We are not creating some moral free-for-all by recognizing homosexual relationships. Homosexuality is a part of the human condition and it denies homosexuals the ability to fully lead their lifes when their relationships are restricted or not recognized. And furthermore western societies have come to recognize this. I don't think other types of relationships meet the test of being part of every human society to a not insubstantial degree and a substantial acceptance in society. If you put this test to whatever relationship you are talking about and the result is that such relationships have been rare in human societies and that there is no acceptance of them in our own, then I think you rest easy that the relationship will not be recognized.

freeman3 wrote:We are not creating some moral free-for-all by recognizing homosexual relationships. Homosexuality is a part of the human condition and it denies homosexuals the ability to fully lead their lifes when their relationships are restricted or not recognized. And furthermore western societies have come to recognize this. I don't think other types of relationships meet the test of being part of every human society to a not insubstantial degree and a substantial acceptance in society. If you put this test to whatever relationship you are talking about and the result is that such relationships have been rare in human societies and that there is no acceptance of them in our own, then I think you rest easy that the relationship will not be recognized.

Key words: "I think."

Your opinion, while valuable, is not determinative, either legally or morally.

Doctor Fate wrote:Key words: "I think."

Your opinion, while valuable, is not determinative, either legally or morally.

I think that safely goes for all contributions to this site.

I saw this today:

I'm not anti-vegetarian myself- indeed one of my best friends is a vegetarian- but I do find myself choking with barely suppressed rage every time she eats a quorn sausage. The definition of a sausage is the insides of an animal ground up and put inside an intestine. That's not prejudice, that's just the way it has always been. That's the definition of the word "sausage"- vegetarians should give it back. They already have carrots, why do they need sausages as well?

Can't think what made me think of this debate

danivon wrote:I saw this today:

I'm not anti-vegetarian myself- indeed one of my best friends is a vegetarian- but I do find myself choking with barely suppressed rage every time she eats a quorn sausage. The definition of a sausage is the insides of an animal ground up and put inside an intestine. That's not prejudice, that's just the way it has always been. That's the definition of the word "sausage"- vegetarians should give it back. They already have carrots, why do they need sausages as well?

Can't think what made me think of this debate

Is there a double meaning in this?

I think Dan is noting that a non-vegetarian being upset that vegetarians have changed the definition of a sausage to include non-meat is analogous to someone being upset that the definition of marriage has been changed to include same-sex marriages. Or something like that.

freeman3 wrote:I think Dan is noting that a non-vegetarian being upset that vegetarians have changed the definition of a sausage to include non-meat is analogous to someone being upset that the definition of marriage has been changed to include same-sex marriages. Or something like that.

I was being more tongue in cheek than that.

Tom

Now we see courts changing the entire definition of marriage not simply as to how state laws are applied to the institution.

The complaints by some that the courts shouldn't be defining marriage seems really odd to me. It requires one to misunderstand the role of courts, and particularly the use of Scotus in addressing how a citizens rights are to be defined and interpreted in every day life...
Surely a citizen has a right to go to court to assert their rights?
And surely the courts have a role to play in setting down a definition of what is appropriate according to their interpretation of the constitution...
The changes to how marriage is defined legally are not the first...
In 1898 it was determined that races could be treated in a "seperate but equal" manner and that was constitutional. (Kind of like Toms ideas on marriage ...)
It took half a century but eventually the SCOTUS reversed that interpretation....which lead to a whirlwind of change in civil rights.
Thats now about to happen with gay marriage, but much faster.... (see article from AP)
I don't disagree with Fate that its a logical step for proponents of polygamy to see this as a way to advance acceptance of their marriages .... I just fundamentally disagree that the courts exist in some vacuum outside of society that allows them to discount entirely the accepted mores of society. If there is any evidence that other kinds of marriage, have the potential to harm anyone then the courts will continue to allow discriminatory laws prohibiting them. And there's no real evidence that there is potential for change on the matter.... Indeed, the continued prosecutions of sects that practice polygamy are evidence that the prohibitions are popular, and unlikely to face significant popular pressure to be liberalized.

It's a predictable next step in a long-term, incremental legal strategy that is being used at both the state and federal levels, and in state legislatures and executive mansions as well as the courts, to build public and official acceptance of gay marriage. Much the same approach was used decades ago by civil rights lawyers fighting state-sanctioned discrimination; one decision becomes a steppingstone to the next.

