Gay Marriage: an Oxymoron
Mac the Nice
Latin, Old French and Old English origin, "marriage". So in the oldest
sense, a marriage is a *joint*. And what in the ancient world would that
look like, a "joint"? It may be that you would think of the joint that is
formed of two oppositely mitred beams, or such that the one is slotted in
order that a tab formed at the end of the other might meet and fit tightly
together in a joint.
Pipes form joints, and so plumbers are always taking about the female and
male members of those joints. Two male members or two of the female will not
fit together into a "joint" and so neither will they fit Webster's
definition for a "marriage".
The concept of marriage in its most essential meaning is the joining of two
unlike entities into one.
The very idea of single-sex marriage is irrational, is an oxymoron because
those of a single sex are already at unity of essence and so it is therefore
impossible to marry them.
In the language of jurisprudence, it is "repugnant" to the rationality of
the doctrines in law, the very contemplation of a "gay marriage" because it
cannot exist within grammatically ordered, logical definitions of the law.
--
Mackie
http://vignettes-mackie.blogspot.com/
"Do You Like Smelly Girls?"
http://whosenose.blogspot.com
--
.............................................................
> Posted thru AtlantisNews - Explore EVERY Newsgroup <
> http://www.AtlantisNews.com -- Lightning Fast!!! <
> Access the Most Content * No Limits * Best Service <
Strife767
wrote:
>Webster's uses the word 'join' to assert its definition for the word of
>Latin, Old French and Old English origin, "marriage". So in the oldest
>sense, a marriage is a *joint*. And what in the ancient world would that
>look like, a "joint"? It may be that you would think of the joint that is
>formed of two oppositely mitred beams, or such that the one is slotted in
>order that a tab formed at the end of the other might meet and fit tightly
>together in a joint.
>
>Pipes form joints, and so plumbers are always taking about the female and
>male members of those joints. Two male members or two of the female will not
>fit together into a "joint" and so neither will they fit Webster's
>definition for a "marriage".
>
>The concept of marriage in its most essential meaning is the joining of two
>unlike entities into one.
>
>The very idea of single-sex marriage is irrational, is an oxymoron because
>those of a single sex are already at unity of essence and so it is therefore
>impossible to marry them.
>
>In the language of jurisprudence, it is "repugnant" to the rationality of
>the doctrines in law, the very contemplation of a "gay marriage" because it
>cannot exist within grammatically ordered, logical definitions of the law.
Leave it to someone against gay marriage to totally ignore the concept of a
marriage based on love. I guess since marriage was so often used as a social
tool, to preserve and gain wealth and status, that it's easy to forget that
"minute" part of marriage which is kinda sorta the actual reason most people
get married today. Marriage for any other reason is swindling and
manipulation, nothing better.
Boy Toy
wrote in message <96878290iqadg133a...@4ax.com>
The truly sad part is that some people will actually consider this
prattle to constitute some kind of rational argument. Even within the
"grammatically ordered logic" of the law. LOL!
Steve Hayes
>Webster's uses the word 'join' to assert its definition for the word of
>Latin, Old French and Old English origin, "marriage". So in the oldest
>sense, a marriage is a *joint*. And what in the ancient world would that
>look like, a "joint"? It may be that you would think of the joint that is
>formed of two oppositely mitred beams, or such that the one is slotted in
>order that a tab formed at the end of the other might meet and fit tightly
>together in a joint.
>
>Pipes form joints, and so plumbers are always taking about the female and
>male members of those joints. Two male members or two of the female will not
>fit together into a "joint" and so neither will they fit Webster's
>definition for a "marriage".
>
>The concept of marriage in its most essential meaning is the joining of two
>unlike entities into one.
>
>The very idea of single-sex marriage is irrational, is an oxymoron because
>those of a single sex are already at unity of essence and so it is therefore
>impossible to marry them.
>
>In the language of jurisprudence, it is "repugnant" to the rationality of
>the doctrines in law, the very contemplation of a "gay marriage" because it
>cannot exist within grammatically ordered, logical definitions of the law.
You make an error based on a misunderstanding or words.
"Gay" is not a sex, but a sexual orientation. You may believe that homosexual
marriage is irrational, but homosexual marriage is not the same as "gay
marriage". Two gay people can quite easily get married when they are of
different sexes. Such a marriage might be a gay marriage, but it would not be
a homosexual one.
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://http://www.librarything.com/catalog/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
Francis A. Miniter
> Webster's uses the word 'join' to assert its definition for the word of
> Latin, Old French and Old English origin, "marriage". So in the oldest
> sense, a marriage is a *joint*. And what in the ancient world would that
> look like, a "joint"? It may be that you would think of the joint that is
> formed of two oppositely mitred beams, or such that the one is slotted in
> order that a tab formed at the end of the other might meet and fit tightly
> together in a joint.
If you rout through grooves half the depth of two pieces of wood such that the
grooves are identical they will join at a 90 degree angle so that neither piece
of wood extends beyond the depth of the other. Both are "slotted" identically
in this example. But in any case, a bad analogy is just a bad analogy.
>
> Pipes form joints, and so plumbers are always taking about the female and
> male members of those joints. Two male members or two of the female will not
> fit together into a "joint" and so neither will they fit Webster's
> definition for a "marriage".
>
> The concept of marriage in its most essential meaning is the joining of two
> unlike entities into one.
>
> The very idea of single-sex marriage is irrational, is an oxymoron because
> those of a single sex are already at unity of essence and so it is therefore
> impossible to marry them.
>
> In the language of jurisprudence, it is "repugnant" to the rationality of
> the doctrines in law, the very contemplation of a "gay marriage" because it
> cannot exist within grammatically ordered, logical definitions of the law.
Please excuse the frank nature of this comment, it is not meant to be personal.
But the post is like the character "August Krapptauer" in Vonnegut's Mother
Night - an impressive pile of shit.
Grammatically ordered laws!!! I have spent nights, weeks and months at times
trying to pry some grammar from statutes - especially tax laws. They are the
worst. Logical??? Have you ever seen those little books about nonsensical laws?
Please do not call upon the majesty of the law to support your argument.
The law, as much as it has helped humanity, is all too often an ass. There have
been and are bad legislators, bad administrators, bad judges and bad rulings.
How far do you want to go back to traditional marriage law?
- To the time not so long ago when you could only get a divorce for adultery or
intolerable cruelty?
- To the time not so far before that when there was no divorce?
- To the time not long ago (before 1967) in some parts of America when a
"black" person could not marry a "white" person?
- To the time when decisions about abortions could not be made by a wife alone?
- to the time when the wife could not get an abortion?
- To the time when a woman's property became the husband's on marriage?
- To the time when a woman was property when she was married?
- To the time of the droit du seigneur and the jus primae noctis?
The reality is that marriage law has constantly been shifting over the ages.
You do know about polygamy (including polygyny (Muslims and Mormons like this)
or polyandry (Muslims and Mormons do not like this). Do you know about endogamy,
exogamy? All practiced in various societies in the past - even in the present.
So what are you going to argue - that marriage is for procreation? There has
been plenty of procreation without marriage. In Salzburg, the building that is
now City Hall was built by a 16th (?) century archbishop there for his mistress
and their 15 children! In that era, many, many of the clergy had mistresses and
children. Some of them in the Borgia/Borja line even eventually succeeded Dad
as pope of the Roman Catholic Church. There has also been plenty of marriages
without procreation. Do octogenarians marry to have children? Would you say
they should be denied the right to marry?
The concept of marriage in the 21st century is in fact getting back to its
radical roots - as a way of conferring domestic contract rights on persons.
Francis A. Miniter
BB
news:44839260$0$25875$8826...@news.atlantisnews.com:
> <snip'd>
>
> The very idea of single-sex marriage is irrational, is an oxymoron
> because those of a single sex are already at unity of essence and so
> it is therefore impossible to marry them.
>
> In the language of jurisprudence, it is "repugnant" to the rationality
> of the doctrines in law, the very contemplation of a "gay marriage"
> because it cannot exist within grammatically ordered, logical
> definitions of the law.
So, since gay couples are all ready united as you say, why not simply
grant them all the same civil benefits of "Marriage"?
And, while you're throwing around legal definitions, find a legal
definition for "man" and "Woman"...
Can't use chromosomes 'cause not every female has the same XX pair; some
have XY. (Jamie Lee Curtis is a famous example.)
Can't use genitalia because genetalia can change via a gender
reassignment surgery and some people are born without clear genitalia.
Can't use the presence of breasts since a double mastectomy will leave a
person without breasts.
So how does one define "Man" and "Woman" in the legal sense to cover all
bases?
--B
--
************************************************************
* Can't see the Forest | Bryan B. *
* Through the Trees? | Reply if you want. E-mail *
* Take it out! | address changes frequently *
* (Damn Viruses!) | to foil spambots. *
************************************************************
jimc...@pacbell.net
> On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 22:00:12 -0500, "Mac the Nice" <jpd...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Webster's uses the word 'join' to assert its definition for the word of
> >Latin, Old French and Old English origin, "marriage". So in the oldest
> >sense, a marriage is a *joint*. And what in the ancient world would that
> >look like, a "joint"? It may be that you would think of the joint that is
> >formed of two oppositely mitred beams, or such that the one is slotted in
> >order that a tab formed at the end of the other might meet and fit tightly
> >together in a joint.
> >
> >Pipes form joints, and so plumbers are always taking about the female and
> >male members of those joints. Two male members or two of the female will not
> >fit together into a "joint" and so neither will they fit Webster's
> >definition for a "marriage".
[...]
> Leave it to someone against gay marriage to totally ignore the concept of a
> marriage based on love.
Silly bastard doesn't come through in Google and I think I have
him filtered out in my SMTP mail handlers.
Seems to be saying that a marriage not validified
by Merriam-Webster is invalid. As M-W's editorial board is
fond of remarking, their reference book is many things to many
people. I wonder what their position is on missionaries and
cannibals.
I see our introspective president sought out a road less
traveled, in the manner of independent, introspective thinkers,
and is raising same-sex marriage as a campaign issue
following his twin successes in Iraq and New Orleans.
Thirty-five percent in the polls and after he's through
with the present gig what's he got? He can't
orate worth shit. He can't write worth shit. He
doesn't have any causes that're worth shit.
Come to think of it, he isn't worth shit.
I hope he's not holding out for a Nobel.
(newsgroups whacked)
Steve Hayes
<bbnewsh3...@THROUGH.THE.TREES.onemain.com> wrote:
>Can't use chromosomes 'cause not every female has the same XX pair; some
>have XY. (Jamie Lee Curtis is a famous example.)
That explains the masculine name, then.
Mac the Nice
"Francis A. Miniter" <min...@attglobalZZ.net> wrote in message
news:4483c948@kcnews01...
> If you rout through grooves half the depth of two pieces of wood such that
> the grooves are identical they will join at a 90 degree angle so that
> neither piece of wood extends beyond the depth of the other. Both are
> "slotted" identically in this example. But in any case, a bad analogy is
> just a bad analogy.
It's not analogy: by definition, by identity, and by essence of the concept
as such, a joint is a joint, is a marriage. The manner of joint you
describe must have a name and I'd like to know what it is, that I might see
it because judging from what you describe it sounds like rather an imperfect
union.
> Please excuse the frank nature of this comment, it is not meant to be
> personal. But the post is like the character "August Krapptauer" in
> Vonnegut's Mother Night - an impressive pile of shit.
I'll thank you for the "impressive" part, and acknowledge that so it must
be, for it to have sent you and the rest who into such a tizzy of rather
disingenuous denial. What impresses you is the rationality of the case, and
that's what really pisses you off, that it is impressively rational, so much
so that it sends you off grasping at every anecdotal straw you can pick up,
in order to build up once more that same hut in which you held your store of
opinion before this assault.
So there you are in your grass house throwing your picked bones for stones,
till the Big Bad Wolf of reason comes by to blow it all down, again.
You know very well how specious are all these arguments which follow--and I
would not insult your intelligence by pretending to know better what you
already know by spelling it all out in detail to you.
I will tell you this: these thoughts dawned on me suddenly as I sat there
in a lawn chair out on the deck, pausing for a bit of mind rest from Lewis
White Beck's hefty little commentary on Kant's *Critique of Practical
Reason*. I had been reading about something the Maestro had written just
upon his accession to his chair at Königsberg in 1770, in which he had
distinguished something he had called a "real use" of the intellect in which
"truths" are discovered, as opposed to a "logical use" in which inferences
are merely drawn from given judgments. In view of that consider the post
from . . .
"Strife767" <stri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:96878290iqadg133a...@4ax.com...
> Leave it to someone against gay marriage to totally ignore the concept of
> a
> marriage based on love.
He makes a much better argument against my case than you do, Francis because
he is thinking outside the box of the "logical use" amidst the empirical
plethora, to access rather the realm of feeling where the "real use" of the
intellect rises to a far more powerful consideration of the real issues
involved with marriage, around the question of love. Your arguments are of
quantity not quality, endlessly siting the cases where the law has failed to
be properly the law, as properly logical, as expressed by a properly
grammatical language. You don't get anywhere by that sort of argument
because I can counter by citing all the laws that do fit the Ideal paradigm
of making good sense. So the same thing comes up again, while I am speaking
of Ideal Law, law as it should be, you are speaking in anecdotes of actual
law, imperfect and bad law--and these are not the same topic. The Ideal Law
is always the more essential because it is necessary to produce any
semblance of actual law at all. Take away the ideal of what the law should
be, and you will have only what law degenerates to, which is no proper law
at all, but only a lot of irrational, repressive regulation posing as
legislation.
The law should be rational, and not that alone, it must be just. And for law
to be just, it must contemplate what Kant called the "real use" of the
intellect, to intuit how men feel when they are being wronged. Reason
cannot describe that. But justice can, by providing the remedy at law which
otherwise only revenge or retribution can attain. Now consider the argument
of . . .
"Boy Toy" <Boy...@Toyz4Boyz.com> wrote in message
news:gsa782ptb2rar3ntu...@4ax.com...
> The truly sad part is that some people will actually consider this
> prattle to constitute some kind of rational argument. Even within the
> "grammatically ordered logic" of the law. LOL!
He sees the rationality, the "logical use" of the Webster's definition, and
is greatly concerned over the power it may have to convince some people who
may occasion to see it. And like you, Francis, he can view the possibility
of an Ideal Law becoming real with none but the most tragi-comic sense of
irony. But getting back to the truly important question raised by
"Strife767", I am going to ask you to consider not what Ideal Law is , but
rather more importantly, how it should reflect the reality of what Ideal
Love is.
