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 » To those that claim that I'm the only one that makes this argument against ssm (Page 8)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9   
Author Topic: To those that claim that I'm the only one that makes this argument against ssm
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:
Pete, if we promoted abortion in order to dramatically reduce that number,

I realize that it's a hypothetical and that you aren't literally proposing anything so nihilistic, so I hope you won't take offense when I say that your premise is so disgusting as to render any ethical question moot.

I do not trust the state with power over when a woman can menstruate. Unlike most people I know that say "a woman has a right over her own body," I say those words and actually mean them. My support for abortion rights does not derive from sophistic denial of a fetus' obvious personhood. If the state were to actively encourage abortion of unplanned pregnancies, it would in my view descend to the moral level of the PrC or the Nazi regime. Under such conditions, not only would I consider gendered marriage "less essential," I'd consider a good many other essential things (such as life, liberty, property, order, peace, and honesty) "less essential." Asking about marriage or liberty or peace or honesty in the context of a regime that promotes murder of innocents is like asking rape victims to rate the attractiveness of their assailants.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
How do you see the state's recognition of the term marriage as meaning exclusively "union of man and woman" as promoting such a union?
Because as Goodridge proved, when the state redefines marriage as anything else, it first has to deny the relevance of procreation to marriage. Change the state's interest in the marriage institution, and that changes the whole relationship. Marriage has evolved to fit the specific needs of the man/woman couple, including critical rules like PoP. "Broaden" the definition of marriage and the institution will evolve towards other purposes less clearly suited for the man and woman and their potential children.
This doesn't really answer my question (due in no small part to the vagueness of my question--I've had a hard time finding a way to best compose this inquiry). What I'm trying to understand is the mechanism through which the action "state-recognition-of-marriage-as-heterosexual-only" provides benefits to such an arrangement. What precisely are the benefits you believe to be provided to such a form, and how (in what way) are said benefits conferred?
Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What precisely are the benefits you believe to be provided to such a form, and how (in what way) are said benefits conferred?
I'm going to try to answer this to see if I understand Pete's position. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Lifetime, heterosexual, monogamous pair-bonding is counter to our natural tendencies, yet is the ideal relationship in which to raise children. Because of this, we require artificial promotion of such relationships by means of state recognition in order to sustain it. A key factor in the promotion of this ideal is the use of a distinct term, "Marriage"

Should the definition of marriage be extended to refer to both the ideal form and the non-ideal form, then the the ideal form will no longer be recognized as such.

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Matt-

I think your characterization matches my understanding of the argument, but again, this doesn't answer the question. In your response you refer to the underlying assumption that state recognition of this (exclusive) form as "marriage" confers benefits, but you don't address the question, which is: "What are those benefits (and how are they conferred by the act of exclusive state recognition)?"

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think preferential treatment by state-regulated or state-funded adoption agencies is the major one, but that's just a guess.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 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 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
What precisely are the benefits you believe to be provided to such a form, and how (in what way) are said benefits conferred?
I'm going to try to answer this to see if I understand Pete's position. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Lifetime, heterosexual, monogamous pair-bonding is counter to our natural tendencies, yet is the ideal relationship in which to raise children. Because of this, we require artificial promotion of such relationships by means of state recognition in order to sustain it. A key factor in the promotion of this ideal is the use of a distinct term, "Marriage"

Should the definition of marriage be extended to refer to both the ideal form and the non-ideal form, then the the ideal form will no longer be recognized as such.

That's some of it, Matt.

I'll add:
recognizing marriage as marriage, rather than as "heterosexual marriage," allows the state to develop and focus on interests that are pertinent to real marriage, i.e. potential procreation, etc. Neutering the marriage term would probably remove or alter mechanisms like PoP and other ideas that focus on the procreative potential of real marriages.

The most critical issue (but sadly not the only one) is that by refusing to redefine marriage as a neuter union of two persons, the state avoids forcing mangling use of the real term in the language. This takes us back to the first post of this thread, the "don't confuse my people" theme. The idea that a child needs a mother and a father is heavily embedded in the ideology of real marriage. That's not something that a responsible state wants to trample on. Real marriage is an idea that the state should promote, not obliterate. New ideas and family types don't obliterate the idea of marriage, so long as we leave the word marriage intact.

