Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » OK, Jordan -- How about making gayspeak a 2nd official language? (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: OK, Jordan -- How about making gayspeak a 2nd official language?
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To summarize the interesting salient parts of a very long thread:

Jordan thinks that keeping official the current language of marriage coerces him to deny that his own relationship is a marriage (correct me if I'm mispresenting you, Jordan).

I am persuaded that changing the legal meaning of marriage would shut me and everyone who thinks like me out of the public sector, for refusing to use the word "marriage" to refer to same-sex relationships. No jobs in schools, and the trickle down effec through lawsuits would mean that people who refused to bend for the new definition of marriage would be virtually unemployable, and those that did bend, would still be unable to communicate their ideas about marriage to the public at large. In short, cultural genocide. I told Jordan that this law was the equivalent cultural genocide to saying that only persons married and stays married to someone of the opposite sex can keep any public sector job. (It's in fact worse than that for us because of the lawsuit trickle-down effect into the private sector).

One way that some countries have come up with to avoid cultural genocide is to officially recognize multiple languages. Could we recognize that marriage means one thing in gayspeak and something else in English? That some officials speak gayspeak, that some speak English, that some are capable of speaking both, and that all are required to being able to read both in English?

Jordan raises the concerns of forms being used to discriminate against gays. I have no objection to using gayspeak on forms, treating ssus (for want of a more interesting term) as "marriage" on forms. I'm concerned about preserving our right to speak and communicate our ideas about marriage in the public sphere.

If the gay community lacks the imagination to come up with an alternative to the word "marriage," then they should understand that they are creating a new dialect of the language, and not try to impose their dialect on ours. I am willing to recognize the legitimacy of their dialect so long as no one is forced to use that dialect in the public discourse.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jordan
Member
Member # 2159

 - posted      Profile for Jordan   Email Jordan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Pete:
How about making gayspeak a 2nd official language?

[Big Grin] Good one, Pete!


However, as flattering as it is to have a thread with my name in the title, I'm going to need time to get some work (or, more accurately, overtime) done before I can answer. I'm still reading, though.

Posts: 2147 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gayspeak? oh brother.

All we need to to is have civil unions for everyone and then let marriage be a seperate thing just for religion. Then churches can do whatever they want with it.

Simple, effective.

Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Make gayspeak a 2nd language?

Not tonight, Mary; Mama's tired [Wink]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Still works for Mexico. From the website for the Mexican Embassy in the United States:

"In Mexico religious marriage does not replace in any way civil marriage. Therefore, a religious ceremony can be organized by the bride and groom after civil marriage has been performed."

But U.S. churches tend to oppose this, as they fear couples will skip the religious ceremony.

[ August 19, 2006, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think they handle it like that in Europe too... or in the UK at least. The curch ceremony is just the religious part, to be legally married you have to go through the city hall I believe.
Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
hobsen and Linux, you are confusing marriage with the wedding ceremony again. WEDDINGS are not a massive or even necessary institution. I have no problem referring to a party to celebrate a same-sex union as a "wedding." Our society is not based on weddings. I grew up in France and in Mexico and I am quite familiar on how religious folks have to have two weddings, a secular and a religious wedding.

Once again, the issue is marriage. Not the mumbo-jumbo or the partying that initiates it. The actual legal and social relationship, and our reason as a society for recognizing two adults as a single unit for certain purposes.

I've showed on other threads why the state has a compelling interest to promote the union of man and woman for life. Even Linux should grasp that keeping kids out of prisons and out of the nuthouse by increasing their chance of being raised by fathers and mothers, is a logical and secular objective, regardless of what objectives religions have for the institution.

[ August 20, 2006, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
hobsen and Linux, you are confusing marriage with the wedding ceremony again. WEDDINGS are not a massive or even necessary institution. I have no problem referring to a party to celebrate a same-sex union as a "wedding." Our society is not based on weddings. I grew up in France and in Mexico and I am quite familiar on how religious folks have to have two weddings, a secular and a religious wedding.

Once again, the issue is marriage. Not the mumbo-jumbo or the partying that initiates it. The actual legal and social relationship, and our reason as a society for recognizing two adults as a single unit for certain purposes.

I've showed on other threads why the state has a compelling interest to promote the union of man and woman for life. Even Linux should grasp that keeping kids out of prisons and out of the nuthouse by increasing their chance of being raised by fathers and mothers, is a logical and secular objective, regardless of what objectives religions have for the institution.

Or states for that matter.