Never mind the many disparate forms of various "joints" you can find because
the essential concept of what constitutes a *marriage* is defined by an
essential, an Ideal, a particular kind of joint which unites two *unlike*
components--every tradition of marriage has seen the conjoining of the male
to the female and has never (except you can produce the rare aberrant
anecdote) seen that union as anything other than a heterosexual male to
female joint.
But now enter *Love*. We are really not talking about the union of physical
sexual components, but of hearts, or depending on your beliefs, the souls of
the marriage mates. Indeed as "Strife767" insists, it is Love that should
stand as the purpose and the motivation for the union. For heterosexuals,
the love that is generated between man and woman has a great deal to do with
the mystery of difference between the two. Hetero men and women love to
discover to its fullest the depth of that mystery of the unlike, and at the
same time the compatibility of what is alike.
If the reason for marriage was the bringing together of what is alike, there
would be no need of any "marriage" at all. This is the ceremony performed as
the rite of a tying together of that which otherwise cannot be bound.
Now there is no need to "marry" two entities which are already alike, there
is no need of the rite, of the ceremony which is performed to say that in
sight of law and custom, "These two may now be viewed as being alike, joined
as one--and there is nothing untoward going on here. They have our
blessing, to live together as one, only by virtue of this public witness, as
no other such two unlikes may do without this blessing."
But if two men or two women should be living together, if a great, strong
bond of friendship, of companionship and affection should exist between
them, human society and culture has never required any sort of rite to make
that acceptable because nothing could be more acceptable, than like being
with like, men being chums with men, and women being close with women.
And if a man should love a man, or if a woman should be in love with another
woman, if they should live in a relationship of extended and exclusive
amorous companionship, even at that, society has never written a law against
their cohabitation, as such. Laws against homosexuality had been on the
books for years, and so, also the social practice of "Don't Ask-Don't Tell"
has been there to permit such cohabitation to continue without abatement
from the law.
But, gay liberation has happened and those laws, for the most part are off
the books. So now, more than ever, just as there has never been any social
rite required for bonds of love to exist between people of the same sex,
neither is there any need to have any such kind of ceremony now--except as
that need appears to exist psychologically in the mind of the gay person who
wishes to have the imprimatur of society upon his or her same-sex union to
certify the goodness of it. In order to get that, however, society with its
Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and Muslim majority over the
non-religious minority must certify that such a union is good--and they
won't.
Religious people, for the most part, are convinced that the kind of love
that can produce a good marriage between a man and a woman can never occur
between lovers of the same sex. They would see that God or Nature has put
the ban or the curse upon it. But there is another non-religious school of
thought which sees a different sort of ban on it. I speak of the formerly
dominant "Real Use" psychiatry--as opposed to the contemporary cognitive
"Logical Use" psychology. Upon basis not only of theory but of many a case
history, the Old School shrink sees that because there is nothing of Nature
to firmly couple the joint (no true cathexis of the libido) between like and
like, the relationship will tend to be loose with a lot of jerking around
going on between the partners.
There are still a majority of people in World Society with powerful
prejudices against homosexuality, while yet there remains a large minority
of educated heterosexuals who accept it. Aside from those two, there is that
far smaller minority, in the school of real-use psychology who hold that
homosexuality is a learned behavior, a habit, an obsession, a complusion,
occurring in reaction to a phobia or prejudice gained due to scarring,
traumatic, unhappy experiences. Two forms . . .
Some people sexually desire members of their own sex in an habitual,
masochistic compulsion that drives them to return to abuse scenarios
suffered at the hands of a same-sex parent or sibling, someone significant.
In this case the obsessive need for acceptance from that same sex other
simply overwhelms and dampens any nascient desire for the opposite sex.
Of course, the reverse scenario is just so common, where the abusive parent
was of the opposite sex, inducing the aforesaid phobia. In any case, it is
not that there is some mythical (never to be proven) in-born, congenital
arrangement of the genes causing a strictly biological desire that points
the cathexis of the libido in the same sex direction. Nothing of the kind.
Neither God nor Nature (cruel as they may seem to be) are ever that
sadistic, unjust and discriminatory. It is nurture, not Nature; it is either
an aversion acquired as described in the second case, or a compulsion of
attraction, as in the first.
I am part of that minority whose intuition cannot stop tutoring me to the
view that homosexual eroticism is anything but "gay", but always the result
of some tremendous unhappiness that is there to rob its victim of the
fullest possible expression of his Nature given sexuality. I know how happy
and fulfilled my desire for the ladies has made me, I know how good it can
get, and so I just know what all you gay guys are missing. I also know,
from my experiences as an adolescent that I am missing nothing in the way of
same-sex eroticism, but your present unhappiness.
I have *no* prejudice against the homosexual, as I have plenty against those
who would abuse you, e.g. the postmodern school of psychology that wants to
describe your unhappiness as "normal", "inate" in order to shirk the
therapeutic responsibility of doing something to purge it. I do not hold to
this opinion because I like being accused for a bigot or because I love to
be hated by liberals and homosexuals, as indeed I might even go so far as to
say that I don't like being forced by my intuitions and my instincts to hold
these views, and to accept the sense of duty to tell the truth about it.
Like the homosexual, I know what it is to be singled out as the geek, the
freak, the weirdo and the pervert. Thanks to the society of intellectual
postmodern liberalism, I know what it means to be the odd man out, and I
have as the result nothing but compassion for others of a like experience.
I won't go so far as to cop out, for my own sake, by saying, "A person can't
help how he feels." That isn't true. There is help for how one feels,
there are still a few practicing psychoanalysts of the Neo-Freudian
tradition out there who are more than willing and ready to help a person go
out and get himself a real piece of ass for once in his life. It used to be
that just about any social welfare agency had a whole staff of
psychoanalytically trained social workers, ready to help a person for free.
Those don't exist anymore, because the politics of feminism and gay
liberation has been so powerful in its agenda as to have drummed those
people out of existence.
So what's a Gay person to do?
Janet Puistonen
Nonsense.
In our society the legal state called "marriage" is a civil union that
conveys certain legal responsibilities and privileges. There is no rational
reason why this legal state should not be available to any two adults who
wish to make that sort of commitment of mutual support and responsibility.
(It is to society's advantage, in fact.) What we really need to do is remove
the religious element from civil unions recognized by the state. Anyone who
wants to should be able to enter into a legal civil union, and the
government interest should stop there. Anyone who wishes in addition to be
"married" by some religious organization could then do so, and religious
organizations would be free to set whatever standards for "marriage" that
they wish, just as they are now.
*Anarcissie*
I would call it "word play" myself. If he takes it seriously, it's
a sad case.
> In our society the legal state called "marriage" is a civil union that
> conveys certain legal responsibilities and privileges. There is no rational
> reason why this legal state should not be available to any two adults who
> wish to make that sort of commitment of mutual support and responsibility.
> (It is to society's advantage, in fact.) What we really need to do is remove
> the religious element from civil unions recognized by the state. Anyone who
> wants to should be able to enter into a legal civil union, and the
> government interest should stop there. Anyone who wishes in addition to be
> "married" by some religious organization could then do so, and religious
> organizations would be free to set whatever standards for "marriage" that
> they wish, just as they are now.
Of course, but most people are not rational and regard
rational thought with considerable suspicion.
jimc...@pacbell.net
> Can't use chromosomes 'cause not every female has the same XX pair; some
> have XY. (Jamie Lee Curtis is a famous example.)
Google produces a page that says this is an urban myth
and that she has indignantly declined comment. To which
the persistent idiot says, "Ah, an aura of mystery is a good
career move for an actor!"
However, it is well known by insiders that George Eliot's mother
probably did fool around with a horse.
Lars Eighner
<4483f81b$0$25878$8826...@news.atlantisnews.com>,
the lovely and talented Mac the Nice
broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
> "Francis A. Miniter" <min...@attglobalZZ.net> wrote in message
> news:4483c948@kcnews01...
>> If you rout through grooves half the depth of two pieces of wood such that
>> the grooves are identical they will join at a 90 degree angle so that
>> neither piece of wood extends beyond the depth of the other. Both are
>> "slotted" identically in this example. But in any case, a bad analogy is
>> just a bad analogy.
> It's not analogy: by definition, by identity, and by essence of the concept
> as such, a joint is a joint, is a marriage. The manner of joint you
> describe must have a name and I'd like to know what it is, that I might see
> it because judging from what you describe it sounds like rather an imperfect
> union.
Etymology isn't definition.
--
Lars Eighner http://larseighner.com/ http:/myspace.com/larseighner
Conflict is inevitable, but combat is optional.
- Max Lucado
Strife767
wrote:
>In our society the legal state called "marriage" is a civil union that
>conveys certain legal responsibilities and privileges. There is no rational
>reason why this legal state should not be available to any two adults who
>wish to make that sort of commitment of mutual support and responsibility.
>(It is to society's advantage, in fact.) What we really need to do is remove
>the religious element from civil unions recognized by the state. Anyone who
>wants to should be able to enter into a legal civil union, and the
>government interest should stop there. Anyone who wishes in addition to be
>"married" by some religious organization could then do so, and religious
>organizations would be free to set whatever standards for "marriage" that
>they wish, just as they are now.
_Exactly_.
*Anarcissie*
Lars Eighner wrote:
> In our last episode,
> <4483f81b$0$25878$8826...@news.atlantisnews.com>,
> the lovely and talented Mac the Nice
> broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
>
>
> > "Francis A. Miniter" <min...@attglobalZZ.net> wrote in message
> > news:4483c948@kcnews01...
>
> >> If you rout through grooves half the depth of two pieces of wood such that
> >> the grooves are identical they will join at a 90 degree angle so that
> >> neither piece of wood extends beyond the depth of the other. Both are
> >> "slotted" identically in this example. But in any case, a bad analogy is
> >> just a bad analogy.
>
> > It's not analogy: by definition, by identity, and by essence of the concept
> > as such, a joint is a joint, is a marriage. The manner of joint you
> > describe must have a name and I'd like to know what it is, that I might see
> > it because judging from what you describe it sounds like rather an imperfect
> > union.
>
> Etymology isn't definition.
I don't think you're going to get anywhere. If Mac thinks words
have "essences" he has a kind of theology of language which
I am sure will be impervious to mere reason.
Mac the Nice
"*Anarcissie*" <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149529086.1...@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> I don't think you're going to get anywhere. If Mac thinks words
> have "essences" he has a kind of theology of language which
> I am sure will be impervious to mere reason.
Essence, in the sense of "essential", that which is necessary and most
unique to distinguish the one substance, entity, word from the other.
Without essence reason is impossible, it stands at the foundation of all
definition in logic from Aristotle through Kant to . . . what the hell is
the name of that modern era philosopher with the hyphenated Spanish surname;
it's right on the tip of my . . . what was the word for that pink fleshy
doo-dad in the human mouth that allows a person to form words with . . .
In any case, to pervert the meaning of what the other fellow is saying is
always a good old trick, and most usually works for those who need the
perversions. It's like Woody Allen, his uncle and the eggs. If you really
need the egg, you will lay it, "*Anarcissie*".
But I am like the guy in Dr. Strangelove played by Keenan Wynn, good ol'
Sergeant "Bat Guano". Figuratively speaking, "If I catch you doing any
preversions in there, I'll blow your head off!"
Robin
"Mac the Nice" <jpd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4483f81b$0$25878$8826...@news.atlantisnews.com...
>
> "Francis A. Miniter" <min...@attglobalZZ.net> wrote in message
> news:4483c948@kcnews01...
>
>> If you rout through grooves half the depth of two pieces of wood such
>> that the grooves are identical they will join at a 90 degree angle so
>> that neither piece of wood extends beyond the depth of the other. Both
>> are "slotted" identically in this example. But in any case, a bad
>> analogy is just a bad analogy.
>
> It's not analogy: by definition, by identity, and by essence of the
> concept as such, a joint is a joint, is a marriage. The manner of joint
> you describe must have a name and I'd like to know what it is, that I
> might see it because judging from what you describe it sounds like rather
> an imperfect union.
>
Your entire analogy about how things "join together" is completely
irrelevant, not to mention moronic. The fact of the matter is that marriage
is a civil legal contract. The gender of the two parties wishing to enter
into the contract should have no relevance. Can you name ANY other civil
legal contract where parties can be restricted from entering strictly on the
basis of their gender?
There are really only three arguements that one can offer against gay
marriage. The first is religion. Religion should not, and can not have any
bearing on civil law. The second is tradition. Tradition has NEVER been
held up as a legitimate reason to deny an entire class of people equal civil
rights. The third is that gay marriage is "ooky" (similar to your joints
analogy) and that reason doesn't even deserve to be addressed.
Mac the Nice
"Robin" <robina...@hotmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:VE1hg.829$y%3....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> Your entire analogy about how things "join together" is completely
> irrelevant, not to mention moronic.
Oh, Nasty Girl? You want to dance that dirty little tango with me? Well,
come here! Two can take that mean little low-down step, and by the time I'm
done taking you over the floor, baby you'll be standing there all
pigeon-toed and dizzy with your garters clipped to your nose, wondering what
kind of hot Latin lightening of logic must have hit you.
Do you know what a "dictionary" is, Ms. Smarty? Do ya? Well, apparently not
because you think it's a book of 'analogies'. Well here's news for you, so
settle down and pay attention: when you look up the word *marry*, here's
what you get from Webster's . . .
"Etymology: Middle English marien, from Old French marier, from Latin
maritare, from maritus married transitive senses. 1 a : to join as husband
and wife according to law."
That's what we call a "definition" there in the dictionary. If there was an
analogy it would say, "as if to join, like a joining, e.g. the making of a
joint."
There is no "as if", it doesn't say "like" or "for example". Not a thing
figurative going on in that definition at all. What you have in that
*definition* (you got that yet?) is a statement in logic known as an
"identity". And that is to say, "this is this". Get it? It does not speak
metaphorically, or by simile, nor by analogy, because the intent is so
concrete and deadly to identify the one thing by the other, like this:
marriage is a joining, and it is therefore, a joint.
Maybe it's about time you got your ear-holes unplugged from that inane
Hip-Hop in your iPod turning your brain to smelly jelly. Time to put some
Mozart or Louis Prima & Keely Smith on the stereo, and your nose in a book
for once in your life, so you won't always be such a wide-mouthed, noisy
little scamp? Try *What is Philosophy* by José Ortega y Gasset. Read that
if you can, and learn what it is to discriminate between analogies and
identities.
Now was there anything else you wanted to teach me, little Ms. Know It All?
