I’m going to say something nice for a change. Melchior, that translation from German into English you did was pretty much spot-on. I don’t know what the heck it had to do with anything, but that was a pretty tricky passage and you did a damn good job of it. Good on you.
Can I nominate this for “best post in the thread”? I mean, there have been a lot of things that made me laugh, but this one has me giggling 5 minutes later.
Of course, the thing about the cargo cults was that in the end, the difference was between getting the end result and not getting the end result. With the SSM folks, the difference is between getting the end result and getting something which is indistinguishable from the end result. Or can you provide any functional difference between a same-sex marriage and a heterosexual marriage that would interest those involved? I mean, even if you wouldn’t call it a marriage, to them, it is. And it confers all the same legal benefits, and societal benefits, and the like. So… how is this comparable to the cargo cults, where the meaningful difference is instantly apparent (the planes never landed)?
Don’t ask me to search for it (I think it was in the first 5 pages or so) but he literally did say that gay people can’t have relationships.
Because this is more fun? Seems kinda redundant at this point. It’s like, right here we have a perfectly good train wreck; no need to distract from it by making a new thread elsewhere saying “look at the pretty train wreck”. Other than maybe to share how much fun this thread is.
I’m not arguing about the law, I’m pointing out that your insistence that the word “marriage” has not changed in usage is incorrect.
As a legal matter, I’m very pleased that many state legislatures and popular vote referenda have legalized gay marriage in multiple states. It’s becoming very clear that SSM will soon be legal everywhere in the country, whether by legislative action, judicial action, or popular vote.
You misunderstood my criticism. I did not say that honour cannot increase or decrease; of course it can. I said that it is not *consumed *or depleted or exhausted. Those words are idiomatically linked to physical commodities (ore, fuel, oil, money, bullion, etc.). We speak of ‘depleted reserves’ of silver ore, etc.
Here are a couple of examples:
“Morgan Silver Dollars were minted between 1878 and 1904. Coinage of the silver dollar was suspended after 1904 when demand was low and the bullion supply became exhausted. Under provisions of the Pittman Act of 1918, nearly 270 million Morgan Dollars were melted down to silver bars for export, causing some dates to become rare. In 1921, Morgan Dollars were again minted as an encore and the last year of the series. Although Morgan Dollars were minted in large quantities from 1878 through 1904, because of the a silver shortage, very few have survived through today. Further melting occurred in the 1960’s and 1980’s when silver prices skyrocketed. Only about 17% of the total number of Morgan Silver Dollars minted, have survived.”
“Gold mining in the People’s Republic of China has recently made that country the world’s largest gold producer. For the year 2007, gold output rose 12% from 2006 to 276 tonnes (or 9.7 million ounces) to become the world’s largest for the first time—overtaking South Africa, which produced 272 tonnes. South Africa had until then been the largest for 101 years straight since 1905. The major reasons for this change in position had been due to South African production falling by 50% in the past decade as production costs there have risen, more stringent safety regulations have been implemented, and existing mines have become depleted.”
Even Melchior seems to have no problem with legal recognition of a status which is identical in every way to marriage so long as it’s called something other than marriage.
I’m giving you a warning here for generally hijacking (yet another of numerous) threads, continuing the same behavior in the same thread after getting notes, and just acting troll-ish in most of your replies all round.
I strongly suggest you cut out the hijacking of topics (usually relating to word/language definition/usage and/or picking nits over small things), your generally belligerent and snarky attitude and posts, and ignoring mod instruction the first time you’re told.
Instead of an argument, I have a few questions for you.
What is the definition of marriage that you believe is correct. Since many pieces of marriage have changed or been different in various cultures and times, what are the characteristics that make something a real marriage. Is it one man and one woman? Are more than two people still marriage? What about how they meet, does it have to be arranged by the parents? Until very recently, wives were actually property or for legal purposes essentially controlled by their husband…does that still have to true?
Basically an arrangement between families involving at least one male and one female from each, usually in the form of exchange for the purpose of breeding and property. Most marriages probably involved cousins and in many places still do.
I asked whether he’d be cool with creating a legal arrangement that had the same requirements and ramifications as marriage, but was (a) open to same-sex couples, and was (b) called either *marriage * or, well, something other than marriage; would the name be the entirety of his objection?
He replied “Yes, it is the entirety of my objection. You could create something new (or perhaps just use adoption or Power of Attorney or a business partnership contract) that would take care of many of the wants. But it is not and cannot be ‘marriage’.”