But anyway, no, I am not confusing marriage and wedding. The church should declare people to be married in the eyes of that religion. In terms of the state, that would be the civil union I spoke of. The only required ceremony would be that which is required by the religion if any.

Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, the states of Mexico only recognize you are married if you have a civil ceremony. The chief advantage seems to me that you have a standard marriage procedure, and centralized records, which increases the chance your marriage can be proved legal. Every now and then the pastor of the Two Bit Church of Truth, or the operator of the Starlight Wedding Chapel, forgets to file a wedding certificate and leaves a couple in legal limbo. If every legally valid wedding is performed by a government employee, that is less likely to happen.

So far as I know, this has nothing to do with what kind of marriages a state or country recognizes.

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
¡Oye, hobsen, hace una hora que te dije que vivi doce años en Mexico y que conozco la ley!

You are talking about WEDDING ceremonies and this thread is about MARRIAGE. You are talking about the ceremonial initiation of the contract where I am talking about operation and significance of the contract on society. I've been to weddings in Mexico and I know how they work, and I'm telling you that shifting to that kind of system would have ZERO effect on anything that I'm concerned about regarding the meaning of MARRIAGE.

I could not care less if the state proclaimed you lawfully married the second they handed you your wedding licence, or instituded rigorous common-law marriage for opposite-sex couples living together. Those may be smart or dumb ideas but are all well within the scope of tested variation for how marriage works throughout the world.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah Pete, how would calling a same-sex union a "marriage" that exists alongside heterosexual marriage dilute the meaning of hte word any more than state-recognised legal marriage existing alongside church-performed religious marriage?

Come to think of it, I don't recall you ever coming up with much in the way of convincing arguments for how any aspect of gay marriage will weaken any aspect of traditional marriage at all, beyond fallacious "marriage has always been been exactly the same thing" arguments which, even if true, wouldn't have explained why a change now would be a bad thing.

Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rallan see above for the first two times I explained the difference between a marriage and a wedding. Hint: You don't perform a marriage.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hmmm... I'm afraid that we don't need to officially recognize gayspeak as a second language so much as to recognize opposite-sex-marriage-speak as a subset of the language, or maybe as a historical oddity. [Smile]

Dictionary.com

a) The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
b)The state of being married; wedlock.
c) A common-law marriage.
d) A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

Encarta

1. legal relationship between spouses: a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners

2. specific marriage relationship: a married relationship between two people, or a somebody's relationship with his or her spouse

Merriam-Webster

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or 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 a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

Wiktionary

The state of being married.

A union of two (or more) people, to the exclusion of others, while the union lasts.

I'm sure there are other definitions out there that both exclude and include SSM, but it seems like 'marriage' is currently a big enough word to include both types of union in many people's minds - enough so to make it to the big leagues of on-line dictionaries.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even Linux should grasp that keeping kids out of prisons and out of the nuthouse by increasing their chance of being raised by fathers and mothers, is a logical and secular objective, regardless of what objectives religions have for the institution.

Even Linux. We all know how slow old Linux is, eh?

Let me count the ways...

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jordan
Member
Member # 2159

 - posted      Profile for Jordan   Email Jordan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rallan:
Come to think of it, I don't recall you ever coming up with much in the way of convincing arguments for how any aspect of gay marriage will weaken any aspect of traditional marriage at all, beyond fallacious "marriage has always been been exactly the same thing" arguments which, even if true, wouldn't have explained why a change now would be a bad thing.

Actually, he has presented another argument. Obviously I am not convinced, for the reasons I have outlined in the earlier thread, but he has stated before that neutering marriage (ie. removing the gendered aspect) will weaken the importance of marriage in the minds of heterosexuals, particularly as an institution in which to safely procreate and raise children.

He has also stated, in an earlier thread, that if 2MM, 2FM and OSM became MFE, changes targetted at one type of couple might have a detrimental effect on the other two. He presented Presumption of Paternity as an arrangement which couldn't be ported to SSM. This argument is the one which I, personally, think has the most merit. What I think this means is that lawmakers and judges will need to be more careful about considering the scope and consequences of their decisions, which seems like a good thing to me. However, Pete points out that case law is a powerful thing.

It's a shame this one wasn't brought up again, because I would like to have read some good responses. Again, I don't think it demolishes my position—but I do think that the majority of gay couples would have difficulty fitting into the ideal model of lifelong, monogamous partnerships, and might need special legal protections.