Lewis Mammel
Mac the Nice wrote:
> here's what you get from Webster's . . .
Webster's is a whore. Check out the Eleventh Collegiate.
Mac the Nice
"Lewis Mammel" <l.ma...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:44851730...@worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> Mac the Nice wrote:
>
>> here's what you get from Webster's . . .
>
> Webster's is a whore. Check out the Eleventh Collegiate.
Who isn't? What's it say?
Bitchin' Bonney
In 1971, two men, Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell,
applied to Gerald R. Nelson, the clerk of Minnesota's Hennepin County
District Court, for a marriage license. Nelson denied the request on
the sole ground that the two were of the same sex. Baker and McConnell
then sued Nelson, arguing that Minnesota law permitted same-sex
marriages, and that Nelson's interpretation that it did not violated
their rights under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution. The trial court ruled Nelson was not required to
issue Baker and McConnell a marriage license, and specifically
directed that they not be issued a license. On appeal, the Minnesota
Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling, and specifically
ruled that Minnesota's limiting of marriage to opposite-sex unions
"does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution".
Opinion of the court
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling
in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)—in which the Court ruled that
a statute probiting interracial marriages was unconstitutional—was not
applicable to the Baker case. The Minnesota Supreme Court acknowledged
the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits some state restrictions upon the
right to marry, but that "in commonsense and in a constitutional
sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction
based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference
in sex".
Review by the United States Supreme Court
Upon losing their case before the Minnesota Supreme Court, Baker and
McConnell appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The United
States Supreme Court dismissed the case "for want of a substantial
federal question."
Unlike a denial of certiorari, a dismissal for want of a substantial
federal question constitutes a decision on the merits of the case, and
as such, is binding precedent on all lower Federal Courts.
"[U]ntil the Supreme Court should instruct otherwise, inferior federal
courts had best adhere to the view that the Court has branded a
question as unsubstantial". Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975)
"[D]ismissals for want of a substantial federal question without doubt
reject the specific challenges presented in the statement of
jurisdiction." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977). Lower
Federal Courts are expressly prohibited from ruling in a way
inconsistant with binding precedent. "[Summary Decisions] prevent
lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues
presented and necessarily decided by those actions." Mandel v.
Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)
This is explicit not only in the holdings of the United States Supreme
Court, but also the holdings of other Circuit Courts. [L]ower courts
are bound by summary decision by this Court until such time as the
Court informs [them] that [they] are not. Doe v. Hodgson, 478 F.2d
537, 539 (2nd Cir. 1973)
Baker is binding precedent and until overruled by the United States
Supreme Court, it remains that way. As such, Baker establishes that a
State's decision to define marriage in whatever manner the state
desires does not offend the United States Constitution.
Subsequent history
Lockyer v. San Francisco
In 2004, Justice Kennard of the California Supreme Court noted the
precedential value of Baker in her Concurring and Dissenting opinion
in Lockyer v. San Francisco:
"[I]ndeed, there is a decision of the United States Supreme Court,
binding on all other courts and public officials, that a state law
restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples does not violate the
federal Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process
of law. After the Minnesota Supreme Court held that Minnesota laws
preventing marriages between persons of the same sex did not violate
the equal protection or due process clauses of the United States
Constitution (Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 1971) 191 N.W.2d 185), the
decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, as federal
law then permitted (see 28 U.S.C. former § 1257(2), 62 Stat. 929 as
amended by 84 Stat. 590). The high court later dismissed that appeal
“for want of substantial federal question.” (Baker v. Nelson (1972)
409 U.S. 810.) As the United States Supreme Court has explained, a
dismissal on the ground that an appeal presents no substantial federal
question is a decision on the merits of the case, establishing that
the lower court’s decision on the issues of federal law was correct.
(Mandel v. Bradley (1977) 432 U.S. 173, 176; Hicks v. Miranda (1975)
422 U.S. 332, 344.) Summary decisions of this kind “prevent lower
courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues
presented and necessarily decided by those actions.” (Mandel v.
Bradley, supra, at p. 176.) Thus, the high court’s summary decision in
Baker v. Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, prevents lower courts and public
officials from coming to the conclusion that a state law barring
marriage between persons of the same sex violates the equal protection
or due process guarantees of the United States Constitution.
The binding force of a summary decision on the merits continues until
the high court instructs otherwise. (Hicks v. Miranda, supra, 422 U.S.
at p. 344.)That court may release lower courts from the binding effect
of one of its decisions on the merits either by expressly overruling
that decision or through “ ‘doctrinal developments’ ” that are
necessarily incompatible with that decision. (Id. at p. 344.) The
United States Supreme Court has not expressly overruled Baker v.
Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, nor do any of its later decisions contain
doctrinal developments that are necessarily incompatible with that
decision... Until the United States Supreme Court says otherwise,
which it has not yet done, Baker v. Nelson defines federal
constitutional law on the question whether a state may deny same-sex
couples the right to marry." Lockyer V San Francisco (Kennard, J.
Concurring and Dissenting) (Emphasis Added.)
Wilson v. Ake
Baker was cited as precedent in the January 19, 2005 case of Wilson v.
Ake, argued before James S. Moody, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. In that case, two
Florida women, married the previous summer in Massachusetts, sued
Florida and the federal government, arguing that Florida's refusal to
recognize their marriage, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA), were violations of their rights under the United States
Constitution. The district court dismissed the case, ruling that the
U.S. Supreme Court's Summary disposition in Baker was binding on the
district court—which meant that the District Court was required to
uphold DOMA and the Florida marriage statute as constitutional.
In re Kandu
By contrast with Wilson, The Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Washington in In re Kandu, 315 B.R. 123, 138 (Bankr. D. Wash. 2004),
ruled that because summary decisions such as that of the Supreme Court
in Baker are to be narrowly construed and limited to the facts, it did
not apply to a challenge to DOMA. The court instead believed Baker to
only have precedential value when a same-sex couple challenged a
state's decision not to issue a marriage license under its own state
law. It is of note however, that a bankruptcy Court is not an Article
III Court.
Hernandez v Robles
The intermediate appellate Court in the State of New York also noted
the precedental value of Baker, and noted that it was also the
controlling opinion in the State in regards to the equal protection
claims on this issue.
Plaintiffs' equal protection claim is foreclosed by the Supreme
Court's summary disposition in Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 93 S.Ct.
37, 34 L.Ed.2d 65 (1972). In Baker v. Nelson, the Minnesota Supreme
Court considered a broad-based federal constitutional challenge to a
statute which, as interpreted by the trial court and the state supreme
court, did not permit the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex
couples. 191 N.W.2d 185, 186 (1971). In that case, plaintiffs argued,
inter alia, that the reservation of marriage to opposite-sex couples
discriminated against them in violation of the Equal Protection
Clause. Id. at 186 (noting plaintiffs' argument that "restricting
marriage to only couples of the opposite sex is irrational and
invidiously discriminatory"). The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected
this argument along with plaintiffs' other claims. Id. at 187.
Plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, raising the same federal
constitutional claims. The Supreme Court dismissed their appeal for
want of a substantial federal question. Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810.
Under well-established precedent, the dismissal of the appeal in Baker
for want of a substantial federal question constitutes a holding that
the challenge was considered by the Court and was rejected as
insubstantial. See Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 343-45, 95 S.Ct.
2281, 2289, 45 L.Ed.2d 223, 235 (1975). The dismissal of the appeal is
an adjudication on the merits of the federal constitutional claims
raised, including due process and equal protection, which lower courts
are bound to follow... Id. The summary disposition in Baker v. Nelson
controls the disposition of the state equal protection claim brought
herein. Hernandez v Robles 2005 NY Slip Op 09436 (Catterson, J.,
concurring).
Lewis Mammel
Mac the Nice wrote:
>
> "Lewis Mammel" <l.ma...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:44851730...@worldnet.att.net...
> >
> >
> > Mac the Nice wrote:
> >
> >> here's what you get from Webster's . . .
> >
> > Webster's is a whore. Check out the Eleventh Collegiate.
>
> Who isn't? What's it say?
mariage ... 1 a(1): the state of being united to a person of the
opposite sex as husband and wife in a consensual and contractual
relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to
a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of traditional
marriage <same-sex ~>
This wasn't in the Ninth or earlier editions. I don't have the Tenth.
I note that during the OLN coverage of the very exciting and
eventful game one of the Stanley cup finals, it was mentioned
that the Carolina goalie was getting married soon. Whether the
pertinent definition was (1) or (2) wasn't specified. I guess
we'll never know.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Mac the Nice
>
>
> Mac the Nice wrote:
>>
>> "Lewis Mammel" <l.ma...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> news:44851730...@worldnet.att.net...
>> >
>> >
>> > Mac the Nice wrote:
>> >
>> >> here's what you get from Webster's . . .
>> >
>> > Webster's is a whore. Check out the Eleventh Collegiate.
>>
>> Who isn't? What's it say?
>
> mariage ... 1 a(1): the state of being united to a person of the
> opposite sex as husband and wife in a consensual and contractual
> relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to
> a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of traditional
> marriage <same-sex ~>
If you'll turn to the original post, you'll find that it is the definition
for the word "marry" that is at issue, not that of the word "marriage".
The current Merriam-Webster Dictionary On-Line was my source.
The reason I fixed on the word "marry" is because, it may be strenuously
argued, that is the root, the most essential form of the word, a verb from
which the noun, "marriage" is merely a derivative.
>
> This wasn't in the Ninth or earlier editions. I don't have the Tenth.
In any case, I feel certain, fairly, that if you don't tarry, you'll find
the word "marry" in your dictionary, defined just as it appears in the post
at the head of this thread.
And as to those who would argue that this is nothing but a quibble over
words, I would say this: You can't establish a right or any sort of just
cause for such a thing as same-sex "marriage", so-called, except you can
show by good reason how mankind's concept of being married can, within the
meaning that man in every language and culture attributes to the concept, be
extended to the idea of two men or two women being "married".
Those concepts are contained in words. And those words are defined, not by
the editors of dictionaries, but by usage of the people who speak the
language. Webster's only keeps an ongoing record of that usage.
This is not a 'word' we are talking about, but a cultural folkway, a
tradition, an essence of what people understand to constitute the rite of
marrying.
Never mind the word "join" or "joint"--that may just be a happy coincidence
for the stating of this case. Forget all about Webster's and grasp the
meaning of what we understand marriage to be. For so long as Western and
Eastern Cultures have existed all the way back to the hoariest, most
classical antiquity, long before any Christian or even Jewish traditions of
marriage were known, people in Greece, Rome, Benares and Beijing were being
married.
Was it to a purpose of establishing a monogamous relationship? No! Many were
the cultures practicing polygamy either by an admission of additional
spouses, or by a tradition that allowed for the possession of concubines.
So monogamy was not at the root purpose, at the *essence* of what marriage
is in the mind of Man.
And what might be more basic to our understanding of what marriage, at
essence, is, than the very thing that so few of you are willing to face,
which is the nearly universal taboo that exists in both advanced and
primitive cultures against men and women in cohabitation without the
blessing, and the acknowledgement of the community, that this "union" does
indeed exist.
Why any fool ought to be able to see that since children are the issue of
male-female unions, then every culture understands a necessity that the
parents of those children shall be held in a status of being primarily
responsible for their well-being, and this goes just as well for those
societies which share out that responsibility, as among some tribes in South
America, among people for whom the potential death of the parent, by war or
disease or accident is high. Likewise in Western classical cultures, as
among patrician society of Rome, the responsibility, though primary with the
parent is shared out to servants and slaves.
So, there is a taboo against male/female cohabitation outside the blessing
of nearly every human society, because of the children. Because of the
children, marriage happens amongst humans, as rite and a practice, and as an
institution.
Since a woman cannot beget a child of another woman, marriage is not
contemplated by any human culture as a necessity for their cohabitation. So
it goes for the men.
It is irrational to extend marriage to same-sex unions. It is irrational
because at the essence of the concept, the necessity for it comes into view.
Essence is necessity, and the necessity of marriage is the caring for
children. That's what marriage is for, what it's about, that's what defines
it.
So what about the childless marriage, you will ask? In the language of logic
as derived by Aristotle and carried forward to the present, there is that
which is *substantial* to an understanding of what gives rise to a concept,
to a rite such as marriage, and there is that which is *accidental* to it,
just a thing which happens by chance which can neither add to or take away
from the concept at its essential and therefore its necessary fact of coming
into being. Marriage did not come into being to serve the cause of
childless couples, rather it exists as a rite to serve couples with
children. This is not to be misconstrued to mean that "accident" exists in
opposition to "choice", where some couples choose to be childless. Accident
in the logical sense has its opposite in necessity/essence/substance. The
instrumentality of this concept goes to the question of how such a rite
comes into being in the first place, and has nothing whatever to do with the
anecdotal plethora of things which just happen according to choice, caprice,
decision, or mistake. None of that carries the least logical import for
understanding the *ousia* or essence, the being of any substance
(substantial concept, rite, genus, principle).
You can't have everything in this world. Certain choices, certain
behaviors, certain habits, certain orientations lead to certain
consequences. If I decide to get married, there is the consequence that
somebody is going to get hurt, bad, if I should be unfaithful to my spouse.
Both my wife and my chippie get hurt. When I say yes to my wife, I say no to
all other women, all potential chippies. But it just seems so unfair! Why
can't I have my cake and eat it too?
This is the character of whining I hear coming from the Gay/Lesbian
community over the issue of same-sex marriage. It's just plain narcissistic
in my view, it's squawling like a spoiled brat because you think you can
have everything, and at the same time, not accept the consequences of your
choices, your orientations, your lot in life. You want to eat your cake and
have it to.
I slap your hand and say, "No! That's not how life works. Learn the
humility of accepting the portion that life hands you and stop looking with
envious, covetous eyes upon the things that are not coming to you: you
can't have everything--and neither can I."
*Anarcissie*
>> > >> the grooves are identical they will join at a 90 degree angle so that
>> > >> neither piece of wood extends beyond the depth of the other. Both are
>> > >> "slotted" identically in this example. But in any case, a bad analogy is
>> > >> just a bad analogy.
Mac the Nice:
>> > > It's not analogy: by definition, by identity, and by essence of the concept
>> > > as such, a joint is a joint, is a marriage. The manner of joint you
>> > > describe must have a name and I'd like to know what it is, that I might see
>> > > it because judging from what you describe it sounds like rather an imperfect
>> > > union.
Lars Eighner wrote:
>> > Etymology isn't definition.