My fear is not merely that that real marriage won't be regarded as the ideal form. My fear is that marriage -- real marriage -- won't be understood at all. When you cast it as "heterosexual" marriage, that fundamentaly mis-states the idea, suggesting that marriage is about sexual orientation, and that the man and woman rule was an exclusion of gays rather than standing FOR something.

The term "traditional marriage" is even more repugnant, casting the whole ideal of raising children and channeling procreation into a vat with bride burning, spousal rape, and a zillion other obselete "traditions." To hell with that BS. What proves the value of real marriage is that the man/woman and lifelong elements cross cultures across the globe. This isn't a mere tradition; it developed independently across different traditions.

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 most important aspect of marriage is that it dissuades heterosexuals from making babies before they form a lifelong commitment to someone of the opposite sex. This is the state's #1 reason for promoting marriage as marriage. Any changes to the marriage institution that subvert that message, are inimical to marriage.

Like I've said before, neutered marriage is not the greatest threat that the institution could face. In 1971, a bunch of nihilists in Maryland proposed allowing "marriages" to expire after a 3 year period. The amazingly sophistic premise was to reduce the divorce numbers by making "marriages" that just lapsed on their own if you didn't renew them. Fortunately fixed term "marriages" or FT"M"s never caught on; the idea died in the water. But that would be another example of a subverting the word marriage to mean what it's never meant, and to pervert the whole function of giving children a mother and a father.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LeftyPatriot
Member
Member # 3584

 - posted      Profile for LeftyPatriot   Email LeftyPatriot       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some pagans have a marriage right that lasts for a year and a day, and must be renewed.

Seems to work just fine, actually...

Nihilist, ehh? And travelling in "bunches" in Maryland.

Marriage is about making babies? I am confused, cause I don't see how that is true in modern society. Life-long pair bonding might have made sense in the contet of property consolodation for the wealthy under prima geniter inherritance laws...

When people died at 27.

But in an age where people will likely be living over 100 years? Doesnt seem to work so well.

Which is why divorce is so common.

What is a nihilist? What were they doing in Maryland? How did they propose legislation? How do you know about it? Why would such a law be a bad idea?

Indeed having lived in Colorado I am probably "common law" married to my ex girlfriend.

What is wrong with a "common law" divorce?

"Mariage is a fiction, created by lawyer to justify the need for divorce lawyers." [Big Grin] [Wink]

[ January 25, 2007, 03:02 AM: Message edited by: LeftyPatriot ]

Posts: 136 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  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:
"Mariage is a fiction, created by lawyer to justify the need for divorce lawyers."
Thank you. That's exactly the sort of nihilistic (i.e. "meaning-obliterating") claptrap that identifies those whom we should not allow to redefine marriage. If you see no value in marriage, then you obviously have nothing to contribute with regard to preserving that value.

Since Pagan is a term that certain religions use to identify outsiders, you might as well talk about what certain "gentiles" do. "Pagans" isn't a cohesive group or culture, but has become a reaction to a culture, a counter-culture. Saying what "some pagans" DO, in the present tense, suggests a modern fad. You've given no facts to show that it "works just fine," or indeed, what it's supposed to accomplish.

quote:
Wow, Marriage is about making babies? I am confused
You certainly are, if you sincerely believe that I said that marriage is about making babies. Legal marriage exists to deal with the fact that a man and a woman are likely to make babies together, but if you think that means "marriage is about reading babies," then go back to the top of the thread and start reading.

What do nihilists do in Maryland? I imagine the same as they tried to do in Maryland in 1971, same as they did before and since in other places. Mangling ideas into meaninglessness, using tools that range from deconstruction, to the old fashioned, tried and true methods such as misrepresentation and playing stupid. Trying to get others confused along with them. Telling folks that good is evil, that sex is a form of masturbation that happens to include two or more players, that the existence of the color grey disproves the existence of black and white, and that a contract for a year and a day of sexual services is a form of marriage, and that an institution that pre-dates the rule of law was invented by lawyers [Roll Eyes] .