Pete seems to agree with me that gay youth are subject to general and widespread abuse and are badly in need of help, as are the straight children who grow up to be complicit in this abuse. I think that society in general will benefit from witnessing the further integration of its gay children, and believe that if we don't support gay marriage we are in real danger of broadly demolishing the importance of marriage (again, see my long post in the earlier thread). Pete sees gay marriage creating new problems, which is why he is arguing for civil unions.

He has expressed concerns, on this board, about where he might find his culture if gay marriage were recognised by that name. However, I would prefer to take his other arguments at face value, particularly because I don't want this debate to become any more personal.

Posts: 2147 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jordan, I can't believe you are giving an opposing view any credit; this is Ornery after all. [Wink]
Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was just going to observe, Jordan, that you're truly a class act.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I once played Aaron to Dey's Moses. You've done the samew here with Pete.

Touche'

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I do wish that Jordan and I could have a serious conversation away from the usual barrage of distractograms, clown acts and flaming straw men. Obviously our serious conversation is not going to be on Ornery. Maybe we should just have a conversation on email, compile it, and post it.

I understand and respect Jordan's position because he makes a positive argument for SSM rather than pitching blood libels at those who disagree with him a la Goodridge. I think there are contrary arguments that outweigh his concerns, but I can understand why from his persepective, my concerns would not outweigh his. I doubt that either of us would end up convincing the other, but it's bound to be more interesting than walking through the same old bloody argument again with the oldies here.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"
I do wish that Jordan and I could have a serious conversation away from the usual barrage of distractograms, clown acts and flaming straw men."

You mean yourself, Pete?

"I understand and respect Jordan's position because he makes a positive argument for SSM rather than pitching blood libels at those who disagree with him a la Goodridge. "

And there is one of those damn straw-men you were talking about, as well as a clown act and distractogram!

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[overwhelmed by Ev's compelling rendition of "I know you are but what am I," Pete staggers for more mature ground]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jordan, you suggested that Presumption of Paternity couldn't be ported to SSM. Why do you believe so? The rules of PoP might not be universally applicable, but could you explain why you think when they are applicable that they would not be applicative?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I understand and respect Jordan's position because he makes a positive argument for SSM rather than pitching blood libels at those who disagree with him a la Goodridge.
What I find baffling about this is that Jordan's positive argument for SSM is the exact same positive argument for SSM that I've laid out for you a dozen times over the past few years.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[overwhelmed by Ev's compelling rendition of "I know you are but what am I," Pete staggers for more mature ground]

Try standing on your own feet rather than calling others pigeon-toed or knock-kneed.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
rather than pitching blood libels at those who disagree with him a la Goodridge

I gather that we've redefined blood libel?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I understand and respect Jordan's position because he makes a positive argument for SSM rather than pitching blood libels at those who disagree with him a la Goodridge.
What I find baffling about this is that Jordan's positive argument for SSM is the exact same positive argument for SSM that I've laid out for you a dozen times over the past few years.
You laid out something similar once, but before that, and ever since, you've just stuck to crying about my terminology, accusing me of persecuting gays, cheap religious shots, distractograms, etc. I tried to preserve your one positive argument by bouncing it with counter-arguments, but you ignored it, so I let it go.

Look, now even Jordan is playing defense for me and trying to lay the ground for him and I to have a serious argument, which can only happen if you find someone to annoy, or wake up that slumbering alternate Tom Davidson that makes his own arguments rather than playing games.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You laid out something similar once, but before that, and ever since, you've just stuck to crying about my terminology, accusing me of persecuting gays, cheap religious shots, distractograms, etc.
No, Pete, that's what you've SAID I've done.
I defy you to find an example of any of the above behavior; your own paranoid, inexplicable complaints about this imagined behavior don't count as evidence.

And I didn't lay out something "similar." And I didn't lay it out "once." I've mentioned this exact argument repeatedly.

Heck, in the very FIRST discussion on this topic in which you posted, Pete, I said quite specifically that I endorsed same-sex marriage for exactly the reason that Jordan outlines here. At the time, you called that a ludicrous form of unsafe social experimentation.

[ August 22, 2006, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, Tom, you keep mentioning the fact that you have a positive argument. Trouble is that you only actually made the argument once, whereas you throw these distractograms and straw men ad nauseum.

Yes, neutering the idea of marriage is unsafe social experimentation. And doing it on a massive scale by changing the law all at once, as most of you want us to do, is unsafe ireversable social experimentation without the benefit of a control. That's not accusatory speculation. That's a description of your proposal as a matter of prnciple. You're advocating massive social change without resarch to show that it's safe, and without any control or mechanism for reversal in case your experiment leads into catastrophe. If I'm wrong, then show me the resarch to show that it's safe, show me the control, or show me the mechanism for reversal.