"*Anarcissie*" <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1149529086.1...@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> I don't think you're going to get anywhere. If Mac thinks words
>> have "essences" he has a kind of theology of language which
>> I am sure will be impervious to mere reason.
Mac the Nice:
>Essence, in the sense of "essential", that which is necessary and most
>unique to distinguish the one substance, entity, word from the other.
>Without essence reason is impossible, it stands at the foundation of all
>definition in logic from Aristotle through Kant to . . . what the hell is
>the name of that modern era philosopher with the hyphenated Spanish surname;
>it's right on the tip of my . . . what was the word for that pink fleshy
>doo-dad in the human mouth that allows a person to form words with . . .
A set of assertions doesn't prove anything. You
seem to be trolling, but if not, you might consider
presenting an argument.
annika
Mac the Nice wrote:
> "Lewis Mammel" <l.ma...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:4485374C...@worldnet.att.net...
>>mariage ... 1 a(1): the state of being united to a person of the
>>opposite sex as husband and wife in a consensual and contractual
>>relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to
>>a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of traditional
>>marriage <same-sex ~>
>
>
> If you'll turn to the original post, you'll find that it is the definition
> for the word "marry" that is at issue, not that of the word "marriage".
Well, they can always wed:
3. To marry. (Common in dialects; otherwise only literary.) a.
trans. Originally, to make (a woman) one's wife by the giving of a
pledge or earnest. More fully, to wed (a woman) to wife, to or unto his
wife. Hence, of a person of either sex: To take in marriage; to become
the husband or wife of (a person) by participating in a prescribed
ceremony or formal act.
Francis A. Miniter
That is why I ceased to respond. He is more interested in insulting
people than discussing their responses.
Francis A. Miniter
*Anarcissie*
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
> *Anarcissie* wrote:
>
> >"Francis A. Miniter" <min...@attglobalZZ.net> wrote in message
> >
> >
> >>>>>>If you rout through grooves half the depth of two pieces of wood such that
> >>>>>>the grooves are identical they will join at a 90 degree angle so that
> >>>>>>neither piece of wood extends beyond the depth of the other. Both are
> >>>>>>"slotted" identically in this example. But in any case, a bad analogy is
> >>>>>>just a bad analogy.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >
> >Mac the Nice:
> >
> >
> >>>>>It's not analogy: by definition, by identity, and by essence of the concept
> >>>>>as such, a joint is a joint, is a marriage. The manner of joint you
> >>>>>describe must have a name and I'd like to know what it is, that I might see
> >>>>>it because judging from what you describe it sounds like rather an imperfect
> >>>>>union.
Lars Eighner wrote:
> >>>>Etymology isn't definition.
> >>>>
> >"*Anarcissie*" <anarc...@gmail.com>:
> >>>I don't think you're going to get anywhere. If Mac thinks words
> >>>have "essences" he has a kind of theology of language which
> >>>I am sure will be impervious to mere reason.
> >>>
Mac the Nice:
> >>Essence, in the sense of "essential", that which is necessary and most
> >>unique to distinguish the one substance, entity, word from the other.
> >>Without essence reason is impossible, it stands at the foundation of all
> >>definition in logic from Aristotle through Kant to . . . what the hell is
> >>the name of that modern era philosopher with the hyphenated Spanish surname;
> >>it's right on the tip of my . . . what was the word for that pink fleshy
> >>doo-dad in the human mouth that allows a person to form words with . . .
> >>
> >A set of assertions doesn't prove anything. You
> >seem to be trolling, but if not, you might consider
> >presenting an argument.
> >
> That is why I ceased to respond. He is more interested in insulting
> people than discussing their responses.
However, it is interesting to observe a being that can form a
grammatical English sentence, spell, and even display some
vocabulary beyond the most basic, which is nevertheless
incapable of even elementary logic. There are some AI
programs like that. One is tempted, perhaps inadvisedly, to
poke the phenomenon with a stick a few times, to see what
buzzes out.
Mac the Nice
Subject: Re: Gay Marriage: an Oxymoron
Date: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 4:22 AM
"Lewis Mammel" <l.ma...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4485374C...@worldnet.att.net...
>
> This wasn't in the Ninth or earlier editions. I don't have the Tenth.
In any case, I feel certain, fairly, that if you don't tarry, you'll find
the word "marry" in your dictionary, defined just as it appears in the post
at the head of this thread.
And as to those who would argue that this is nothing but a quibble over
words, I would say this: You can't establish a right or any sort of just
cause for such a thing as same-sex "marriage", so-called, except you can
show by good reason how mankind's concept of being married can, within the
meaning that man in every language and culture attributes to the concept, be
extended to the idea of two men or two women being "married".
Those concepts are contained in words. And those words are defined, not by
the editors of dictionaries, but by usage of the people who speak the
language. Webster's only keeps an ongoing record of that usage.
This is not a 'word' we are talking about, but a cultural folkway, a
tradition, an essence of what people understand to constitute the rite of
marrying.
Never mind the word "join" or "joint"--that may just be a happy coincidence
for the stating of this case. Forget all about Webster's and grasp the
meaning of what we understand marriage to be. For so long as Western and
Eastern Cultures have existed all the way back to the hoariest, most
classical antiquity, long before any Christian or even Jewish traditions of
marriage were known, people in Greece, Rome, Benares and Beijing were being
married.
Was it to a purpose of establishing a monogamous relationship? No! Many were
the cultures practicing polygamy either by admission of additional spouses,
or by a tradition that allowed for the possession of concubines. So
monogamy was not at the root purpose, at the *essence* of what marriage is
in the mind of Man.
And what might be more basic as a clue to our understanding of what
marriage, at essence, is, than to view it in terms of the nearly universal
taboo that exists in both advanced and primitive cultures against men and
women in cohabitation--without the blessing, and the acknowledgement of the
community, as social certification that this union does indeed exist?
Why the taboo and the resultant rite, if not for the simple universal human
recognition that since children are the issue of male-female unions, then
there arises a necessity to see to it that the parents of those children
shall be held in a status of being primarily responsible for their
well-being, and this goes just as well for those societies which share out
that responsibility, as among some tribes in South America, where potential
loss of a parent, by kidnapping, warfare, disease or accident is high.
Likewise in Western classical cultures, as among patrician society of Rome,
the responsibility, though primary with the parent is shared out to servants
and slaves.
So, there is a taboo against male/female cohabitation outside the blessing
of nearly every human society, because of the children. Because of the
children, marriage happens amongst humans, as rite and practice, and as an
institution.
Since a woman cannot beget a child of another woman, marriage is not
contemplated by any human culture as a necessity for their cohabitation. So
it goes for the men.
It is irrational to extend marriage to same-sex unions. It is irrational
because the necessity for it does not exist from the cause, for marriage
coming into being in the first place as a rite. It is unnecessary for people
of same sex to get married. Necessity is essence, and the essence of
marriage as a concept is therefore a joining of one sex to the other and
that's what defines it.
So what about the childless marriage, you will ask? In the language of logic
as derived by Aristotle and carried forward to the present, there is that
which is *substantial* to what something is, anything, any concept, any rite
such as marriage, and there is that which is *accidental* to it, just a
thing which happens to something by chance which can neither add to or take
away from what that thing, that concept is, at its essence which comes
directly from necessity in the cause for its coming into being in the first
place.
Marriage did not come into being to serve the cause of childless couples,
rather it exists as a rite to serve couples with children, or who may have
children, to solve the issue of responsibility for any potential
children--because the potential for children exists, therefrom comes the
necessity and the social demand for the rite of marriage. This is not to be
misconstrued to mean that "accident" exists in opposition to "choice", where
some couples choose to be childless. Accident in the logical sense has its
opposite in necessity/essence/substance. The instrumentality of this concept
goes to the question of how such a rite comes into being in the first place,
and has nothing whatever to do with the anecdotal plethora of things which
just happen according to choice, chance, caprice, decision, or mistake.
None of that carries the least logical import for understanding the *ousia*
or essence, the being of any substance (substantial concept, rite, genus,
principle).
You can't have everything in this world. Certain choices, certain
behaviors, certain habits, certain orientations lead to certain
consequences. If I decide to get married, there is the consequence that
somebody is going to get hurt, bad, if I should be unfaithful to my spouse.
Both my wife and my chippie get hurt. When I say yes to my wife, I say no to
all other women, all potential chippies. But it just seems so unfair! Why
can't I have my cake and eat it too?
This is the character of whining I hear coming from the Gay/Lesbian
community over the issue of same-sex marriage. It's just plain narcissistic
in my view, it's squawling like a spoiled brat because you think you can
have everything, and at the same time, not accept the consequences of your
choices, your orientations, your perceived lot in life. You want to eat your
cake and have it to.
I slap your hand and say, "No! That's not how life works. Learn the
humility of accepting the portion that life hands you and stop looking with
envious, covetous eyes upon the things that are not of necessity or essence
Robin
>
> "Robin" <robina...@hotmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:VE1hg.829$y%3....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
>> Your entire analogy about how things "join together" is completely
>> irrelevant, not to mention moronic.
>
> Oh, Nasty Girl? You want to dance that dirty little tango with me? Well,
> come here! Two can take that mean little low-down step, and by the time
> I'm done taking you over the floor, baby you'll be standing there all
> pigeon-toed and dizzy with your garters clipped to your nose, wondering
> what kind of hot Latin lightening of logic must have hit you.
>
Were you planning to do that in a future post? I'll be waiting.
> Do you know what a "dictionary" is, Ms. Smarty? Do ya? Well, apparently
> not because you think it's a book of 'analogies'. Well here's news for
> you, so settle down and pay attention: when you look up the word *marry*,
> here's what you get from Webster's . . .
>
> "Etymology: Middle English marien, from Old French marier, from Latin
> maritare, from maritus married transitive senses. 1 a : to join as
> husband and wife according to law."
>
> That's what we call a "definition" there in the dictionary. If there was
> an analogy it would say, "as if to join, like a joining, e.g. the making
> of a joint."
>
> There is no "as if", it doesn't say "like" or "for example". Not a thing
> figurative going on in that definition at all. What you have in that
> *definition* (you got that yet?) is a statement in logic known as an
> "identity". And that is to say, "this is this". Get it? It does not speak
> metaphorically, or by simile, nor by analogy, because the intent is so
> concrete and deadly to identify the one thing by the other, like this:
> marriage is a joining, and it is therefore, a joint.
>
Your fixation on word definitions is bizarre to say the least, but as I have
already pointed out to you; not at all germane to the subject at hand.
When deciding the issue of gay marriage, there are only two questions we
need ask ourselves. The first is, do civil marriage contract laws treat
homosexual couples differently than they treat heterosexuals. The obvious
answer is a most definite yes. As I previously asked you, and you failed to
answer; can you name ANY other civil contract that can be denied solely on
the basis of the gender of the parties? Once you have answered the first
question, all we need ask ourselves is does every American citizen,
regardless of gender, deserve equal legal treatment. To anyone who has ever
read the constitution of the US, the answer is clear.
Mac the Nice
>
> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>> >A set of assertions doesn't prove anything. You
>> >seem to be trolling, but if not, you might consider
>> >presenting an argument.
>> >
>> That is why I ceased to respond. He is more interested in insulting
>> people than discussing their responses.
>
> However, it is interesting to observe a being that can form a
> grammatical English sentence, spell, and even display some
> vocabulary beyond the most basic, which is nevertheless
> incapable of even elementary logic. There are some AI
> programs like that. One is tempted, perhaps inadvisedly, to
> poke the phenomenon with a stick a few times, to see what
> buzzes out.
You will forgive me, I pray, if I should opt not to participate in this
delectable sounding beauty salon style gab-session and gossip fest, with all
the "Well! He's just this, and he's just that, and we would never do any of
the sort of insulting things that he does--like disagree with something we
said. Can you imagine it! And besides, from the sound of it, he may not
even be human, or which is to say, "liberal"!
It's a scandal, I tell you!
Mac the Nice
> Your fixation on word definitions is bizarre . . .
Think that'll work--a stupid human trick like that? Take it to the
Letterman Show, baby, because I got no time for it.
There is no end to the legerdemain that will be accessed by those who, when
backed against the wall by reason and logic, have no other choice than to be
big about it and confess being mistaken, or get out the cat claws.
And I'm going to tell you something! About all you see these decadent days
is the latter: complete dishonesty, narcissism, pathogenic pride that knows
no bounds, especially when it comes to the dirtiest trick in the book, as
for example . . .
> Your fixation on word definitions is bizarre . . .
There is no talking to people like you. Therefore the only option is full
frontal offense. And that will be my style from now on.
No more Mr. Mack "The Niceguy". ;-)
The disgusting obesity of your stinky tubby egos is not beyond belief, it's
just too banal not to be believed.
Michael Zeleny
> There are really only three arguements that one can offer against gay
> marriage. The first is religion. Religion should not, and can not have any
> bearing on civil law. The second is tradition. Tradition has NEVER been
> held up as a legitimate reason to deny an entire class of people equal civil
> rights. The third is that gay marriage is "ooky" (similar to your joints
> analogy) and that reason doesn't even deserve to be addressed.
There is a fourth argument bearing on the issue. It is the question
social purpose. The society has a legitimate interest in recognizing
and promoting marriage as an institution meant to encourage men and
women to build and maintain stable families for the benefit of the
children they create. The society has no such interest in marriages
of same-sex couples. Everything else is window dressing.
Michael Zel...@post.harvard.edu
http://larvatus.livejournal.com/
Andrealphus
Zeleny at larv...@gmail.com, typed this:
> Robin wrote:
>
>> There are really only three arguements that one can offer against gay
>> marriage. The first is religion. Religion should not, and can not
>> have any bearing on civil law. The second is tradition. Tradition
>> has NEVER been held up as a legitimate reason to deny an entire
>> class of people equal civil rights. The third is that gay marriage
>> is "ooky" (similar to your joints analogy) and that reason doesn't
>> even deserve to be addressed.
>
> There is a fourth argument bearing on the issue. It is the question
> social purpose.
Can you please outline the legal argument as it relates to the definition of
"Social Purpose" in our constitution, specificlally the article within our
Constitution that grants the government the power to define "Social Purpose"
in our marriage laws?
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
Arindam Banerjee
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
> Mac the Nice wrote:
>
> > Webster's uses the word 'join' to assert its definition for the word of
> > Latin, Old French and Old English origin, "marriage". So in the oldest
> > sense, a marriage is a *joint*.
According to the Sanatan Dharma (the eternal law or moral
consciousness, crudely known as Hinduism) a marriage (vivah) is a
binding lifelong union of two peoples of the opposite sex, that being
solemnly pledged by both parties before some aspect of the Divine (most
popularly, Agni, or the God of Fire, as the representation of Absolute
Truth), for the purposes of procreation, friendship, good of society,
the environment, prosperity, etc.
