I’m not sure what point Melchior is trying to make with his tautology that only two people of the opposite sex may constitute a “marriage” by definition.
It is true that growing up that was my understanding of the word, but I did consider polygamy to be “marriage” as it were even if it was something not legal. I’ll admit that when the subject of two men or two women getting married was first proposed, I thought it a laughable and impossible proposition like Melchior: such a thing simply isn’t a marriage.
But definitions can change. As I’ve said many times, I vehemently disagree with any judge pretending to tell people that the word marriage has magically changed. The law doesn’t and shouldn’t work that way. But if the people, through their elected representatives, wish to redefine the word we understood growing up as only applying to opposite sex couples to now include same sex couples, then the word under the law has been redefined to include those people as being capable of entering into marriage.
I may not agree that being passed out in a vehicle in a parking lot is “driving” for the purposes of DUI laws, but if the state says it is, then that’s what it means as far as the law is concerned. I may disagree, I may bitch, I may advocate change, but Melchior’s simple dismissal of a word not being able to change in meaning is incorrect.
There are usually two different debates on this issue: the constitutional question, and the legislative question. Like abortion, I don’t believe there is a constitutional right to SSM and this question should not be in the courts. It should however, be in the legislature. If New York wants SSM, great. If Utah doesn’t want SSM, also great.
These debates always end up with a mingling of these two points.
George W spoke of the “sanctity” of marriage. I always wondered who gave him that word, and exactly what force emanates from a same sex married couple that can be felt by those in a traditional marriage.
Aha, now it get it! I missed that previous thread. So he’s a gentleman of intellect and refinement, gamely holding the line against the barbarism of age. It’s such a thankless job, but he shoulders the burden gladly. For how will the churlish hoi polloi ever better themselves if the man of discernment does not instruct them in proper usage? Truly the William Safire of our age!
Precisely. Forum rules prevent me from stating what Melchior is doing, but it’s pretty fucking obvious, isn’t it? Since the mods won’t do anything about it, the only thing to do is just to let him alone. Remember, any time you respond to Melchior, you’re basically giving him a handjob. Is that something you want to do?
All right, that’s enough, all of you. You may or may not know that it is against the rules to state that another poster is deriving any form of sexual pleasure from his arguments or his positions. This is riiiiight up to that line. Don’t do it again.
Melchior, in post #130 you quoted running coach in saying this:
You inserted the bolded words into his quote. There has been a running discussion concerning the changing of words inside quote tags. Because of this you’ll get a mod note and not a warning here. But I encourage you to keep up with the rules and the discussion of same in About This Message Board and not violate this one in the future.
I thought that rule was just (or primarily) for GD threads.
Anyway, Melchior has done to this thread exactly what that other guy did to that other thread a few days ago, about perceived persecution of Christians, by arguing ad infinitum over the definition of “persecution”.
There’s the full faith and credit clause, which many people argue means that if you get legally married in one state than all other states are required to recognize the marriage as valid. The Defense of Marriage Act created an explicit exemption for same-sex marriages. But it’s still an open issue whether an act of Congress can create an exemption to the Constitution.
[Melchior]It’s a running discussion and as such not a tradition. I also submit to the misprint in the 1748 edition of Cholmondley’s Booke of Wordiness that defines “change” as “lake something different”, and as I didn’t refer to a large body of water in my quote then your censure is invalid. Trust me, I wrote an essay once.[/Melchior]
It wasn’t mine, strangely enough. There was a kid in school with two mommies. In retrospect, they couldn’t have been married in 1990 NJ, but they were married as far as I and the other kids were concerned. I mean, they weren’t divorced, therefore they were married. Duh. As shitty as kids can be, it took bigotry learned from adults for there to be a problem.
Didn’t we have a similar tautological freakout a few years back about how an adoptive parent wasn’t a parent, because, well that’s just not what parent means wharrgarbl?
The *presumption *in marriage is that of heterogeneous sexes. That is basic to the concept of marriage. It’s not ‘tautological’. Look into the history of marriage and you will see it. It’s a biological imperative.
Not anymore. If I meet someone who mentions being married, I don’t presume the sex of their spouse. It like someone mentioning they have two children, it’s completely gender neutral.
Humans have two sexes, which are necessary for reproduction. Marriage is ultimately based upon biology. Otherwise we don’t need it.
A business partner can be of either sex, because ‘business’ has nothing to do with reproduction. Marriage, however, does. That’s what it was established for.
I thought it was a custom. Make up your mind, would you? And I am sure you know there are lots of marriages that involve no children or no biological children. The academic possibility of reproduction is of no import.
The meaning of a word is determined by Melchior. That’s the only thing that counts.