Have I missed any highlights?

[ January 25, 2007, 03:12 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

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 
quote:
Indeed having lived in Colorado I am probably "common law" married to my ex girlfriend.
What is wrong with a "common law" divorce?

Well, that depends what you mean by that term "common-law divorce," assuming that you mean anything coherent, which is kind of a stretch of an assumption given your other meaning-obliterating statements.

Please prove me wrong. Explain to me what it is that you're acting as if you're arguing for. What does "common law divorce" mean to you, precisely?

Because honestly, it sounds like you're throwing words together that you don't grasp, for no other purpose but to make the terms sound meaningless to others. And that's nihilism in a nutshell, or at least the most prevalent form, Dadaism.

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:
The most important aspect of marriage is that it dissuades heterosexuals from making babies before they form a lifelong commitment to someone of the opposite sex. This is the state's #1 reason for promoting marriage as marriage.
I know you found my abortion question reprehensible, but I'll ask it again: why would promoting abortion as an alternative to unwanted birth not be as useful as marriage in this regard, if the end goal is to prevent the birth of babies to sub-optimal parents?
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:
I know you found my abortion question reprehensible
I hope you understand that wasn't a criticism of you. I thought I emphasized that I understand that you aren't proposing that; IIRC you're pro-life.

quote:
but I'll ask it again: why would promoting abortion as an alternative to unwanted birth not be as useful as marriage in this regard, if the end goal is to prevent the birth of babies to sub-optimal parents?
If the goal was to end war or crime, would eradicating the human race be useful in that regard?

If the goal was to end religious persecution, would eliminating religion be useful in that regard?

You're talking about a final solution that pretty much buggers the initial question.

Besides, I did actually answer your question: yes, your hypo *would* reduce the importance. Just as eliminating religion would reduce the need for dialogue to establish religious tolerance. Just as exterminating the vast majority of the human race would reduce the need for international peace treaties.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LeftyPatriot
Member
Member # 3584

 - posted      Profile for LeftyPatriot   Email LeftyPatriot       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete@, I think that if you give up the label and concept of nihilism, which at best ou overuse, you might have more luck making sense.

Or not, since you claim marriage is about people who are likely to be making babies. How bout people marrying in their sixties? Why is that ok? Clearly post-menopausal women should be barred from marriage, and infertile men..

As to your dismissal of Paganism, how very nice for you label and dismiss the actions of another marginalized religious group. Good people most Pagans I know-and I have seen some very good child rearing in Pagan households, which are often very unconventional.

Although their basic religious model with a dual gendered diety seems to go along with your position. But the God and The Goddess are not off ranting about "nihilist," who apparently are anyone who disagree with Pete@ on social matters.

As for your claims, at best they are "facts not yet in evidence" and at worst you just plain ignore arguments that society and peole do not fit into your neat pidgeon holes.

You ducked questions I raised about monogamy being an outated model centered on property and not children.

You ducked the point I raised about how long life spans make it obolete and ill fitted to modern life.

You duck the question about how comon law divorce might be beneficial-based on social policy, not your beloved nihilism.

Reminds me of the guy whose only tool was a hammer. All the world looked like nails to him.

[ January 25, 2007, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: LeftyPatriot ]

Posts: 136 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  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 
*nod* I think I see what you're saying, Pete. I have to admit that a pro-choice position which does not deny the value and personhood of the fetus is occasionally difficult for me to get my head around. [Smile]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TLynch
Member
Member # 3581

 - posted      Profile for TLynch   Email TLynch   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Marriage is only as sacred as the two people who are joining in the union of marriage consider it sacred. Some do not consider marriage to be as sacred as others do. I think it is important to respect those citizens who believe that the union of marriage ought to be sacred.

This is also where I have a problem with political correctness. It is only practiced selectively, since if something like gay marriage truly offends every moral fiber of a person who thinks marriage is the most sacred thing on Earth then are we not just ignoring their sensibilities just because they do not believe in the same things as the other side believes?

Whereas we are told to respect and to not offend other races and cultures, including Islamic beliefs(which do not hold women in high regard), yet those same people then try to force the Christians of America to change their beliefs to fit their view point and to pander to the wishes of one specific group.

Does that not bother anyone else here when you think about it? To give special treatment to certain groups at the expense of another groups closely held beliefs goes against everything political correctness stands for does it not? Not only that, but it has helped create a vast schism in this country politically.

I think Civil Unions are a great compromise that regular christians have allowed to happen, but apparently that isn't enough so now we are getting this battle to deny christians their most closely held beliefs about marriage because a small minority group demands to distort the christian meanings of marriage.

And it is a distortion because it says in the bible a marriage is a union between a man and a woman. I may not be as against gay marriage as most christians, but I do see their point and why they are generally upset over this debate.

The civil unions offer all the same advantages as marriage, but without many of the tax penalties. I wish I could get a civil union with my wife, INSTEAD of a marriage. lol Simply because it would save us money each year...but I was told to get lost when I inquired with the government about it.

That is just my opinion though, it is a hot button issue that enrages peoples emotions. Eventually I think Christians will lose the battle, much like they have lost every other ideological battle in the last 30-40 years. It's a one sided war, and Christians don't have the financial backing and voice in the media that the other side has. [Wink] Such is the way of things.

[ January 25, 2007, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: TLynch ]

Posts: 267 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LeftyPatriot
Member
Member # 3584

 - posted      Profile for LeftyPatriot   Email LeftyPatriot       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Indeed, is that not the point of fetushood per se? That an unborn baby, especially very early in term, is not a person?

"Every sperm is sacred..."

Posts: 136 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  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 LeftyPatriot:
Pete@, I think that if you give up the label and concept of nihilism, which at best ou overuse, you might have more luck making sense.

Or not, since you claim marriage is about people who are likely to be making babies. How bout people marrying in their sixties? Why is that ok? Clearly post-menopausal women should be barred from marriage, and infertile men...

quote:
As to your dismissal of Paganism, how very nice for you label and dismiss the actions of another marginalized religious group.
I did not dismiss paganism, nor do I dismiss the actions. I dismiss that pagans are a "religious groups." You're the one that's using a label here. The term "pagan" is a derogatory term used by Christians and other groups to describe outsiders, and recently has been adopted by certain counterculture movements. You are dodging my question of which specific group you were referring to with that incredibly misleading label, and also dodging my question of how long this supposed practice has been in play.


quote:
Good people most Pagans I know-and I have seen some very good child rearing in Pagan households, which are often very unconventional.
Why do you get so self-righteous when I ask you to be more specific and to verify your claims? There are many definitions of pagan, and I have no fragging idea which one you're operating with.

quote:
You ducked questions I raised about monogamy being an outated model centered on property and not children.
That doesn't sound like a question.

quote:
You ducked the point I raised about how long life spans make it obolete and ill fitted to modern life.
I answered that "point" before you made it. Again: if marriage is obsolete, then why do you need to hijack the name? Introduce new models under new names, and let them compete on their own merits.

quote:
You duck the question about how comon law divorce might be beneficial-based on social policy, not your beloved nihilism.
I did not duck the question: I asked you what the hell you meant by "common law divorce," since I can't answer your stupid question without understanding your terms. If I ask you why a glurbg is dissled, and you ask me what glurbg and dissled are, only a complete ass would accuse you of "ducking the question."
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 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
*nod* I think I see what you're saying, Pete. I have to admit that a pro-choice position which does not deny the value and personhood of the fetus is occasionally difficult for me to get my head around. [Smile]

It's basically the same old pro-choice argument, the one that they make to the public, except I actually believe it and don't turn around and make a different argument to the court. That the state lacks the constitutional authority to tell a woman when she can menstruate, that free societies have traditionally stayed out of such decisions, and that powers traditionally reserved to the people, remain reserved the people under the 9th amendment.