Arindam Banerjee.
Chris F.A. Johnson
>
> "Robin" <robina...@hotmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:hSlhg.2367$y%3.1...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>> Your fixation on word definitions is bizarre . . .
>
> Think that'll work--a stupid human trick like that? Take it to the
> Letterman Show, baby, because I got no time for it.
>
> There is no end to the legerdemain that will be accessed by those who, when
> backed against the wall by reason and logic, have no other choice than to be
> big about it and confess being mistaken, or get out the cat claws.
[snip]
> No more Mr. Mack "The Niceguy". ;-)
>
> The disgusting obesity of your stinky tubby egos is not beyond belief, it's
> just too banal not to be believed.
So you got out the cat claws.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Robin
"Michael Zeleny" <larv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149634023.4...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Gay people can have children, and there are many heterosexual people who can
not. Arguement null and void.
Robin
>
> "Robin" <robina...@hotmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:hSlhg.2367$y%3.1...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>> Your fixation on word definitions is bizarre . . .
>
> Think that'll work--a stupid human trick like that? Take it to the
> Letterman Show, baby, because I got no time for it.
>
Apparently you don't have time to respond to my posts either. You just snip
away anything that doesn't jibe with your world view.
Goodbye, you ARE the weakest link!
Michael Zeleny
> In News 1149634023.4...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,,
> Michael Zeleny at larv...@gmail.com, typed this:
>> Robin wrote:
>>> There are really only three arguements that one can offer against gay
>>> marriage. The first is religion. Religion should not, and can not
>>> have any bearing on civil law. The second is tradition. Tradition
>>> has NEVER been held up as a legitimate reason to deny an entire
>>> class of people equal civil rights. The third is that gay marriage
>>> is "ooky" (similar to your joints analogy) and that reason doesn't
>>> even deserve to be addressed.
>> There is a fourth argument bearing on the issue. It is the question
>> social purpose.
> Can you please outline the legal argument as it relates to the definition of
> "Social Purpose" in our constitution, specificlally the article within our
> Constitution that grants the government the power to define "Social Purpose"
> in our marriage laws?
I am responding to the claim that moral and political opposition to
homosexual marriage needs must rely on legally insubstantial support
from parochial religion, outdated tradition, or unsound revulsion. To
the contrary, secular arguments regarding the social purpose of the
family have their basis in Aristotle's account of the oikos in Politics
I and II and Nicomachean Ethics VIII. Whereas moral arguments against
homosexuality are found in Plato's Gorgias 494c-e, Republic III 403
a-c, Laws I 636c, VIII 838e, and 841d, and Aristotle's Politics II
1262a32-37 and Nicomachean Ethics VII 1145a27-33 and 1148b15-1149a20.
It is not my purpose here to relate them to the American Constitution.
Making this connection is left as an exercise for the reader.
Michael Zel...@post.harvard.edu
http://larvatus.livejournal.com/
Michael Zeleny
> "Michael Zeleny" <larv...@gmail.com> writes:
>> There is a fourth argument bearing on the issue. It is the question
>> social purpose. The society has a legitimate interest in recognizing
>> and promoting marriage as an institution meant to encourage men and
>> women to build and maintain stable families for the benefit of the
>> children they create. The society has no such interest in marriages
>> of same-sex couples. Everything else is window dressing.
> But to make this stick, you must demonstrate that gay marriage:
>
> a. seriously debilitates the institution of heterosexual marriage
>
> and/or
>
> b. prevents raising children in stable families (same sex or
> otherwise.)
>
> Lack of compelling societal interest in a particular activity is not a
> legitimate reason to ban it.
The issue is not of banning a specific civil contract between same-sex
parties, but of promoting this contract to the status of a socially
supported institution. To reject this promotion, it suffices to note
the lack of a legitimate social interest therein.
Michael Zel...@post.harvard.edu
http://larvatus.livejournal.com/
Andrealphus
Ummm... yeah... well, in case you haven't noticed, we don't live by
Aristotle's account of the oikos in
> Politics I and II and Nicomachean Ethics VIII.. Whereas Plato's Gorgias
> 494c-e, Republic III 403 a-c, Laws I 636c, VIII 838e, and 841d, and
> Aristotle's Politics II 1262a32-37 and Nicomachean Ethics VII 1145a27-33
> and 1148b15-1149a20. Any compelling argument should be made based on
> current law, and really must relate to the American Constitution, assuming
> that you're discussing arguments in context to same sex marriage here in
> the U.S. The rest of it is just so much pseudo-intellectual bullshit.
Michael Zeleny
>> and 1148b15-1149a20. [...]
> Any compelling argument should be made based on
> current law, and really must relate to the American Constitution, assuming
> that you're discussing arguments in context to same sex marriage here in
> the U.S. The rest of it is just so much pseudo-intellectual bullshit.
You are mistaken in assuming that the legitimacy of homosexual marriage
in the U.S.A. will be resolved through adjudication based exclusively
on current law. I make no prediction as to the intellectual level of
evidence and arguments bearing on this resolution.
Michael Zel...@post.harvard.edu
http://larvatus.livejournal.com/
Andrealphus
You are mistaken to think that it will be resolved otherwise.
I make no prediction as to the
> intellectual level of evidence and arguments bearing on this
> resolution.
>
I make the prediction that it will be based on our current laws and our
Constitution, not on the thoughts of thousands of years dead primitives.
Michael Zeleny
> I was under the impression that this was about legislation on the
> nature of marriage. Social disapproval is neither here nor there in
> this context. There must be demonstrable harm to the state's
> compelling interest in order for it to legislate against a practice,
> no matter how distasteful the majority finds it.
You are repeating yourself. The question is of the social support
required for queering the institution of marriage, and the costs of
doing so, not one of "social disapproval" for its gay counterpart,
whatever that might be. The burden of proof in showing a legitimate
social interest falls on the party that advocates the creation of a
social benefit. Cue in the whining about unfunded mandates in public
lavatories.
Michael Zel...@post.harvard.edu
http://larvatus.livejournal.com/
Michael Zeleny
If and when homosexual couples can create children without heterosexual
intervention, your rebuttal will merit rational consideration.
Michael Zel...@post.harvard.edu
http://larvatus.livejournal.com/
Michael Zeleny
If and when homosexual couples can create children without heterosexual
Strife767
This logic is retarded. People are allowed to get married without having
kids, whether it's because they can't or don't want to.
Francis A. Miniter
> "Michael Zeleny" <larv...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>There is a fourth argument bearing on the issue. It is the question
>>social purpose. The society has a legitimate interest in recognizing
>>and promoting marriage as an institution meant to encourage men and
>>women to build and maintain stable families for the benefit of the
>>children they create. The society has no such interest in marriages
>>of same-sex couples. Everything else is window dressing.
>
>
> But to make this stick, you must demonstrate that gay marriage:
>
> a. seriously debilitates the institution of heterosexual marriage
>
> and/or
>
> b. prevents raising children in stable families (same sex or
> otherwise.)
>
> Lack of compelling societal interest in a particular activity is not a
> legitimate reason to ban it.
>
> rsi
Well said. Is our society one where we are free to do that which is not
prohibited or one where we may only do that which is permitted? If the former,
and hopefully it still is that option, then to prohibit something there must be
a good reason.
Francis A. Miniter
Michael Zeleny
> If I'm repeating myself, it is because the point does not seem to
> penetrate. There is no constitutional basis for denying marriage to
> same sex couples unless there is demonstrable harm to the state's
> compelling interests... and the onus is on the state to demonstrate
> this harm. Dancing around this is simply window dressing.
By parity of legal reasoning, there is no constitutional basis for
denying marriage to Oedipus and Iocasta, Snow White and the seven
dwarves, and a boy and his dog. Hence I predict that the legitimacy
of homosexual marriage in the U.S.A. will not be resolved through
adjudication based exclusively on current law.
Michael Zel...@post.harvard.edu
http://larvatus.livejournal.com/
Michael Zeleny
Society recognizes and promotes heterosexual marriage as an institution
meant to encourage its members to build and maintain stable families
for the benefit of the children they create. It does so because human
beings reproduce themselves heterosexually. Any further requirements to
ascertain or compel reproductive performance are beside this point.
Michael Zel...@post.harvard.edu
http://larvatus.livejournal.com/
Michael Zeleny
>>>There is a fourth argument bearing on the issue. It is the question
>>>social purpose. The society has a legitimate interest in recognizing
>>>and promoting marriage as an institution meant to encourage men and
>>>women to build and maintain stable families for the benefit of the
>>>children they create. The society has no such interest in marriages
>>>of same-sex couples. Everything else is window dressing.
>> But to make this stick, you must demonstrate that gay marriage:
>>
>> a. seriously debilitates the institution of heterosexual marriage
>>
>> and/or
>>
>> b. prevents raising children in stable families (same sex or
>> otherwise.)
>>
>> Lack of compelling societal interest in a particular activity is not a
>> legitimate reason to ban it.
> Well said. Is our society one where we are free to do that which is not
> prohibited or one where we may only do that which is permitted? If the former,
> and hopefully it still is that option, then to prohibit something there must be
> a good reason.
If your freedom exacts a social cost, commutative justice warrants
its infringement. This warrant is limited by considerations of social
purpose in institutions endorsed and supported by the society.
Michael Zel...@post.harvard.edu
http://larvatus.livejournal.com/
Francis A. Miniter
Moral arguments against homosexuality in Plato? Well, I suppose at times
Socrates criticizes homosexuality, when doing so furthers an argument he is
pursuing. But the Republic? Where Socrates says that in wartime male lovers
should serve side by side, so to speak? No. Besides, the passage you cite,
which does not in fact condemn homosexuality, is a discussion with Glaucon.
Socrates gets different answers when he asks similar questions of Glaucon's
brother Adeimantus. By the way, the third brother, Plato, was curiously absent
from the discussion.
Plato wrote dialogues, not treatises. And there is the Symposium, where every
participant in the dialogue is a gay or bisexual male.
Francis A. Miniter
Dennis Kemmerer
For the umpteenth time, the ability to procreate is not one of the
requirements for obtaining a civil marriage license.
Strife767
Well, I say that if the law will let a couple destroy a family by divorcing,
than it should also give same-sex couples a chance to create a family.
*Anarcissie*
In short, there is no compelling interest. Or rather, there is no
compelling material interest. As with flag-burning, pornography,
and the drug laws, there seems to be a desire to give certain
religious principles the force of law. The compelling interest
is a _religious_ interest which a majority -- perhaps a majority --
wish to force on the remainder.
Michael Zeleny
> Moral arguments against homosexuality in Plato? Well, I suppose at times
> Socrates criticizes homosexuality, when doing so furthers an argument he is
> pursuing. But the Republic? Where Socrates says that in wartime male lovers
> should serve side by side, so to speak? No. Besides, the passage you cite,
> which does not in fact condemn homosexuality, is a discussion with Glaucon.
> Socrates gets different answers when he asks similar questions of Glaucon's
> brother Adeimantus. By the way, the third brother, Plato, was curiously absent
> from the discussion.
"Do you know of greater or keener pleasure than that associated with
Aphrodite?" "I don't," he said, "nor yet of any more insane." "But is
not the right love a sober and harmonious love of the orderly and the
beautiful?" "It is indeed," said he. "Then nothing of madness, nothing
akin to licence, must be allowed to come nigh the right love?" "No."
"Then this kind of pleasure may not come nigh, nor may lover and
beloved who rightly love and are loved have anything to do with it?"
"No, by heaven, Socrates," he said, "it must not come nigh them."
"Thus, then, as it seems, you will lay down the law in the city that we
are founding, that the lover may kiss and pass the time with and touch
the beloved as a father would a son, for honorable ends, if he persuade
him. But otherwise he must so associate with the objects of his care
that there should never be any suspicion of anything further, on
penalty of being stigmatized for want of taste and true musical
culture." "Even so," he said.
--Republic III 403a-c, translated by Paul Shorey
> Plato wrote dialogues, not treatises. And there is the Symposium, where every
> participant in the dialogue is a gay or bisexual male.
An argument worthy of pubic plucking and rectal radishing, Adikos Logos
at Clouds 1067-1104 notwithstanding.
Michael Zel...@post.harvard.edu
http://larvatus.livejournal.com/
Lewis Mammel
Mac the Nice wrote:
>
> "Lewis Mammel" <l.ma...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:4485374C...@worldnet.att.net...
> >
> >
> > Mac the Nice wrote:
> >>
> >> "Lewis Mammel" <l.ma...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >> news:44851730...@worldnet.att.net...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Mac the Nice wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> here's what you get from Webster's . . .
> >> >
> >> > Webster's is a whore. Check out the Eleventh Collegiate.
> >>
> >> Who isn't? What's it say?
> >
> > mariage ... 1 a(1): the state of being united to a person of the
> > opposite sex as husband and wife in a consensual and contractual
> > relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to
> > a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of traditional
> > marriage <same-sex ~>
>
> If you'll turn to the original post, you'll find that it is the definition
> for the word "marry" that is at issue, not that of the word "marriage".
Strangely, you titled your post "Gay MARRIAGE: an Oxymoron"
>
> The current Merriam-Webster Dictionary On-Line was my source.
>
> The reason I fixed on the word "marry" is because, it may be strenuously
> argued, that is the root, the most essential form of the word, a verb from
> which the noun, "marriage" is merely a derivative.
>
> >
> > This wasn't in the Ninth or earlier editions. I don't have the Tenth.
>
> In any case, I feel certain, fairly, that if you don't tarry, you'll find
> the word "marry" in your dictionary, defined just as it appears in the post
> at the head of this thread.
Well, you're wrong. The Tenth uses the word "marriage" four times in
its definition of "marry". The first time is :
1 a: to join in marriage according to law or custom
I told you Webster's was a whore. "Who isn't?" you said.
But you fail to comprehend.
From the Preface : "At every turn these events
and developments have had a major effect on the stock of
words that English speakers use, and it has been the job
of a good general dictionary to record these changes."
Of course, "Gay marriage" is one of these changes, and
Webster's is not going to be the one to stand in the
way of it.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
smw
Since any benefit potentially resulting from a heterosexual marriage
potentially results from homosexual marriages as well, we're neither her
nor there with this one.
Lewis Mammel
Lewis Mammel wrote:
> Well, you're wrong. The Tenth uses the word "marriage" four times in
> its definition of "marry".
