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 2)

 - 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 
I'll be patient with those who don't understand the principles, but not with those that affect ignorance for rhetorical purposes.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Does that mean we can not be patient with yoru insinuations and claims that tom and I haven't made positive arguments for SSM? Thats purely rhetorical since its completely factually untrue. Or how about your use of blood libel to describe the goodridge ruling? Again, purely rhetorical. So we shouldn't be patient with that, either, based on your logic. Or cultural obliteration... purely rhetorical, since the major religions have proven very resilient to legal changes. Etc. etc. Almost the entirety of your argument, in fact, amounts to empty rhetoric.
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 
"Does that mean we can not be patient with yoru insinuations and claims that tom and I haven't made positive arguments for SSM?"

You never have been patient. I ask you for a link, and you called me a "liar." I've not been that impatient about your blunderings over the word "neuter."

I've said, and maintained, that Jordan and Funean and other people who actually want state recognition for their LTSSRs are, in my experience, more interesting to argue with over SSM than heterosexual PCs and promiscuous gays who have no interest in forming an LTSSR. I find that Jordan and Funean emphasize positive arguments for SSM, while the others, like Margaret Marshall focus on demonizing those that defend marriage, on misrepresenting our arguments, or distracting from the argument by arguing about the semantics of words that aren't central to the argument. The definition of "marriage" is central to this SSM issue. The semantics of "blood libel" or "nihilism" is not central to this ssm issue. Your obsession with non-issues makes you less of an interesting opponent to me, on this issue, than Jordan or Funean. Now just why are you blocking our ability to converse together, when BOTH Jordan and I have expressed an interest in having this conversation? Don't you and Rallan and Tom have anything better to do than prevent a civil anc consensual conversation? Are you trying to protect Jordan from me, or are you trying to prevent innocent eyes from seeing a discussion over ssm that isn't based on insults and bad logic?

[ August 22, 2006, 03:22 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 
I cannot fault anyone for failing to stay awake during discussions of grammar.

Hee-hee! In 8th grade, I'd take obscure short stories from sci-fi anthologies and rewrite them. It's all kinf of a blur, but what 14-year old will complain about ding something other than stare at the blackboard while teacher drones?

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:
I find that Jordan and Funean emphasize positive arguments for SSM, while the others, like Margaret Marshall focus on demonizing those that defend marriage, on misrepresenting our arguments, or distracting from the argument by arguing about the semantics of words that aren't central to the argument.
Pete, I find that you're so committed to this presumption that you let your bias in this regard cloud your perception of the conversation. Were I myself gay, I cannot imagine that I would make different arguments; in fact, I'm fairly sure -- having heard pro-SSM arguments from many gays -- that I would not.

I suspect you cut actual homosexuals more slack because you're sensitive to their personal inconvenience, and are therefore more willing to consider what they have to say -- whereas those of us who simply care about the happiness of our friends and families are suspected of possessing ulterior motives.

quote:
The semantics of "blood libel" or "nihilism" is not central to this ssm issue.
Why not avoid the problem altogether, therefore, by avoiding use of these inflammatory and (as you've admitted) unnecessary terms?

[ August 22, 2006, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

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 
Killjoy. I expected beter (that is, worse) of you, Tom. [Wink]

Which reminds me of something that probably should go in the debate tactics thread:

debasive: tactics of debate that evade by abuse or abuse by evasion.

alternate spelling: devasive

[ August 22, 2006, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

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 
Tom: "Were I myself gay, I cannot imagine that I"
Tom, I've never accused you of being excessively imaginative. What you can or cannot imagine has no bearing on the facts that I would prefer to speak to Jordan, that our conversation has gone nowhere and continues to go nowhere, and that you seem more interested in preventing conversation than anything else.

quote:
"I suspect you cut actual homosexuals more slack because you're sensitive to their personal inconvenience"
Are you retracting your accusation that I "persecute" of gays, or you're saying that I'm a kinder gentler sort of "persecutor" that doesn't want to "inconvenience" the targets of my persecution? [Big Grin]

My generalization wasn't universal. John Locke is gay and I've not been able to treat his rancid-self-pity with respect, and Ricky, KE, and Jesse are straight and pro-ssm, and I've dealt with their arguments on this subject without launching into personal attacks since they stayed away from them. And my observation that you behave unreasonably isn't an inference about your motives, Tom, it's an observation that many have made even when they completely agree with your politics. You're smart, you're informed, you don't have to behave like this, but you usually choose to.