[ January 25, 2007, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LeftyPatriot
Member
Member # 3584

 - posted      Profile for LeftyPatriot   Email LeftyPatriot       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pagans are religious groups. You may deny it if you want. Many closed minded types deny Mormons are Christians. Same thing.

People who follow the old ways. Witches. Pagans That tere are different groups in beliefs does not make the use of the term Pagan less precise than the use of the term "Christian" or "Protestant"

Still ducking the questions.

[ January 25, 2007, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: LeftyPatriot ]

Posts: 136 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LeftyPatriot
Member
Member # 3584

 - posted      Profile for LeftyPatriot   Email LeftyPatriot       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As to calling my questions "stupid," that is one way of trying to support ducking out of them. Personal attacks as substitute for substantial argument is popular some places.

And read the post. Common law divorce seems to be what the "nihilists" in Maryland were doing.

Posts: 136 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  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 
"It's basically the same old pro-choice argument"

Is your position not also based on an implicit resolution to conflicting rights - specifically the right to life and the security of the person?

Outside of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, is there not also an equivalent in domestic US law?

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  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 LeftyPatriot:
Pagans are religious groups. You may deny it if you want.

I don't deny it. I asked you which specific pagan religious group that you're referring to, since Pagan is an umbrella term, to a much broader extend than "Christian" is an umbrella term. Why are you acting as if I've slurred pagans by asking you to identify the group?

If I told you that some Christians marry for eternity rather until death do you part, and you asked, which Christian group does that, I would not pretend that you'd slurred Christians generally or mormons particularly. I'd answer the fragging question. Why don't you?

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 
quote:
Originally posted by LeftyPatriot:
And read the post. Common law divorce seems to be what the "nihilists" in Maryland were doing.

In which post did you explain this? Please quote.
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 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
"It's basically the same old pro-choice argument"

Is your position not also based on an implicit resolution to conflicting rights - specifically the right to life and the security of the person?

Outside of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, is there not also an equivalent in domestic US law?

Yes and no. Yes, the US constitutional jurisprudence does deal conflicting rights, particularly in terms of life interest, liberty interest, and property interest, in that order of hierarchy. But AFAIK, the court has never opened the life interest to more than a right to not be killed, wheras I think of certain reproductive and famillial interests as life interests, wheras US courts usually characterize them as liberty interests or even in a couple horrible cases like Lafferty, as property interests (Lafferty treated a mother's right to maintain contact with her child as a mere "property" interest in order to justify severing all parental rights *without* giving her a state-appointed lawyer). [Frown]

There was one case where the court seemed to treat the right to not be tortured as something even more basic and essential than a liberty interest, although AFAIK they didn't specifically call it a life interest. The court seemed to say that a right to not being tortured into false confessions was simply so basic and obvious as to not require articulation in the constitution. They recognized that the right against self-incrimination did apply, but also made clear that the actual right at stake was far more basic and fundamental to any civilized society.

If we preserved the life-liberty-property hierarchy strictly, and maintained the doctrine that a life interests meant only an interest against getting killed, then the constitution would justify torturing someone in order to save another person's life. I don't think we should read it that way. Some violations are even less acceptable than homicide.

[ January 25, 2007, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LeftyPatriot
Member
Member # 3584

 - posted      Profile for LeftyPatriot   Email LeftyPatriot       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,@, I am sorry. I referred to common law marriage, said common law divorce might be a good idea. I am ohh so sorry you didn't follow, do you understand now?

As to a "specific" Pagan group, I wasn't. Bonding for a year and a day seems common in several traditions-and in Celtic history, for that matter.

But that just goes to show you-more than one way to skin a cat, and more than one way to provide children with the support they need.

But I guess denying that lets you suport descrimination.

Posts: 136 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  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 
Pete, you understand that I was talking about the unborn person's right to life and security of its person, right?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  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 LeftyPatriot:
Pete,@, I am sorry. I referred to common law marriage, said common law divorce might be a good idea. I am ohh so sorry you didn't follow, do you understand now?

No. Do you? I know what Common Law marriage is (although you apparently don't since you don't even know if you're in one [Roll Eyes] ). I've never heard of "common law divorce." Your continued refusal to define the statement supports my original suspicion that you just strung words together to obliterate meaning, like a Dadaist.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dada

quote:
2. a nihilistic art movement (especially in painting) that flourished in Europe early in the 20th century; based on irrationality and negation of the accepted laws of beauty
quote:
As to a "specific" Pagan group, I wasn't.
You weren't what? Make some sense, if you remember how.


quote:
Bonding for a year and a day seems common in several traditions-and in Celtic history, for that matter.
Ah. Do you admit that you have no basis for calling these "bonding" relationships "marriage," or do you have actual evidence that Celts referred to the relationships by the same word that they used for real marriage, i.e. the lifelong union of man and woman?


quote:
But that just goes to show you-more than one way to skin a cat, and more than one way to provide children with the support they need.
And where is your evidenc that these year+day "bonding" relationships served this purpose as well as real marriage?


quote:
But I guess denying that lets you suport descrimination.
Do lay off those boring motive inferences. When I ask you to be specific, it's not a conspiracy. I can't "deny" assertions that you haven't made, and when you spout vague pseudoclaims about the practices of "Pagan" religion (as if there was only one [Roll Eyes] ), or yap about "common law divorce" without indicating what the hell you're talking about, you haven't said anything worth denying, let alone affirming.

[ January 25, 2007, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lady Starkiller
Member
Member # 2444

 - posted      Profile for Lady Starkiller   Email Lady Starkiller   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Er... Typically, I'm only jumping in to nitpick.

quote:
Pagans are religious groups. ... People who follow the old ways. Witches. Pagans That tere are different groups in beliefs does not make the use of the term Pagan less precise than the use of the term "Christian" or "Protestant"
1. It is less precise; "Christian", at least, allows one to reasonably assume that all the disparate groups under that umbrella believe in Christ, in some way. "Pagan" carries no such underpinning philosophy with it. There are Asatruar, Wiccans, Traditional Witches (for a given value of traditional), Dianics, various Reconstructionists... The list goes on. A much more apt comparison would be between the terms "Christian" and "Wiccan", since both are terms for religions that have a number of distinct sects, and yet still have underlying beliefs common to all those sects.

2. Many self-described Pagans I know would slap you for the conflations you make in the last part that I quoted. Pagan =/= witch =/= "follower of the old ways". A "follower of the old ways" can self-describe as a witch or a pagan, and a witch can describe himself as a pagan, but there are just as many self-described pagans out there who consider "witch" an insult as there are who proudly claim it. There are also plenty of "pagans" out there ready and willing to admit that their personal religion is new (for example, many honest Wiccans).

Posts: 434 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LeftyPatriot
Member
Member # 3584

 - posted      Profile for LeftyPatriot   Email LeftyPatriot       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete @, I am soo sorry you would rather play word games than discuss issues in a serious way. I guess I gave you too much credit.

I understand common law marriage just fine. Thanks.

You claim you do as well. So why does the concept of common law divorce (which does not exist, but mirrors common law marriage--don't live together, say you not married and "poof" divorce) such a huge barrier to you?

Sort of like what, perhaps, was being suggested in Maryland. But who would know from your description, with no link?

I would have congratulated you on not missusing the word nihilist in a post but there you had to go and use it again. All the world looks like nails.

As to "proof," what proof would you like? I have seen many healthy children produced by this and other non-traditional social models.

I daily deal with kids effed up big time by "traditional" male female pair bondings.

There are a lot of different models of marriage; the one you offer as perfection is relatively modern and uncommon. I haven't seen you offer proof to the contrary, despite it seemingly being the main point of your life. I have made it through the first three pages of the thread so far, and find people asking you for it and yet no answer from you, no evidence.

Sort of like your ducking the other questions I asked you. Quack.