Dang! Of course, I meant the Eleventh Collegiate, not the Tenth.
Steve Hayes
<NOREAL...@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
>In News 1149634023.4...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,, Michael
>Zeleny at larv...@gmail.com, typed this:
>
>> Robin wrote:
>>
>>> There are really only three arguements that one can offer against gay
>>> marriage. The first is religion. Religion should not, and can not
>>> have any bearing on civil law. The second is tradition. Tradition
>>> has NEVER been held up as a legitimate reason to deny an entire
>>> class of people equal civil rights. The third is that gay marriage
>>> is "ooky" (similar to your joints analogy) and that reason doesn't
>>> even deserve to be addressed.
>>
>> There is a fourth argument bearing on the issue. It is the question
>> social purpose.
>
>Can you please outline the legal argument as it relates to the definition of
>"Social Purpose" in our constitution, specificlally the article within our
>Constitution that grants the government the power to define "Social Purpose"
>in our marriage laws?
Which constitution is yours?
The original poster was dealing with the question primarily as an ontological
one, and only secondarily as a legal or juristic one.
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://http://www.librarything.com/catalog/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
smw
Michael Zeleny wrote:
This seriously misconstrues the nature of legal parenthood, which is not
bound to procreation by the married couple. Thus, in most Western
jurisdictions, the father of a child is not the procreator but the man
married to the mother.
Cf. the Supreme Court's decision regarding the status of children born
to US female citizens abroad vs. the status of children fathered by US
male citizens abroad.
smw
Steve Hayes wrote:
I don't think an ontological argument can rest on argument by national
language.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>
>"Michael Zeleny" <larv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1149634023.4...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Robin wrote:
>>
>>> There are really only three arguements that one can offer against gay
>>> marriage. The first is religion. Religion should not, and can not have
>>> any
>>> bearing on civil law. The second is tradition. Tradition has NEVER been
>>> held up as a legitimate reason to deny an entire class of people equal
>>> civil
>>> rights. The third is that gay marriage is "ooky" (similar to your joints
>>> analogy) and that reason doesn't even deserve to be addressed.
>>
>> There is a fourth argument bearing on the issue. It is the question
>> social purpose. The society has a legitimate interest in recognizing
>> and promoting marriage as an institution meant to encourage men and
>> women to build and maintain stable families for the benefit of the
>> children they create. The society has no such interest in marriages
>> of same-sex couples. Everything else is window dressing.
>>
>
>
>Gay people can have children, and there are many heterosexual people who can
>not. Arguement null and void.
So they can, and they can also marry to create them, provided they are of
different sexes.
Steve Hayes
>"Michael Zeleny" <larv...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> There is a fourth argument bearing on the issue. It is the question
>> social purpose. The society has a legitimate interest in recognizing
>> and promoting marriage as an institution meant to encourage men and
>> women to build and maintain stable families for the benefit of the
>> children they create. The society has no such interest in marriages
>> of same-sex couples. Everything else is window dressing.
>
>But to make this stick, you must demonstrate that gay marriage:
Gay marriace IS heterosexual.
--
Terms and conditions apply.
Steve Hayes
haye...@yahoo.com
bibon@rālant.org
<d...@suespammers.org> wrote:
>For the umpteenth time, the ability to procreate is not one of the
>requirements for obtaining a civil marriage license.
But all states but one still say no to two men or two women seeking a
license to marry. That really brings in to clear focus the
alternative, huh.
Mac the Nice
"smw" <sm...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:aMrhg.40725$fb2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>> The original poster was dealing with the question primarily as an
>> ontological
>> one, and only secondarily as a legal or juristic one.
Which is precisely the point!
>
> I don't think an ontological argument can rest on argument by national
> language.
It doesn't. Not at this pass, as we've moved quite beyond the dictionary.
But why are you discriminating against alt.politics.homosexuality? This is
their discussion just as much as it is yours, Toots. So stop doing that, God
damn it! Fucking p.c. piddling anti-crossposting conformist twaddle. I'm so
sick of that nerdy, puritanical bullshit that I could almost bring myself to
add another address to the line up there, send this off to
alt.fan.martha-washington's-wooden-underwear. So, please, don't force me to
any such extremes.
Unfortunately, my reply of last night to Mammel was in too much of a muddle
for the gist of it to come through--it was too damned hard to read. Now I've
edited it, although not to the extent of such over-simplification as from
Zeleny, in not having anticipated the objections, thus to be giving rise to
all this continuing dialectical ephemera of quibbles that are simply beside
the point or not the point at all.
Do, please try to read it . . .
From: "Mac the Nice" <jpd...@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Gay Marriage: an Oxymoron
Date: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 3:43 PM
"Lewis Mammel" <l.ma...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4485374C...@worldnet.att.net...
>
> This wasn't in the Ninth or earlier editions. I don't have the Tenth.
And as to those who would argue that this is nothing but a quibble over
words, I would say this: You can't establish a right or any sort of just
cause for such a thing as same-sex "marriage", so-called, except you can
show by good reason how mankind's concept what being married means, can be
extended to the idea of two men or two women being "married".
Those concepts are contained in words. And those words are defined, not by
the editors of dictionaries, but by usage of the people who speak the
language. Webster's only keeps an ongoing record of that usage.
This is not a 'word' we are talking about, but a cultural folkway, a
tradition, an *essence* of what people understand to constitute the rite of
marrying.
Never mind the word "join" or "joint"--that may just be a happy coincidence
for the stating of this case. Forget all about Webster's and grasp the
meaning of what we understand marriage to be. For so long as Western and
Eastern Cultures have existed all the way back to the hoariest, most
classical antiquity, long before any Christian or even Jewish traditions of
marriage were known, people in Greece, Rome, Benares and Beijing were being
married.
Was it to a purpose of establishing a monogamous relationship? No! Many were
the cultures practicing polygamy either by admission of additional spouses,
or by traditions that allowed for the possession of concubines. So monogamy
was not at the root purpose, at the *essence* of what marriage is in the
mind of Man.
And what might be more basic as a clue to our understanding of what
marriage, at it's very essence, is, than to view it in terms of the nearly
universal taboo that exists in both advanced and primitive cultures against
men and women in cohabitation--without the blessing, and the acknowledgement
of the community, in a public rite of social certification that this union
does indeed exist?
Why, the taboo and the resultant rite, if it is not due to the simple
universal human recognition that children are the issue of male-female
unions, then what? There arises a necessity to see to it that the parents
of those children shall be held in a status of being primarily responsible
for their well-being, and this goes just as well for those societies which
share out that responsibility, as among some tribes in South America, where
the threat of losing a parent, by kidnapping, warfare, disease or accident
is high. Likewise in Western classical cultures, as among patrician society
of Rome, the responsibility, though primary with the parent is shared out to
servants and slaves.
So, there is a taboo against male/female cohabitation outside the blessing
of nearly every human society, because of the children. Because of the
children, marriage happens amongst humans, as rite and practice, and as an
institution.
Since a woman cannot beget a child of another woman, marriage is not
contemplated by any human culture as a necessity for their cohabitation. So
it goes for the men.
It is irrational to extend marriage to same-sex unions. It is irrational
because the necessity for it does not exist at the cause for marriage having
come into being in the first place as a rite. It is unnecessary for people
of same sex to get married. Necessity *is* essence, and the essence of
marriage as a concept is therefore a joining of one sex to the other and
that defines it.
So what about the childless marriage, you will ask? In the language of logic
as derived by Aristotle and carried forward to the present, there is that
which is *substantial* to what something is, and there is that which is
*accidental* to it, just a thing which happens to something by chance which
can neither add to or take away from what that thing, that concept, that
rite is, at its essence from necessity in the cause for its coming into
being in the first place.
Marriage did not come into being to serve the cause of childless couples,
rather it exists as a rite to serve couples with children, or who may, or
might have children--and hence the social demand for the rite of marriage.
This is not to be misconstrued to mean that "accident" exists in opposition
to "choice", where some couples choose to be childless.
Now apply your concentration to this, as it will only hurt for a few moments
while Aristotle and Kant do some work on the way your minds work, and from
now on will in more orderly fashion--if you can hang tough and get through
this . . .
The *accidental* in the logical sense has its opposite in the *essential*,
which essence is of necessity. If marriage as a rite comes into being it is
by no caprice of happenstance. There was a reason, there was a cause for it
to start to happen. Metaphysics defines any such thing, a concept, rite, an
element of nature, earth, fire, water as what can be called a "substance".
Just as there is a substance of oxygen, and of 'horse' as opposed to
kangaroo, something substantial that makes the horse not a kangaroo, so is
there something substantial, which is the same as to say "essential", which
is the same as to say, "necessary" *and not accidental* about marriage, as
both concept and rite.
What is essential cannot be affected by time and change because it is
founded in something transcendent to all that, which goes to the reason, to
the cause for the thing coming into being in the first place. The thing is
defined by its nascency. When you ask, "Why does marriage exist in the
first place?" the answer, in going to the cause for marriage will describe
its necessity--not its accidents, such as the fact that a gay person may
have a child from a former marriage. Okay that was not the reason that
marriage became a social institution all over the world, in the first place
which was the thing that made marriage necessary. It is not necessary for
that divorced gay person with a child to get married to another gay person.
Nothing on earth can give rise to any such necessity.
The instrumentality of this concept has nothing whatever to do with the
anecdotal plethora of things which just happen according to choice, chance,
caprice, decision, mistake. None of that carries the least logical import
for understanding the *ousia*, the being (essence) of any substance
(concept, rite, genus, principle).
Here is your diploma. You are now a member in good standing of the Usenet
Lyceum. Congratulations! You now hold a degree in the wonderful and ancient
discipline of categorical logic, the very science of mind that existed
first, to later give rise to rational, deductive and inductive thinking in
the mind of Man.
Now it gets real easy . . .
You can't have everything in this world. Certain choices, certain
behaviors, certain habits, certain orientations lead to certain
consequences. If I decide to get married, there is the consequence that
somebody is going to get hurt, bad, if I should be unfaithful to my spouse.
Both my wife and my chippie get hurt. When I say yes to my wife, I say no to
all other women, all potential chippies. But it just seems so unfair! Why
can't I eat my chippie and have my wife too?
This is the character of whining I hear coming from the Gay/Lesbian
community over the issue of same-sex marriage. It's just plain narcissistic
in my view, it's squawling like a spoiled brat because you think you can
have everything, and at the same time, not accept the consequences of your
choices, your orientations, your perceived lot in life. You want to eat your
cake and have it too.
I slap your hand and say, "No! That's not how life works. Learn the
humility of accepting the hand that life deals you and stop looking with
envious, covetous eyes over your cards upon the things that are not of
necessity or essence coming to you: you can't have everything--and neither
can I!"
--
Mackie
http://vignettes-mackie.blogspot.com/
"Do You Like Smelly Girls?"
http://whosenose.blogspot.com
--
.............................................................
> Posted thru AtlantisNews - Explore EVERY Newsgroup <
> http://www.AtlantisNews.com -- Lightning Fast!!! <
> Access the Most Content * No Limits * Best Service <
Michael Zeleny
> Well, I say that if the law will let a couple destroy a family by divorcing,
> than it should also give same-sex couples a chance to create a family.
I am sure your say-so will get all the consideration it deserves in
resolving this legal matter.
Michael Zel...@post.harvard.edu
http://larvatus.livejournal.com/
Michael Zeleny
You have it exactly backwards. Christian objections to homosexuality,
which you are alleging to motivate the resistance to legitimizing gay
marriage, have their origin in rational considerations of natural law,
transmitted through Augustine and Aquinas, from Plato and Aristotle.
Their secular rationale is as valid today as it was two and a half
millennia ago.
Michael Zel...@post.harvard.edu
http://larvatus.livejournal.com/
bob&carole
agreed
>
> Michael Zel...@post.harvard.edu
> http://larvatus.livejournal.com/
Mac the Nice
his ears get off, publishing right down the line these cribbing abstracts of
MY comments and taking the credit to himself--even right down to and
including that statement in the other post about the dictionary being a
"record" of usages, and not the creator of them?
I've seen some covetous sneaking conceit in my time, but this guy really
takes the flaming crepes suzettes . . .
"Michael Zeleny" <larv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149634023.4...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> There is a fourth argument bearing on the issue. It is the question
> social purpose. The society has a legitimate interest in recognizing
> and promoting marriage as an institution meant to encourage men and
> women to build and maintain stable families for the benefit of the
> children they create. The society has no such interest in marriages
> of same-sex couples. Everything else is window dressing.
--
Jeff North
Zeleny" <larv...@gmail.com>
<1149634023.4...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>| Robin wrote:
>|
>| > There are really only three arguements that one can offer against gay
>| > marriage. The first is religion. Religion should not, and can not have any
>| > bearing on civil law. The second is tradition. Tradition has NEVER been
>| > held up as a legitimate reason to deny an entire class of people equal civil
>| > rights. The third is that gay marriage is "ooky" (similar to your joints
>| > analogy) and that reason doesn't even deserve to be addressed.
>|
>| There is a fourth argument bearing on the issue. It is the question
>| social purpose. The society has a legitimate interest in recognizing
>| and promoting marriage as an institution meant to encourage men and
>| women to build and maintain stable families for the benefit of the
>| children they create. The society has no such interest in marriages
>| of same-sex couples. Everything else is window dressing.
>|
>| Michael Zel...@post.harvard.edu
>| http://larvatus.livejournal.com/
if "promoting marriage as an institution meant to encourage men and
women to build and maintain stable families" then you would also
support:
1. removal of all divorce laws (once married that's it)
2. disallow infertile heterosexuals to marry
3. if a heterosexual couple has not produced any child within 5 years
of their marriage then that marriage should be automatically annulled.
---------------------------------------------------------------
jnor...@yourpantsyahoo.com.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore
Some Sound Sense on Same-Sex Marriage
by Dan Clore
Some sound factual knowledge and common sense need to be
injected into the debates over same-sex marriage.
Opponents of same-sex marriage often make the ignorant claim
that since time immemorial, marriage has been defined as
solely between man and woman, and that no society or
civilization has recognized same-sex marriages. The facts
say otherwise. Many societies have accepted same-sex
marriages; in a majority (but by no means all), one member
takes on the rôle of the opposite gender, or of a "third" sex.
In the Classical period, both Greeks and Romans accepted
marriages between gay men. The Greeks believed that such
couples made especially good soldiers, as they would wish to
vaunt their bravery in battle before their partner. Most
Romans, on the other hand, recognized gay marriages but
sneered at homosexuals; still, several Roman Emperors
married men. Nero did so twice, taking both the male and
female rôle.