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:
Are you retracting your accusation that I "persecute" of gays, or you're saying that I'm a kinder gentler sort of "persecutor" that doesn't want to "inconvenience" the targets of my persecution?
Pete, I'm still waiting for you to realize that I've never actually accused you of persecuting homosexuals, despite your repeated insistence to the contrary. [Smile] I think you seek to oppress them, and believe that this oppression is a major factor in the persecution that exists, but since you don't think of it as oppression or even much of an inconvenience, I don't actually think you bear them any ill will at all on an individual level. And I think you, like many of the more open-minded religious people I know, bend over backwards to at least appear friendly and sympathetic to sinning individuals even while insisting that their individual behaviors will destroy everything you love about our society.

quote:
And my observation that you behave unreasonably isn't an inference about your motives, Tom, it's an observation that many have made even when they completely agree with your politics.
You know, I find that the people who think I behave unreasonably tend to be the most unreasonable people on the forum. [Smile]

[ August 22, 2006, 08:01 PM: 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 
When have I ever said, let alone "insisted," that gay "individual behaviors will destroy everything [I[ love about our society"?

You seem to be projecting a lot of things that I've never said here.

I never said that homosexual practice will destroy society. I said the idea of marriage as the union of man and woman has allowed society to thrive, and that destroying that independent idea will cause society to wither. I've also said that a pluralistic society has room for multiple ideas and family models, so long as we give them different names and don't confuse them with marriage.

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 
Well, then, let's not destroy. Let's expand it.

Amen.

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:
Are you retracting your accusation that I "persecute" of gays, or you're saying that I'm a kinder gentler sort of "persecutor" that doesn't want to "inconvenience" the targets of my persecution?
Pete, I'm still waiting for you to realize that I've never actually accused you of persecuting homosexuals, despite your repeated insistence to the contrary. [Smile]
My pardon. I keep getting you mixed up with the other Tom Davidson. You two should really get separate accounts. [Cool]
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 seem to be projecting a lot of things that I've never said here.
Yes (or, well, at least one thing.) Yes, I was. Quite specifically, and quite deliberately.

It's amazing how completely misrepresenting your argument in one small, easily deniable way causes you to abandon the larger purpose of the thread to engage in a -- what was your word, again? -- "distractathon." I wonder why you felt compelled to correct me on this, since after all that sort of linguistic error is certainly minor and unimportant and not at all relevant to the topic....

--------

I apologize for being starkly manipulative in that last post, but I wasn't able to think of any other way to demonstrate the real motives behind my "distractathon" that might seem convincing to you.

[ August 22, 2006, 08:21 PM: 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 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
Well, then, let's not destroy. Let's expand it.

Funny, I never took you for the sort of guy that calls hostile takeovers "mergers."
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 
I see no hostility in it, nor do I see marriage the institution as something to be owned or traded, but only something to participate and share in. I see it as a vehicle for building love and nurturing the fruits thereof. (pun unintended)

Definitely a merger, though.

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 
"Distractathon", or, as some say, 24/7 television broadcast.
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:
You seem to be projecting a lot of things that I've never said here.
Yes (or, well, at least one thing.) Yes, I was. Quite specifically, and quite deliberately.

It's amazing how completely misrepresenting your argument in one small, easily deniable way causes you to abandon the larger purpose of the thread to engage in a -- what was your word, again? -- "distractathon." I wonder why you felt compelled to correct me on this, since after all that sort of linguistic error is certainly minor and unimportant and not at all relevant to the topic....

It's not a linguistic error, Tom. You misrepresented my stated position into a religious stereotype, even though this one was a kinder gentler religious stereotype.

quote:
I apologize for being starkly manipulative in that last post, but I wasn't able to think of any other way to demonstrate the real motives behind my "distractathon" that might seem convincing to you.
I accept your apology though not the suggestion that this is unusual behavior for persons using the sig Tom Davidson on this forum. And I'm not sure what this is supposed to have taught me about your motives ... [Confused]
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 
Anyone who has been through a merger knows that the new folks in power always come in making false promises that all the things you liked about the company before are not going to be the same, and then the purges start.

Just as is happening in Canada and in Massachussetts, as churches, religious organizations, and individuals that never hurt anyone get screwed out of their position and rights. For most Americans, ssm brings nothing to the table, and threatens to take a lot away.

Measured across the board, it's a net loss of rights.

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 
The correcting of balances doesn't happen overnight, yes?

The newly acquired power of women has created some system glithces -- like sexual harassment prevention overkill.

The ubiquity of tort law in our age has created the infamous McDonalds coffee lawsuit.

Love isn't perfect, just the very very best thing we've got. Twining love through our cultural conventions causes everything to bend as the heavy strain formerly experienced by a minority is now turned the other way.

In time, the new structure accomodates all.

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 
"The correcting of balances doesn't happen overnight, yes?"

It doesn't happen at all if people sit patiently and trust the system, Kenmeer. Human rights are founded on distrust of government. Don't tell me to have faith. The system does not work on faith. Someone screwed the system up and now people are getting screwed out of their rights. Show me results, not more empty promises.

Neutering marriage is a more substantive change to the function of society than anything our country has done. Some changes are good. (women's emancipation). Some are bad. (Capital flight from the inner cities). Some are mixed.

"In time, the new structure accomodates all."

Tell it to the poor of the inner cities, Pangloss. Or tell that to the Turkish Armenians. It's easy to accomodate people that no longer exist.

[ August 22, 2006, 10:05 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 
Uh, bad things happen. Tikkun olam.

Pollyanna and Cassandra mud-fighting in Bizmark's famous plebiscite sausage factory.

O ye of little faith... Jesus gonna take you to a higher ground but we can't adjust as is beneficial?

Bless my soul what I owes to dah comp'ny stoah...

[ August 22, 2006, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

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 
Hmmm on this issue (SSM), showing results are hard to do when we are not yet allowed to do the work.
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 
Showing a control is hard to do when you seek to overwrite the whole world. You can't show "results" when you refuse to leave a base sample that you don't plan to fock with. You can't compare your ssm to marriage when you refuse to label your changed sample differently than the original.

This is unsafe human experimentation without a plan or a clue.

[ August 23, 2006, 12:19 AM: 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 
Snce when have human cultural adjustments used rigorously scientific methods? It's a cute notion but has little bearing on how society adjusts itself.

Base sample? The wind-blown dust of history and the opinionated ink of scribes?

you seek to overwrite the whole world

And I thought I was prone to abuse the license of hyperbole

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  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 
Case in point: (which we come back to over and over and over) no-fault divorce has significantly changed both the legal and societal definition of marriage. This change was far more dramatic, with much farther reaching effects, than legalizing MFA will be. I do not recall anyone conducting double-blind experiments with control groups, placeboes etc, etc.
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 
Aye. Marriage is already so far evolved that going back seems more disruptive to the instution than going forward.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jordan said: "neutering marriage (ie. removing the gendered aspect)" ...!

and all the time I thought marriage was a form of castration! I do stand definitionally corrected.

There's only one cure for marriage -- and that's a bad one.

Working hard. I never realized how difficult sailing is without liquor aboard [Wink] .

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 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 
"Case in point: (which we come back to over and over and over) no-fault divorce has significantly changed both the legal and societal definition of marriage."

Rubbish. That's a massive change, yes, but not in the DEFINITION of marriage. No one got fired or driven from the public sphere for refusing to change the way they talked about marriage. No cultural genocide.

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 
So, to clarify, people being chastised for refusing to change their word choices is "cultural genocide," but actual damage to an institution is just "change?"
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 
No one got fired or driven from the public sphere for refusing to change the way they talked about marriage.

I wonder... maybe the adjustment was more cantankerous than commonly available history recalls?

One key distinction to be made here, I think, and one I believe is important to Pete on this issue, is that between change from within and change from without.

No-fault divorce and similar changes came by large from within the OSM community.

Impulse for the adoption of SSM naturaly derives its core motive from outside the marriage community.

We like the feeling of control. Even though stistics overwhelmingly show that flying is vastly safer than driving a car, far more folks experience chronic fear of flying than experience chronic fear of driving.

Why? Studies indicate it's because we believe we're safer with things we can control. Hands on the wheel versus Fasten Your Seatbelts signs.

Furthermore, hands on the wheel provides 'adjustment therapy': persons scared to drive can overcome this fear by practice, and much of this is possible because they are in control.

Fear of flying doesn't offer any form of control but deep breathing relaxation methods, a hand to hold, and good drugs.

So, while no faul divorces have had a huge impact on the divorce rate (or so I assume, based on views others have expressed), it is not so frightening to some folks as something totally out of their control: a group from outside adopting their practices and exercizing them in a manner ineluctably different from theirs in core ways: for example, the inability, to date, of same sex couples to impregnate each other and produce children.

That's a massive change, yes, but not in the DEFINITION of marriage.

That's a hghly moot point and one I think you'd lose in argument. At the time, old-school until-death-us-parts marriage advocates certainly felt that the definition of what marriage was being changed.

The gender-specific definition of marriage is now being questioned, but that aspect is only one part of the definition of marriage. Used to be, folks couldn't just up and drop their marriage vows because they felt like it. Uh-UH. That warn't marriage, and any decent, honest, right-thinkinbg person (or so goes the ever popular deebate-by defamation cliche) knew this was true.

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 wonder... maybe the adjustment was more cantankerous than commonly available history recalls?"

Since it's not that long ago, the uncommonly available history would not be that hard to find, so speculation's hardly necessary here."

"At the time, old-school until-death-us-parts marriage advocates certainly felt that the definition of what marriage was being changed."

Prove it. Show me someone talking about "definition" of marriage rather than backwards speculating about facts readily available to anyone who bothers to look. Better yet, look at the the readily available facts of history. Quickie divorce HAD been tried before; it resulted in disaster and gross injustice but not in absolute calamity. No one's screwed around with the universal DEFINITION of marriage before. Just the details. If screwing with the details causes such a mess, how is that an excuse for screwing with the foundation?

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 
Perhaps you need to become more familliar with the definition of "moot" before you use it again.
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 
"Used to be, folks couldn't just up and drop their marriage vows because they felt like it."

Depends on the society. Romans had quicky divorce, and so did male Muslims.

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 
"one man, one woman, for life" to "one man, one woman, while convenient"

Sounds like a definitional change to me.

But more importantly the effect on culture of this minor change is an order of magnitude greater than the possible change due to de-gendering, especially on, you know, marriage culture.

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 
Moot means (combining the essence of its many specific definitions) open to argument, undecided. It has come in the misinformed vernaculr to mean, pointless, futile, irrelevant, because, I think, of its meaning via 'moot court', a mock court in whch law students try hypothetical cases. Which is not how I use it. I used it in its, um, universal sense. What did you think I meant?

Since it's not that long ago, the uncommonly available history would not be that hard to find, so speculation's hardly necessary here.

OK. Nor, since I'm here, is it necessary to speculate that any necessity is involved or implied.

Prove it. Show me someone talking about "definition" of marriage

Disprove it. I'm certain that my statement reflects the attitudes of many persons during the time (whenever it was) rhat no-fault divorce was enacted. That's good enough for me. Not good enough for you? Disprove it. I'm pretty sure there was abundant railing at the pulpit during the time.

No one's screwed around with the universal DEFINITION of marriage before.

Ah, the UNIVERSAL definition of marriage. Whatever might that be? It would, I suppose, be the one unchanging variant enduring through the history of marriage, and that invariant would be heterosexual union, yes?

Little details about how binding that contract was, or terms of its dissolution, don't qualify as defining aspects, nor would matters like wife-to-husband ratio.

But such details do provide, in this instance, ongoing semantic chases, which provide meaningful distraction and enrichment for us all which, in my opinion, is the universal impulse underlying these discussion, however high-minded and erudite they may aspire to be.

I like the internet, don't you?

Depends on the society. Romans had quicky divorce, and so did male Muslims.

And, for that matter, polygamy in at least the latter example. But for practical purposes, I think we're discussing that matrimonial continuum that has been conducted in the legal structure of the USA.

But that's just my opinion.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Would that opinion be moot?
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  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 
Hypothetically, perhaps [Wink]
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:
Moot means (combining the essence of its many specific definitions) open to argument, undecided.
You are wrong. Moot means almost the opposite of what you said. It means that the relevance has become obsolete. For example, if you come in to court arguing on behalf of the rights of someone who has died leaving no heirs, your argument is moot. It means that the matter is of merely academic interest. It means that the court tells you "frankly, Kenmeer, I don't give a damn." It means that you can argue it, but that events have rendered your argument irrelevant to any issue of substance.

I started this thread to discuss ways of preserving alterate definitions of marriage. If you think this issue is "moot," that's comes off as an admission on your part that you have no interest in contributing to the substance of this thread.

@ Jordan: Where are you? School starts soon and I won't have the opportunty to talk to you.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There seem to be a number of definitions for "moot". I suppose comabatants can take their pick.

moot

On further inspection, "mail" seems to have a few defnitions as well..

Strange language. It's a wonder anyone understands each other at all!

[ August 23, 2006, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: canadian ]

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 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 
quote:
Prove it. Show me someone talking about "definition" of marriage

Disprove it.

That's asinine. You can't prove a negative, that no one ever talked about the "definition" of marriage. You're arguing against a straw man, rewriting history to make it appear that we've already dealt with this issue. Your fictions aren't history. These historical issues were decided on different grounds than your fictional reconstructions.
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 
Um, lookitup in the dictionary. What I said. Specilaized legal definitions need not apply. We're not all law students here.

But frankly, Pete, I don't give a damn.

Have a nice day.

[ August 23, 2006, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  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