Lady S.--Sure, there is a lot of variance. But there is in Christianity too. For instance some deny Mormons are Christians, or Catholics, or...

And so far I don't think followers of the God and Goddess are shedding blood over it.

As to being slapped, most Pagans I know are self defense pacifists. So I doubt they would slap me, not wanting it to return three fold unto them.

Posts: 136 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lady Starkiller
Member
Member # 2444

 - posted      Profile for Lady Starkiller   Email Lady Starkiller   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But again, there's not the connection between various Christian groups. Mormonism and Catholicism, for example, both clearly stem from the same (basic, very basic) religious philosophy that brought about the Protestant denominations, or Eastern Orthodox, and so on, and they all share a holy book (more or less).

There are no such commonalities uniting various "pagan" groups. Not all, by a long shot, come from the same tradition. Not all believe in a God and a Goddess - some only believe in a Goddess, some believe in a whole pantheon...

And the threefold law is almost exclusively Wiccan, not "pagan" in a broader sense.

Like I said, it'd be a more accurate comparison if you compared, say, Wiccans as a group to Christians as a group. All Wiccan sects are ultimately derived from a single source (Gerald Gardner) and, despite wild variances, all share the same basic underlying philosophy.

(I know, I know, I'm nitpicking again. It's what I do. And, frankly, the use of "paganism" as a blanket term for Wicca and superficially similar religions annoys the hell out of me.)

Posts: 434 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LeftyPatriot
Member
Member # 3584

 - posted      Profile for LeftyPatriot   Email LeftyPatriot       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry it annoys you. I find it reasonable accurate and useful.

But understand your point and consider my nit well picked.

For the purpose of the actual conversation, my point stands.

Posts: 136 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lady Starkiller
Member
Member # 2444

 - posted      Profile for Lady Starkiller   Email Lady Starkiller   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I know. Like I said, nitpicking. [Big Grin] Thanks for taking said nitpicking so well.
Posts: 434 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LeftyPatriot
Member
Member # 3584

 - posted      Profile for LeftyPatriot   Email LeftyPatriot       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LS, I Understand where your comming from. and wouldn't mind getting into a discussion over some good beer.
Posts: 136 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  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 LeftyPatriot:
I understand common law marriage just fine. Thanks.

If you understand it correctly, then you're being disingenuous when you said that you're not sure whether you are in a common law marriage. If you are not sure whether you are in a common law marriage, then you are clueless about what common law marriage means. It's really that simple.

I checked with a family law professor that I work with, just to make sure that it wasn't me that had it mixed up. Sharp guy -- Louisiana legislature hired him back in the 1980s to help update a few marriage laws that were grossly unfair to women, after one of the laws clearly fell short of constitutional muster. So why don't you tell me what you think that "common law divorce" means, and give my boss a good laugh?

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 
Thanks for setting him strait, LS. He obviously wasn't going to take it from me; kept assuming that I was trying to demean "the Pagan religion" [sic] -- as if there were only one. Am I correct that it's improper to capitalize the word "pagan"?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lady Starkiller
Member
Member # 2444

 - posted      Profile for Lady Starkiller   Email Lady Starkiller   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Am I correct that it's improper to capitalize the word "pagan"?
Er... That depends. Many followers of reconstructionist, "traditional", "earth-based" religions such as Wicca do self-identify as Pagans to associate themselves more broadly with other disparate traditions. (Interestingly, almost all of the groups that fall under the neo-pagan/pagan label, in Pagan usage, are rooted in Western European traditions, to some extent. Self-described Pagans rarely use the term to include, say, Buddhists or a Native American tradition.) It can also be a useful term for someone following a non-traditional religion or an individual one.

I tend to capitalize it when referring to the cross-religious Pagan networking, or when a person or group refers to themselves as Pagans, because I believe in using the names people choose for themselves, and as a name it is a proper noun. Otherwise, though, I don't, and I tend not to capitalize it when in doubt (or when I'm not paying attention).

