangelists.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

"At least the churches help those in need, give to charity, and do things for the sick and the elderly with the money thats GIVED and DONATED. "

Quote

So now you're a socialist? Giving to the poor? Helping people? Helping the sick, and people who can't afford healthcare? Helping old people with Social Security?

Quote

Wow, how NOT REPUBLICAN.

Sounds like "Spread the wealth" to me! GOBAMA!

BTW churches don't EARN the money it's GIVED to THEM by people who has already PAID TAXES on that money. Also, you got to keep in mind NON-PROFIT groups don't have to pay taxes.Believe it or not, you can start a non-profit organization, and as long as you spend a portion of that money for a cuase, hey think about ! Kinda make you want to start one doesn't it?

Your points are correct but, one needs to know that in many cases land is given to church's. That land is no longer taxed and all income from said land is no longer taxed either.

I only post this for facts. I do not disagree with you on this topic.

Edited to add:

Same is said for land purchased by the Iowa DNR. They are to pay tax on the land if they have budget money left at the end of the budget year. They never do. AND, they buy the land with our tax money.

I wonder, which is worse?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[sky722 0]

hey man chill, when I said non-profit organization, I don't mean just the churches. there are several non profit groups out there.

[quade 4]

Quote

hey man chill, when I said non-profit organization, I don't mean just the churches. there are several non profit groups out there.

Yeah, I know, and the televangelists should be the first against the wall when the revolution comes. Look, don't even begin to think you're in any way being original by bringing up how easy it is to bilk people out of money in the name of a non-profit or by creating a new "church." L. Ron Hubbard was years ahead of you.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[sky722 0]

no way I'd want to do anything like that.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

But REDEFINING words is the issue. I think that "I" should mean "you."

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we change "marriage" to mean "divorce."

Merriam-Webster's has already added this to the definition of marriage: "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage." And of course, "marriage" has long had the alternate meaning of "an intimate or close union" (as in The Marriage of Heaven and Hell by William Blake), so it's not like the word has always had just one simple meaning.

[quade 4]

That said, for legal purposes, dictionaries are rarely used when it comes to legal definitions.

That IS what this whole thing was about. By defining the word as an Amendment in the California Constitution, it becomes THE standard for California law.

Dick move, but you have to appreciate the strategy.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

That said, for legal purposes, dictionaries are rarely used when it comes to legal definitions.

That IS what this whole thing was about. By defining the word as an Amendment in the California Constitution, it becomes THE standard for California law.

Dick move, but you have to appreciate the strategy.

True... (especially the "dick move" part), but it looks like it'll be going back to the CA Supreme Court, and I hope that they do the right thing.

[BikerBabe 0]

Something came to me today...

so if someone uses "marriage" in another context in CA, can i sue them or bring charges?

i.e: "This idea was a marriage of conservative principles and religious dogma"

i mean, according to a literal interpretation of the new CA constitution...THAT SENTENCE IS AGAINST THE LAW!!!

god, can't people see how amazingly fucking stupid prop 8 was? *sigh*

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[quade 4]

You'd only be able to use it in laws and claims, not random statements made by people.

I think you might have something if somebody were to say a certain product were a marriage of this and that. Might be a hilarious lawsuit for false advertising.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver