The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

>It's only there because a fairly small special interest group has chosen to
>force the issue on the rest of us.

Agreed. Just as the fairly small special interest groups of blacks forced the issue on interracial marriage. Nevertheless, it's there.

True enough, I'm not sure what he is trying to prove by repeatedly mentioning how "small" the group is. Size has no bearing on right or wrong. It's one of the most evil logical fallacies around that the majority is right (or the converse, that the minority is wrong).

The "wrong" is the denial of civil rights, and I agree with you that it needs to be corrected. Changing the English language is not the appropriate way to go about it. Civil rights do not include the right to force a change in the language. There is nothing "wrong" with the definition of marriage that has existed for centuries.

"How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg"; Abraham Lincoln, emancipator of the slaves.
quotationsbook.com/quote/11321/

...

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

[Shotgun 1]

The word has evolved, dude. You're totally dating yourself by suggesting that it hasn't.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

The word has evolved, dude. You're totally dating yourself by suggesting that it hasn't.

Wrong. If it had, the issue wouldn't be before the courts and there wouldn't be referenda.

...

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

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

The word has evolved, dude. You're totally dating yourself by suggesting that it hasn't.

Wrong. If it had, the issue wouldn't be before the courts and there wouldn't be referenda.

The dictionaries seem to have caught on before the courts.

[The111 1]

Quote

Quote

The word has evolved, dude. You're totally dating yourself by suggesting that it hasn't.

Wrong. If it had, the issue wouldn't be before the courts and there wouldn't be referenda.

Evolution is a process. Maybe it's not finished evolving (but really, what ever does finish?). Which means it still will evolve some more (i.e. in those last few places of the human mind that are so resistant to change). But, it already has evolved. This discussion actually proves that.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I have no objection to homosexual unions having all the rights of a marriage. I object strongly to having the language hijacked.

You said that wrong - more accurately

I have no objection to gov sanctioned homosexual legal unions being exactly the same a gov sanctioned heterosexual legal union.

The government should not use the term "marriage" for the situation that describes that legal contract.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

I have no objection to homosexual unions having all the rights of a marriage. I object strongly to having the language hijacked.

You said that wrong - more accurately

I have no objection to gov sanctioned homosexual legal unions being exactly the same a gov sanctioned heterosexual legal union.

The government should not use the term "marriage" for the situation that describes that legal contract.

Thanks, I can agree with that. The government has no place defining the English language for us.

...

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

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

What is the point of repeating a request to respond to an invalid argument? As long as people repeatedly request a response to an invalid point, I can repeat that their point is invalid and any response is moot.

You wouldn't be having a double standard, would you?

I have sort of a personal mission to rarely--if ever--have those...

I understand what you are saying, however:

From my perspective they did not understand--rather disagreed with--your explanation of why their point was moot. You just kept repeating it was moot.

I am just saying--with respect---sometimes it seems more like you are trying to teach a class rather than join a discussion. Your first response to this thread, for example. You knew the answer. It's like a professor who begins a lecture by opening with a question he knows, he knows we know, so we answer and wait for the lecture to begin.

Mostly, I was just tired of the back and forth. I posted a (fantastic, imo) conservative perspective in favor of gays being legally allowed to marry, and instead of discussing Olson's perspective, we argue semantics. Not unexpected, just disappointed.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

If it had changed no-one would be using the expression "gay marriage". The adjective "gay" wouldn't be needed in the thread title if you were correct.

Call me Simple Sally, but I suspect once gays are allowed to marry, we will no longer use the preface "gay" to describe a marriage.

Ron & John are gay. Ron & John are married.

We wouldn't say: Ron & John are gay-married.

We wouldn't even say Ron & John have a gay marriage, unless we were using the old-fashioned definition of the term gay.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

If it had changed no-one would be using the expression "gay marriage". The adjective "gay" wouldn't be needed in the thread title if you were correct.

Call me Simple Sally, but I suspect once gays are allowed to marry, we will no longer use the preface "gay" to describe a marriage.

So you agree with me that "marriage" right now implies heterosexual union, and right now requires a modifier, like in the thread title, to refer to something else.

...

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

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

So you agree with me that "marriage" right now implies heterosexual union

Yes--emphasis, instead, on "implies".

Quote

right now requires a modifier, like in the thread title, to refer to something else.

He could have titled it, "The Conservative Case for Gays Being Allowed to Enter Into Marriage". But, the Newsweek editor would have had a cow.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

He could have titled it, "The Conservative Case for Gays Being Allowed to Enter Into Marriage". But, the Newsweek editor would have had a cow.