But that's the thing - Paganism with a capital P is a cross-religious movement/network/whatever. It's not a coherent philosophy. It's not a single religion, even in the sense of one with lots of sects. There are even, shock of shocks, self-described Christian Pagans, as much of a contradiction in terms as that seems.

...Woo. Long reply to a simple question.

LeftyPatriot, as is probably abundantly clear by now (she says sheepishly), I'm always up for a good discussion. [Big Grin]

[ January 26, 2007, 02:56 AM: Message edited by: Lady Starkiller ]

Posts: 434 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lady Starkiller
Member
Member # 2444

 - posted      Profile for Lady Starkiller   Email Lady Starkiller   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Er... That post wasn't at all clear.

When I refer to the cross-religious Pagan movement, above, it's a specific thing, not a general thing. Paganism in general doesn't get a capital letter: "pagan religions of the twentieth century" would be lowercase. "This site is part of a Pagan webring" would be capitalized.

I'm really not sure that's any clearer.

Posts: 434 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LeftyPatriot
Member
Member # 3584

 - posted      Profile for LeftyPatriot   Email LeftyPatriot       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, our side discussion does not "set me strait." She is ntpicking in a way irrelevant to OUR discussion.

There are many differant shapes of marriage. Your (unsupported, and am now four pages through the thread) claim that man/woman pairing i "universal" is completely nsupported through them all...

While several good counterexamples have been offered, and ignored by you.

I deal with the effed up product of the "natural" model you advocate all day every day. I know many differently arranged families that work very well and produce healthy offspring.

You seem to have a pattern of ignoring those who ask for evidence, insulting them and shifting the discussion.

Posts: 136 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LeftyPatriot
Member
Member # 3584

 - posted      Profile for LeftyPatriot   Email LeftyPatriot       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by LeftyPatriot:
I understand common law marriage just fine. Thanks.

If you understand it correctly, then you're being disingenuous when you said that you're not sure whether you are in a common law marriage. If you are not sure whether you are in a common law marriage, then you are clueless about what common law marriage means. It's really that simple.

I checked with a family law professor that I work with, just to make sure that it wasn't me that had it mixed up. Sharp guy -- Louisiana legislature hired him back in the 1980s to help update a few marriage laws that were grossly unfair to women, after one of the laws clearly fell short of constitutional muster. So why don't you tell me what you think that "common law divorce" means, and give my boss a good laugh?

Sometimes your a hard guy to speak civily to.

1) I am not sure-see, goes like this, No paper says we are married. We no longer describe ourselves as married. I do not intend getting a divorce, and when I marry I do not expect to be seen b the law as a bigamist. So it is sort of a grey area, and not "disengenous."

But technically, kinda, we are married. In colorado it can be as easy as cohabitating for one night. In theory I am a serial bigamist. But I guss that isnt black n white enough for you, ehh? Do you see the grey now oh insulting one?

2) Common law divorce was my idea. A simple concept. Yes, run it by a thousand lawyers-that is relevant. Yuk yuk. That is relevant and insightful (is there a sarcasm font? Do yah FEEL the wind rushing by your hair?

WOOSH

3) Still haven't addressed the issues raised. I won't claim it is disengenous. Perhaps you just forgot?

for a couple...

You say "Bunch" of "Nihilists" attempted to implement what I was describing as "common law divorce."

Proof they are nihilists? Explanation of what a nihilist is, in this context-Euro Art movement people travelling in bunches to legislate American laws? That does not make ANY sense?

Oh, and links to evidence about the law, so we can evaluate and discuss it's merits? Yuo clam it is bad...

Did your family law prof bother imparting the legal term, "facts not in evidence" to you?

2)

Posts: 136 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LeftyPatriot
Member
Member # 3584

 - posted      Profile for LeftyPatriot   Email LeftyPatriot       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"
LeftyPatriot, as is probably abundantly clear by now (she says sheepishly), I'm always up for a good discussion.

Cool, can we do it someplace where we won't confuse the children?

[ January 26, 2007, 03:19 AM: Message edited by: LeftyPatriot ]

Posts: 136 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9   

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