[ August 22, 2006, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
neutering the idea of marriage

Neutering? Outsourcing fertility, yes, but neutering?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Trouble is that you only actually made the argument once, whereas you throw these distractograms and straw men ad nauseum.
I generally do you the honor of assuming that you're already familiar with the argument, since I've delivered it in full at least twice in threads in which you've posted.

quote:
If I'm wrong, then show me the resarch to show that it's safe, show me the control, or show me the mechanism for reversal.
And I asked you before: what were these safeguards for, say, emancipation or universal suffrage?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You missed the OR word, Tom. You've got none of above. Universal Suffrage had generations to show that it was safe in some territories and states, and control states that did not implement it. Give us as much control time as we had for Universal suffrage (50 years or so) and I'll feel more safe about it. Besides, universal suffrage was hardly a blip of social change compared to marriage. Voting itself was a fairly newly implemented institution, whereas marriage pre-dates the rule of law. Be more careful about screwing with the foundation of all complex postagricultural societies, than something that's just the foundation of one complex postagricultural society.


neutering the idea of marriage

Neutering? Outsourcing fertility, yes, but neutering?


Neutering the words and ideas, not persons, you silly materialist. Changing marriage = union of man and woman to marriage = "union of two persons" is a change that NEUTERS the idea of marriage. Look up Neuter in a comprehensive dictionary if you dinna believe me, old man. When we speak of neutering words and ideas, reasonable and informed people gather that since words and ideas ideas don't have actual ovaries or testicles, that one must be speaking of neuter in the gramatical sense. He and she are gendered forms, it is a neutered form.

I've explained this many times while you were present. Did you honestly not realize what I meant?

[ August 22, 2006, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Give us as much control time as we had for Universal suffrage (50 years or so) and I'll feel more safe about it.
Like I've said before: can I get this in writing? I'm perfectly okay with waiting a reasonable amount of time, provided that people won't keep saying, "Let's just wait another 50 years, just in case there's more data to come in."

quote:
marriage pre-dates the rule of law
Um. No. By definition.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
[QB]
quote:
Give us as much control time as we had for Universal suffrage (50 years or so) and I'll feel more safe about it.
Like I've said before: can I get this in writing? I'm perfectly okay with waiting a reasonable amount of time, provided that people won't keep saying, "Let's just wait another 50 years, just in case there's more data to come in."
Only if you agree to it too, Tom, and only if there's a mechanism to contain the experiment to prevent it from ruining the controls during those 50 years. I'd be OK with a federal amendment with a 50-year lifespan, with agreement to study the evidence and make a decision after that based on that evidence.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The only existing institution older than marriage is language, Tom, and possibly fatherhood, although no one's found any culture with a concept of fatherhood without a concept of marriage. Marriage and the rule of law are subroutines of language, and marriage was the earlier one. Law recognized marriage; did not create it.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You appear to be defining "marriage" here as "child-rearing."
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've explained this many times while you were present. Did you honestly not realize what I meant?

Hadn't read those passages. Yes, I did not. Now I unnastan. Kinda groovy statement now that I unnastan what you means.

Me like verbal elegance.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"When we speak of neutering words and ideas, reasonable and informed people gather that since words and ideas ideas don't have actual ovaries or testicles, that one must be speaking of neuter in the gramatical sense."

The problem is that most reasonable and informed English speakers understand neuter to first mean desexing, and second to mean weakening, because in english, the gender of a word (the grammatical sense) isn't really something that is important.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When they taught grammar in 7th and 8th grade, my teacher (same for both years) told me I didn't need to learn that stuff and bade me sit in the corner and write stories and stuff.

I learn something new everyday.

Kenmeer, reasonable but uninformed

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Then I apologize if my explanation was snooty, Ken. I cannot fault anyone for failing to stay awake during discussions of grammar.

No such patience to Ev, who knows better.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I know that YOU mean desexing when you say that marriage is being neutered. The problem i, reasonable and informed english speakers aren't going to get that until you explain it, because in english, if you are informed, you know that neutering means removing sex organs, and then the next meaning is weakening. And if you are reasonable, you'll assume that when a word is being used, its being used in the most common fashion in context, and the way you use "neuter" to refer to marriage, "weaken," is perfectly appropriate, and in fact the most likely meaning, given context.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1