A majority of Indian societies in North America included a
traditional form of marriage between members of the same
sex. The men and women who have done so are known to
anthropologists as berdaches. Examples include the Navajo,
Mohave, Arapaho, Omaha, Sioux, Cheyenne, and Creek. They
often held an especially honored place in their tribes. In
the nineteenth-century, women berdaches who were renowned
warriors became chiefs in the Crow and Snake tribes. We'Wha,
a popular Zuni berdache, dined with President Grover
Cleveland in the White House in 1886. Speaking of ignorance,
we learned about berdaches in elementary-school.
One could multiply such examples indefinitely. Chukchee
shamans frequently marry other men. Several societies have
recognized temporary marriages between an older and a
younger man, such as the African Azande and, in past
centuries, in the Fujian province of China. Some orders of
Buddhist nuns in Singapore marry upon their novitiate.
Furthermore, same-sex marriages are currently recognized in
some Western countries as well. Belgium, Holland, Canada,
and Spain give full legal recognition. Even in the United
States, same-sex marriages are recognized in certain special
circumstances, -- when one member has undergone a sex-change
operation, for example.
Opposition to gay marriage relies on illogic as well as
ignorance. Opponents claim that homosexuals choose their
sexual orientation. A moment of introspection suffices to
refute this claim. Feelings and emotions happen to
individuals; they are not under their conscious control.
While an individual can choose how to act on an emotion,
they do not choose who they feel attracted to or who they
fall in love with.
To put it another way: Given that I can't even choose which
women I find myself attracted to, how in the world would I
go about becoming attracted to men instead?
Like all forms of bigotry, opposition to gay marriage
embodies ignorance and illogic. But our laws should not;
they should be based on values like equality and fairness.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
bobandcarole
Fact is we're winning the queer marriage laws are never going to make
it
>
> --
> Dan Clore
>
> My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
<snip>
Like we're interested in what you read
Michael Zeleny
>>> There are really only three arguements that one can offer against gay
>>> marriage. The first is religion. Religion should not, and can not have any
>>> bearing on civil law. The second is tradition. Tradition has NEVER been
>>> held up as a legitimate reason to deny an entire class of people equal civil
>>> rights. The third is that gay marriage is "ooky" (similar to your joints
>>> analogy) and that reason doesn't even deserve to be addressed.
>> There is a fourth argument bearing on the issue. It is the question
>> social purpose. The society has a legitimate interest in recognizing
>> and promoting marriage as an institution meant to encourage men and
>> women to build and maintain stable families for the benefit of the
>> children they create. The society has no such interest in marriages
>> of same-sex couples. Everything else is window dressing.
> if "promoting marriage as an institution meant to encourage men and
> women to build and maintain stable families" then you would also
> support:
> 1. removal of all divorce laws (once married that's it)
> 2. disallow infertile heterosexuals to marry
> 3. if a heterosexual couple has not produced any child within 5 years
> of their marriage then that marriage should be automatically annulled.
You are failing to distinguish promotion and encouragement from
constraint and compulsion. That said, I support legal disincentives for
no-fault divorce. As for dealing with infertility, hard cases make bad
Bloke Down The Pub
"smw" wrote:
> Since any benefit potentially resulting from a heterosexual marriage
> potentially results from homosexual marriages as well, we're neither her
> nor there with this one.
I think there is a spelling mistake.
I think you mean "......neither her nor him with this one"?
I'll get my coat.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Mac the Nice
"Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
news:4enidnF...@individual.net...
>
> Some Sound Sense on Same-Sex Marriage
> by Dan Clore
>
> Some sound factual knowledge and common sense need to be injected into the
> debates over same-sex marriage.
>
> Opponents of same-sex marriage often make the ignorant claim that since
> time immemorial, marriage has been defined as solely between man and
> woman, and that no society or civilization has recognized same-sex
> marriages.
That is not the claim. This only goes to show that you are not reading, or
understanding, or are willfully ignoring what I, for one, have been saying.
You are dwelling in anecdote to say that here and there such "marriages"
have been recognized. Who knows what your sources for that are, you don't
give them--but in any case that's not the point. Such anecdotal occurrences
of variation from the norm are *accidental* not *essential* to the being and
substance of marriage as a social construct.
Here is the case based in the philosophy which gave Einstein the first
thoughts about his theory of relativity, which you mistakenly describe as an
"ignorant claim" . . .
--
The anecdotal, the *accidental* in the logical sense has its opposite in the
*essential*, which essence is of necessity, or which was to say, of
"substance." If marriage as a rite comes into being, it is by no caprice of
happenstance. It comes to exist like any other entity of Nature, like a
compound of elements, as iron and sulfur, out of a bond of necessity as a
'substance'. There was a reason, there was a cause for it to start to
happen. Just as there is a substance of oxygen, and of 'horse' (substance as
'genus') as opposed to kangaroo, there is something substantial that makes
the horse not a kangaroo, so is there something substantial to marriage that
stops it from being something else, and that is the "essence" of it, what is
"essential" about it, which is the same as to say, "necessary" *and not
accidental* as a social construct, a concept and a rite.
What is essential cannot be affected by accident of time and change because
it is founded in something transcendent to all that, which goes straight to
the reason for the original cause of the thing coming into being in the
first place.
[If it is true as you assert, that now and again through history, societies
have made room within the bounds of the marriage construct for same-sex
unions, such aberrations from the norm have nothing to do with what brought
the rite of marriage into being in the first place. Marriage came into being
in order to make sure that the parents of any child would be known to the
community, so that the responsibility for their care would not devolve upon
society. Taboos against members of the opposite sex cohabiting outside the
public rite of marriage came into exertion out of social necessity. There
was no such necessity come of the homosexual community driving any society
to institute for the first time the rite of marriage. That never happened.
Before any gay wedding was performed, marriage, as an institution existed *a
priori*, at first as it arose out of heterosexual necessity. And there
never was any such homosexual necessity there to give rise, at first, to
marriage for all, as such.]
The thing is defined by its nascency--and that was heterosexual. When you
ask, "Why does marriage exist in the first place?" the answer, in going to
the cause for marriage will describe its necessity--not its accidents. That
a gay person may have a child from a former marriage, okay, that was not the
reason that marriage became a social institution all over the world, in the
first place. It is not necessary for that divorced gay mother with a child
to get married to another woman. Nothing on earth can give rise to any such
necessity. No such necessity will ever exist. For sake of the mental
well-being of the child, no such practice on this earth should *ever* be
allowed, let alone so much as begin to come into contemplation. But of
course, it has, such abuse of children, such narcissistic, uncaring, hateful
ill-concern for the stability of the human personality is going on in this
increasingly absurd world.
How can I state with such force of extreme prejudice my case against that?
Because for all intents and purposes, I was a boy who grew up with "two
mommies" and without a father. And I can tell you, it was Hell. To this
day, I am utterly and totally at odds with those women who ruled over my
existence all those years, and who up to recent times have attempted by
every wile and trick in the book to extend that purely feminine dictatorship
over my life. It's only been just of late that I've gained the strength to
completely sever that bond that at last I might begin to get in touch with
my natural born masculinity.
Whether you are depriving that child of the experience of the feminine or
the masculine aspect of parenthood, to allow for a balanced personality to
come into existence in that child, in either case the abuse of such an
imposition--when it does not occur by accident of divorce, but by intent of
a guardianship of gay marriage; I'm telling you that ought to be on the
books as a crime tantamount to the seriousness of kidnapping. The very idea
of it, ought to be so reprehensible to sane people in this society that you
would not be safe on the streets to so much as suggest it. To the devil
with any laws being put on the books to prohibit it. Let it become the
general practice among the public to abduct those people, take them to some
run-down motel built in the '50s, where they would be forced to listen to
Slim Whitman records until their heads explode. That'll be good enough--just
like in *Mars Attacks!*
Robin
> Robin wrote:
>> "Michael Zeleny" <larv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1149634023.4...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> Robin wrote:
>
>>>> There are really only three arguements that one can offer against gay
>>>> marriage. The first is religion. Religion should not, and can not
>>>> have any
>>>> bearing on civil law. The second is tradition. Tradition has NEVER
>>>> been
>>>> held up as a legitimate reason to deny an entire class of people equal
>>>> civil
>>>> rights. The third is that gay marriage is "ooky" (similar to your
>>>> joints
>>>> analogy) and that reason doesn't even deserve to be addressed.
>
>>> There is a fourth argument bearing on the issue. It is the question
>>> social purpose. The society has a legitimate interest in recognizing
>>> and promoting marriage as an institution meant to encourage men and
>>> women to build and maintain stable families for the benefit of the
>>> children they create. The society has no such interest in marriages
>>> of same-sex couples. Everything else is window dressing.
>
>> can
>> not. Arguement null and void.
>
> If and when homosexual couples can create children without heterosexual
> intervention, your rebuttal will merit rational consideration.
>
It is done all of the time. One can become pregnant without even looking at
a heterosexual. Your point is still moot since the ability to procreate has
never been a requirement to get a marriage license. I guess next you'll
want to ban marriage between senior citizens and infertile people.
> Michael Zel...@post.harvard.edu
> http://larvatus.livejournal.com/
>
Janet Puistonen
> There is a fourth argument bearing on the issue. It is the question
> social purpose. The society has a legitimate interest in recognizing
> and promoting marriage as an institution meant to encourage men and
> women to build and maintain stable families for the benefit of the
> children they create. The society has no such interest in marriages
> of same-sex couples.
Not true. Society has an interest in adults building and maintaining stable
families for the benefit of maintaining the financial and general stability
of the adults involved, also. (Leaving aside issues such as heterosexual
couples without children and homosexual couples with children.)
Jeff North
Zeleny" <larv...@gmail.com>
<1149672837....@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
"promotion and encouragement" as in - my mommy has been married 6
times. My real dad has been married 4 times.
>| That said, I support legal disincentives for no-fault divorce.
Divorce, or any type, does NOT promote family stability.
>| As for dealing with infertility, hard cases make bad law.
A simple fertility test of each applicant is all that is required.
Then, depending upon the results of the test then they would be
allowed, or not, to be married.
PS: how many times have you been married?
*Anarcissie*
I am not interested in the origins of Christian objections to
homosexuality, for which Augustine, Aquinas, Plato and Aristotle
were only open way stations. I say the objections are religious
because no rational, objective, material case can be made for
them. When people want to do things for which they cannot give
a reasonable justification, they customarily ring in religion,
especially when the things they want to do are evil. It is rational
(usually) to preserve respect for one another's rights and privacy
in a polity, but many people _must_ interfere with others, and
religion is convenient as their justification -- it overrides reason.
That is what we have in the present case.
smw
*Anarcissie* wrote:
...
> I am not interested in the origins of Christian objections to
> homosexuality, for which Augustine, Aquinas, Plato and Aristotle
> were only open way stations. I say the objections are religious
> because no rational, objective, material case can be made for
> them. When people want to do things for which they cannot give
> a reasonable justification, they customarily ring in religion,
> especially when the things they want to do are evil. It is rational
> (usually) to preserve respect for one another's rights and privacy
> in a polity, but many people _must_ interfere with others, and
> religion is convenient as their justification -- it overrides reason.
> That is what we have in the present case.
Yah. I think that, in general, the people who want to ban gay marriage
would like to ban gay sex as well; most (and perhaps all) of the
arguments Zeleny can marshall here do not, after all, concern marriage;
they concern sexual and affective practices. Seeing that this particular
society has evolved in a way to make a ban on gay sex pretty much
impossible (at present), the arguments against gay marriage lack force
and conviction, and you have the peculiar spectacle of a nation
attempting to make an argument on the basis of traditions that are part
and parcel of Weltanschauungen it has made it its identity to overthrow,
oppose, or ignore. Any secular benefits (to individuals and the state)
that can and do result from heterosexual marriage can and do result from
homosexual marriage as well -- not just the well-being of children
within such families (be they the biological children of one of the
partners or adopted), but also, and much ignored in these debates, the
financial obligations married people have to each other. Contrary to
Zeleny's claims, the opponents thus would need an argument that
specifically addresses potential harm stemming from gay marriage, since
"society" already has a demonstrable interest in binding and containing
the erotic and affective energy of men as well as in having individuals
of all sexes take on financial responsibility for each other.
Bruce McGuffin
> Michael Zeleny wrote:
>> Rajappa Iyer wrote:
>> > "Michael Zeleny" <larv...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >> Rajappa Iyer wrote:
>>
>> >>> I was under the impression that this was about legislation on the
>> >>> nature of marriage. Social disapproval is neither here nor there in
>> >>> this context. There must be demonstrable harm to the state's
>> >>> compelling interest in order for it to legislate against a practice,
>> >>> no matter how distasteful the majority finds it.
>>
It may help to keep track of who is doing what:
1) in the US, the state (i.e., local) goverments by and large determine
marriage law: who can marry who, who gets to visit who in the hospital
without previously signed releases, who inherits what from who, etc.
2) Right now, the federal governement only gets involved in a few
specific areas that effect it: mostly what constitutes a family for
the purposes of calculating income tax liability.
As far as I know, nobodyin any jurisdiction is denied the right to run
down to their local Unitarian church, having a wedding ceremony,
throwing a party to celebrate, and subsequently refer to each other as
my husband/wife/whatever. But, marriage comes with certain legal
priveledges, and only those marriages recognized by the state enjoy
those priveledges. For example, in Utah (and probably elsewhere), a
man can marry a 14 (IIRC) year old girl, have sex with her, and not be
guilty of statutory rape. If he's a Fundamentalist Mormon, his church
is willing to perform a ceremony of marriage between that man and a
second 14 yo girl, but he will be guilty of statutory rape with the
second girl, because the state didn't recognize his second
marriage. In this context, what Zelaney is saying makes some
sense. The state isn't forbidding anything, it is simply choosing to
recognize some marriage contracts as worthy of special legal
recognition in, e.g., statutory rape laws, inheritance laws, privacy
laws, etc, and not recognize others.
What Bush seems to be proposing is that the federal government go
beyond the current practice of choosing not to recognize some
marriages, as the US tax code currently fails to recognize gay
marriages from Massachusetts and civil unions from Vermont, but also
dictate to the states which marriages they may or may not
recognize. This is where the argument about compelling interest makes
sense. Does the federal government have a compelling interest to
dictate matters of family law not explicitly covered by the
constitution to the states? I'm not a lawyer, but I would guess
not, even though the Federal Governement has been granted more and
more rights with regard to what in can make states do for the last 70
years [1]. And, of course, if Bush manages to get a constitutional
ammendment passed, he can do whatever the ammendment says he can do.