Funny, my husband just said, "There goes the Otter," and somehow I knew that he didn't mean "Any of various aquatic, carnivorous mammals of the genus Lutra and allied genera, related to the minks and weasels and having webbed feet and dense, dark brown fur."

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If it had changed no-one would be using the expression "gay marriage". The adjective "gay" wouldn't be needed in the thread title if you were correct.

Call me Simple Sally, but I suspect once gays are allowed to marry, we will no longer use the preface "gay" to describe a marriage.

So you agree with me that "marriage" right now implies heterosexual union, and right now requires a modifier, like in the thread title, to refer to something else.

Since you are argueing from a some what interesting point for once, I would point out that its not anyones place to describe a couples marriage as a gay one or a depressing one.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

So you agree with me that "marriage" right now implies heterosexual union

Yes--emphasis, instead, on "implies".

And if it evolves by common usage to imply something additional or different, that is fine. My position is that it is not the business of the courts or the government to force a change in the English language at the behest of a special interest group.

As far as I can tell, "marriage" does not include same sex relationships in 45 of the 50 states in the USA, and in no other English speaking nation except Canada. So to say that the English language has naturally evolved in that direction is simply untrue.

...

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

[champu 1]

Quote

And if it evolves by common usage to imply something additional or different, that is fine. My position is that it is not the business of the courts or the government to force a change in the English language at the behest of a special interest group.

The concept of being able to admit you're a homosexual is still fairly new in this country and is not yet universal. We are in the middle of the evolutionary process that you're looking for. In California as homosexuals gained a modest level of acceptance in some areas they started getting married. This went along fine until a special interest group put prop 8 on the ballot and forced a governmental change in the language away from the direction it was headed.

I understand your concern regarding the government and its manipulation of the language to promote agendas (Vietnam was a "conflict" but battling drugs is a "war"... wtf is that?) but the government can go wrong either by forcing a jump in evolution or by reversing steps that have already occurred.

Now... It's possible that you're playing devil's advocate to try and show people that a path of lesser resistance is available to them in taking the word "marriage" out of government altogether, and I agree that course of action would be easier. But don't dress up a sidestep of those who would wed church and state in the clothes of etymological conservatism.

[kallend 2,148]

I find it funny that many of those who protest strongly when the government in Quebec imposes linguistic rules are strongly in favor of government doing the same in the USA.

...

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

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Ron & John are gay. Ron & John are married.

So that's why they fight on here all the time. It suddenly makes sense!

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Ron & John are gay. Ron & John are married.

So that's why they fight on here all the time. It suddenly makes sense!

I just got back from a theater trip, where Noel Coward's "Private Lives" was performed. It's the 1930's play that was essentially plagiarized for "It's Complicated". The couple fights continually, because they enjoy it.

...

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

[champu 1]

Quote

I find it funny that many of those who protest strongly when the government in Quebec imposes linguistic rules are strongly in favor of government doing the same in the USA.

Is it, in your opinion, possible for the word marriage to ever evolve through common usage to include homosexual unions?

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

I find it funny that many of those who protest strongly when the government in Quebec imposes linguistic rules are strongly in favor of government doing the same in the USA.

Is it, in your opinion, possible for the word marriage to ever evolve through common usage to include homosexual unions?

Yes, that is possible. It hasn't happened yet, nor should it be forced by the government or the courts.

...

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

[billvon 3,116]

>Evolution and hijacking are not the same thing.

Agreed. "Evolution" means you agree with the change, "hijack" means you don't.

>No, it hasn't. A special interest group is trying to force a change.

They already have, just as the special interest group known as "blacks" (or. back then, "coloreds") forced a redefinition in the 1960's.

>The adjective "gay" wouldn't be needed in the thread title if you were correct.

If _you_ were correct, there would be no such term as interracial marriage. However, there is, so I fear you are making a distinction where none exists.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

A special interest group known as "blacks" (or. back then, "coloreds") forced a redefinition in the 1960's.

sure, but if they wanted to be called whites, it would've been just absolutely ridiculous.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[billvon 3,116]

>sure, but if they wanted to be called whites, it would've been just
>absolutely ridiculous.

Fortunately they just wanted to be known as "people" - even if some other people felt that doing so would be redefining the word.

[Coreece 190]

well u didn't say that

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I find it funny that many of those who protest strongly when the government in Quebec imposes linguistic rules are strongly in favor of government doing the same in the USA.

Is it, in your opinion, possible for the word marriage to ever evolve through common usage to include homosexual unions?

Yes, that is possible. It hasn't happened yet, nor should it be forced by the government or the courts.

I would argue that the evolution is under way, and the government should neither force it, nor stand in the way. Legislation like prop 8 is adding control of language to state constitutions on behalf of special interest groups.