My own opinion is that views about gay marriage vary so much across
the country, that this is one of those areas where we need Federalism,
and it should be left to the states to decide.
Bruce
[1] Even now, the Federal governement often can't actually compell
states, but can make it very expensive to ignore Federal
desires. Highway speed limits is a good example.
Francis A. Miniter
>Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>
>
>>Michael Zeleny wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Andrealphus wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In News 1149634023.4...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,,
>>>>Michael Zeleny at larv...@gmail.com, typed this:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Robin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>
>
>>>>>>There are really only three arguements that one can offer against gay
>>>>>>marriage. The first is religion. Religion should not, and can not
>>>>>>have any bearing on civil law. The second is tradition. Tradition
>>>>>>has NEVER been held up as a legitimate reason to deny an entire
>>>>>>class of people equal civil rights. The third is that gay marriage
>>>>>>is "ooky" (similar to your joints analogy) and that reason doesn't
>>>>>>even deserve to be addressed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
>
>
>>>>>There is a fourth argument bearing on the issue. It is the question
>>>>>social purpose.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>
>
>>>>Can you please outline the legal argument as it relates to the definition of
>>>>"Social Purpose" in our constitution, specificlally the article within our
>>>>Constitution that grants the government the power to define "Social Purpose"
>>>>in our marriage laws?
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
>>>I am responding to the claim that moral and political opposition to
>>>homosexual marriage needs must rely on legally insubstantial support
>>>from parochial religion, outdated tradition, or unsound revulsion. To
>>>the contrary, secular arguments regarding the social purpose of the
>>>family have their basis in Aristotle's account of the oikos in Politics
>>>I and II and Nicomachean Ethics VIII. Whereas moral arguments against
>>>homosexuality are found in Plato's Gorgias 494c-e, Republic III 403
>>>a-c, Laws I 636c, VIII 838e, and 841d, and Aristotle's Politics II
>>>1262a32-37 and Nicomachean Ethics VII 1145a27-33 and 1148b15-1149a20.
>>>It is not my purpose here to relate them to the American Constitution.
>>>Making this connection is left as an exercise for the reader.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>Moral arguments against homosexuality in Plato? Well, I suppose at times
>>Socrates criticizes homosexuality, when doing so furthers an argument he is
>>pursuing. But the Republic? Where Socrates says that in wartime male lovers
>>should serve side by side, so to speak? No. Besides, the passage you cite,
>>which does not in fact condemn homosexuality, is a discussion with Glaucon.
>>Socrates gets different answers when he asks similar questions of Glaucon's
>>brother Adeimantus. By the way, the third brother, Plato, was curiously absent
>>from the discussion.
>>
>>
>
>"Do you know of greater or keener pleasure than that associated with
>Aphrodite?" "I don't," he said, "nor yet of any more insane." "But is
>not the right love a sober and harmonious love of the orderly and the
>beautiful?" "It is indeed," said he. "Then nothing of madness, nothing
>akin to licence, must be allowed to come nigh the right love?" "No."
>"Then this kind of pleasure may not come nigh, nor may lover and
>beloved who rightly love and are loved have anything to do with it?"
>"No, by heaven, Socrates," he said, "it must not come nigh them."
>"Thus, then, as it seems, you will lay down the law in the city that we
>are founding, that the lover may kiss and pass the time with and touch
>the beloved as a father would a son, for honorable ends, if he persuade
>him. But otherwise he must so associate with the objects of his care
>that there should never be any suspicion of anything further, on
>penalty of being stigmatized for want of taste and true musical
>culture." "Even so," he said.
>--Republic III 403a-c, translated by Paul Shorey
>
>
>
>>Plato wrote dialogues, not treatises. And there is the Symposium, where every
>>participant in the dialogue is a gay or bisexual male.
>>
>>
>
>An argument worthy of pubic plucking and rectal radishing, Adikos Logos
>at Clouds 1067-1104 notwithstanding.
>
>Michael Zel...@post.harvard.edu
>http://larvatus.livejournal.com/
>
>
>
Thanks, but I read the passage. Not just before making the post, but in
the Greek when I wrote my master's thesis some long years ago. The
Platonic character Socrates is not arguing against homoeroticism,
however. Whether eroticism is homosexual or heterosexual, Socrates is
arguing for tempering its wildness. Besides, you still have not
noticed that when Socrates turns from Glaucon to Adeimantus, he does so
to get answers opposite those he has been getting from Glaucon. The two
have very different personalities, and Socrates, who is not trying to
establish a doctrine of national government, but rather to reign in the
untamed impetuousness first of Thrasymachus and then of Polemarchus,
uses these differences to achieve goals on many levels. Finally, the
"Just City" whose construction begins at about that point is one that is
impossible as it is fundamentally at odds with human nature.
Allan Bloom wrote a superb Interpretative Essay to accompany his
translation of The Republic. I highly recommend it to you. Also, Leo
Strauss, The City and Man.
Francis A. Miniter
*Anarcissie*
> ...
> > Like all forms of bigotry, opposition to gay marriage
> > embodies ignorance and illogic. But our laws should not;
> > they should be based on values like equality and fairness.
bobandcarole wrote:
> Fact is we're winning the queer marriage laws are never going to make
Actually, opinion seems to be drifting the other way.
Fewer people oppose Gay marriage than they did
five or ten years ago.
Eventually, people get tired of evil, including religion,
and drift away from it. It won't happen soon, but it
will happen.
Boy Toy
wrote in message <b93d82pico84bmh24...@4ax.com>
Of course the premise is flawed: the institution of marriage no
longer promotes family stability. With 50% divorce rates, such an
assertion is absurd. Also, adoption and artificial insemination can
now be used by same sex couples to have kids, so there is no longer
any need for special rights, benefits and privileges to be accorded to
*opposite* sex couples over *same* sex couples when it comes to
marriage and family.
Times change, and "compelling interests" evolve. People need to
adapt, no matter how much some would prefer we were living back in the
50's.
Michael Zeleny
The interest that you cite inheres in all civil contracts. Marriage
contributes an essential benefit of a different order. Arguably, its
reproductive benefit is a necessary condition for the existence of any
society. No homosexual couple contributes anything of the sort, in and
of itself.
Michael Zel...@post.harvard.edu
http://larvatus.livejournal.com/
Strife767
wrote:
lol, by this logic, any woman past menopause wouldn't be allowed to get
married.
The holes in your arguments just keep growing, don't they? :P
Michael Zeleny
In keeping with our Victorian legacy, looking at a heterosexual is
unnecessary for becoming pregnant. Nonetheless, a heterosexual act
underlies every pregnancy. Banning infertile heterosexual couples is
not at issue in extending the benefits of marriage to another class of
unions that is antithetical to fertility (para phusin). If you want to
discuss parity of reasoning in the latter motivation, kindly address
the rationale behind withholding this extension to incestuous,
polygamous, and interspecific unions.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ladybuble1.html
http://www.slate.com/id/103801/
Michael Zel...@post.harvard.edu
http://larvatus.livejournal.com/
Boy Toy
wrote in message <g03e82lb708jje6le...@4ax.com>
In lock step with his verbosity.
Michael Zeleny
If you want to argue, argue. If you want to rant, rant. Whatever be
your choice, you must understand their difference. Mere insistence on
the lack of a rational, objective, material case is neither rational
nor objective. To the contrary, in the instant matter the material case
stands with Plato in the Laws I at 636c: "And whether one makes the
observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to
observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure
experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when
male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty
of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure."
Likewise Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, Sartre, and many others.
Michael Zel...@post.harvard.edu
http://larvatus.livejournal.com/
Michael Zeleny
> Michael Zeleny wrote:
> Thanks, but I read the passage. Not just before making the post, but in
> the Greek when I wrote my master's thesis some long years ago. The
> Platonic character Socrates is not arguing against homoeroticism,
> however. Whether eroticism is homosexual or heterosexual, Socrates is
> arguing for tempering its wildness. Besides, you still have not
> noticed that when Socrates turns from Glaucon to Adeimantus, he does so
> to get answers opposite those he has been getting from Glaucon. The two
> have very different personalities, and Socrates, who is not trying to
> establish a doctrine of national government, but rather to reign in the
> untamed impetuousness first of Thrasymachus and then of Polemarchus,
> uses these differences to achieve goals on many levels. Finally, the
> "Just City" whose construction begins at about that point is one that is
> impossible as it is fundamentally at odds with human nature.
>
> Allan Bloom wrote a superb Interpretative Essay to accompany his
> translation of The Republic. I highly recommend it to you. Also, Leo
> Strauss, The City and Man.
In treating of things that are fundamentally at odds with human nature,
you are evading the force of para phusin in Laws I 636c and VIII 841d.
Whereas it remains undisputed that unnatural practices of homosexual
intercourse were repugnant to the Greeks, as witness Aeschines' Against
Timarchus. Likewise your unmindful failure to observe the distinction
between Aphrodite Urania and Aphrodite Pandemos, as it pertains to
Socrates' endorsement of eros. Your beloved Leo Strauss makes no such
mistake in his analysis of the Symposium.
http://larvatus.livejournal.com/59772.html
Michael Zel...@post.harvard.edu
http://larvatus.livejournal.com/
*Anarcissie*
In the passage quoted, Plato does not make a material case,
unless "due to nature" and "contrary to nature" reflect an
incorrect observation of animal behavior.
Sexuality is one of the many areas where the great names
of philosophy seem to have been unable to perceive, criticize,
question, or employ reason. I do not see much point in citing
them if you cannot find any that do not simply recite popular
prejudices and superstitions, as above.
Janet Puistonen
>> Gay people can have children, and there are many heterosexual people
>> who can not. Arguement null and void.
>
> If and when homosexual couples can create children without
> heterosexual intervention, your rebuttal will merit rational
> consideration.
>
> http://larvatus.livejournal.com/
Your reasoning seems specious to me. A heterosexual couple can use a sperm
donor, so can a homosexual couple. A heterosexual couple can use a so-called
surrogate mother, so can a homosexual couple. And both the "surrogate
mother" and the sperm donor can be homosexuals themselves.
And, as I pointed out in an earlier post, if you want to make societal
benefit the rationale behind laws regulating what we can and cannot do,
there is a clear societal benefit to any two adults making a commitment to
support each other financially and in other ways.
If you want to use societal harm as the rationale, then the burden is on you
to prove that marriage between homosexuals harms society. And there simply
is no such proof.
I would suggest that we begin by ditching the term "marriage" and use "civil
union." I would leave issues of "marriage" to religious groups.
Bruce McGuffin
> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>> Well said. Is our society one where we are free to do that which is not
>> prohibited or one where we may only do that which is permitted? If the former,
>> and hopefully it still is that option, then to prohibit something there must be
>> a good reason.
>
> If your freedom exacts a social cost, commutative justice warrants
> its infringement. This warrant is limited by considerations of social
> purpose in institutions endorsed and supported by the society.
What exactly is this social cost you speak of?
Bruce
Mac the Nice
Subject: Mars Attacks!
Date: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 5:03 AM
<. . .>
Whether you are robbing that kid of the experience of the feminine or the
masculine face of parenthood, to allow for a balanced personality, in either
case the abuse of such an imposition--when it does not occur by accident of
divorce, but by intent of a guardianship in gay marriage; I'm telling you
that ought to be on the books as a crime tantamount to kidnapping. The very
idea of it, ought to be so reprehensible to sane people in this society that
you would not be safe on the streets to so much as suggest it. So, to the
devil with any laws being put on the books to prohibit it. Let it become the
general practice among the public at large to abduct all such bug-eyed
post-liberal Martians who think like that, take them down to some run-down
50's era motel, tie the bastards and bitches to a chair, put on the
earphones, turn on the Slim Whitman, the Celine Dion and Britney Spears
until their heads explode!
You can't have everything in this world, you snotty brats. Certain choices,
Strife767
wrote:
>From: "Mac the Nice" <jpd...@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Mars Attacks!
>Date: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 5:03 AM
>
><. . .>
>
>Whether you are robbing that kid of the experience of the feminine or the
>masculine face of parenthood
It's hard to call it "robbing" when there is no scientific evidence that the
absence of either negatively affects child development. :)
>to allow for a balanced personality, in either
>case the abuse of such an imposition--when it does not occur by accident of
>divorce, but by intent of a guardianship in gay marriage; I'm telling you
>that ought to be on the books as a crime tantamount to kidnapping. The very
>idea of it, ought to be so reprehensible to sane people in this society that
>you would not be safe on the streets to so much as suggest it.
That pretty much gives an idea of the sanity of the writer, to suggest that
he thinks it "ought" to be that someone cannot mention same-sex marriage in
public without endangering himself.
>So, to the
>devil with any laws being put on the books to prohibit it.
lol, devil.
>Let it become the
>general practice among the public at large to abduct all such bug-eyed
>post-liberal Martians who think like that, take them down to some run-down
>50's era motel, tie the bastards and bitches to a chair, put on the
>earphones, turn on the Slim Whitman, the Celine Dion and Britney Spears
>until their heads explode!
Witch hunt talk.
>You can't have everything in this world, you snotty brats.
Pretty high on the irony meter, I'd say.
>Certain choices,
>certain behaviors, certain habits, certain orientations lead to certain
>consequences.
Same-sex marriage has been scientifically shown to have no negative
consequences in and of itself. Therefore, this is irrelevant.
>If I decide to get married, there is the consequence that
>somebody is going to get hurt, bad, if I should be unfaithful to my spouse.
>Both my wife and my chippie get hurt. When I say yes to my wife, I say no to
>all other women, all potential chippies.
Until the divorce, right? :P Fifty percent of people who say 'yes' to their
spouses do not take that decision to the grave.
>But it just seems so unfair! Why
>can't I eat my chippie and have my wife too?
>
>This is the character of whining I hear coming from the Gay/Lesbian
>community over the issue of same-sex marriage. It's just plain narcissistic
>in my view, it's squawling like a spoiled brat because you think you can
>have everything, and at the same time, not accept the consequences of your
>choices, your orientations, your perceived lot in life.
Straw man of imagined "consequences" that don't exist.
>You want to eat your
>cake and have it too.
>
>I slap your hand and say, "No! That's not how life works. Learn the humility
>of accepting the hand that life deals you and stop looking with envious,
>covetous eyes over your cards upon the things that are not of necessity or
>essence coming to you: you can't have everything--and neither can I!"
It is completely fair to want something that is denied you for no other
reason than your gender.
Boy Toy
Total non sequitur. Spam your blog somewhere else.