When civil rights lawyers began their decades long quest to end official discrimination against black Americans, they pursued cases in state and federal courts that typically stopped short of the ultimate goal of overturning the Supreme Court decree in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 that "separate but equal" treatment of the races was permitted by the Constitution.

In a series of cases, the court chipped away at discrimination in higher education, including its 1950 decision in Sweatt v. Painter that said the University of Texas had to admit a black student to its law school because the one it created for black students did not offer an equivalent education. But even in June 1950, the court refused to re-examine the Plessy case.

Four more years elapsed before the court issued its seminal ruling in Brown v. Board of Education outlawing discrimination in public schools.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... TE=DEFAULT

Ricky, do you not read what we write? Over and over and over I mentioned the dictionary definition of marriage. I mentioned how I agreed with you in that laws were interpreted this way or that in relation to the legalities of marriage yet the dictionary definition of the word was not changed by courts. When blacks were not allowed to marry whites, that was how the law was applied to that dictionary definition, it was wrong and the courts insisted it be interpreted differently. Same sex couples are equal but they are not the same. Men and women are equal but quite different. Gays should be equal but please do not try and say they are the SAME, they simply are not. Forcing us to change a dictionary definition to try and make us the "same" is wrong.

Yet you continue to say the same thing over and over and over and over....

Tom. you're even wrong about the dictionary... Though what authority you think a dictionary has on society I don't know.
From Dictionary.com see specifically 2.b
mar·riage
noun
1.
a legally, religiously, or socially sanctioned union of persons who commit to one another, forming a familial and economic bond: Anthropologists say that some type of marriage has been found in every society, past and present.
2. a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender, as in gay marriage; same-sex marriage .
3.
the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: They have a happy marriage. Synonyms: matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness.
4.
the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment.
5.
a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage

changed due to courts forcing that required addendum
so we have this definition around for thousands of years, a court forces something different so the dictionary creates a new definition because of the courts and you want to claim the courts simply enforced what had always been there?
..hardly convincing is it?

Tom

changed due to courts forcing that required addendum
so we have this definition around for thousands of years, a court forces something different so the dictionary creates a new definition because of the courts and you want to claim the courts simply enforced what had always been there?
..hardly convincing is it

I don't "want to claim that courts simply enforced what was already there.... "
I don't understand how you think this is what i'm saying.
I'm saying that the the courts are doing their job of applying the law and their interpretation of the constitution to a case brought before them where people are seeking protection for their constitutional rights. They have a right to do so. And the courts have a duty to rule.
You're saying, unless I am misconstruing, that this doesn't change the definition of marriage.
I'm saying it does indeed change the definition of marriage. . first: legally and second in common usage.
The common usage for a word has no bearing on the courts decision. But the courts decision has an immediate impact on the meaning of the word. And already has.... (Witness dictionary.com)

From dictionary.com's definition of marriage ....

In crafting definitions for a word that represents an institution that is rapidly evolving, the dictionary may well have to keep adding, changing, and reordering senses, splitting or combining them as the institution changes. Inevitably, those who want to preserve what they cherish as traditional values will resist new definitions, while those who anticipate, welcome, and fight for societal change will be impatient when new definitions do not appear as quickly as they would wish. [b]But we should all remember that while it is not the job of a dictionary to drive social change, it is inevitable that it will reflect such change. [/b

]

The world has changed Tom... and already language is changing to reflect those changes...

rickyp wrote:Tom

changed due to courts forcing that required addendum
so we have this definition around for thousands of years, a court forces something different so the dictionary creates a new definition because of the courts and you want to claim the courts simply enforced what had always been there?
..hardly convincing is it

I don't "want to claim that courts simply enforced what was already there.... "
I don't understand how you think this is what i'm saying.
I'm saying that the the courts are doing their job of applying the law and their interpretation of the constitution to a case brought before them where people are seeking protection for their constitutional rights. They have a right to do so. And the courts have a duty to rule.
You're saying, unless I am misconstruing, that this doesn't change the definition of marriage.
I'm saying it does indeed change the definition of marriage. . first: legally and second in common usage.
The common usage for a word has no bearing on the courts decision. But the courts decision has an immediate impact on the meaning of the word. And already has.... (Witness dictionary.com)

From dictionary.com's definition of marriage ....

In crafting definitions for a word that represents an institution that is rapidly evolving, the dictionary may well have to keep adding, changing, and reordering senses, splitting or combining them as the institution changes. Inevitably, those who want to preserve what they cherish as traditional values will resist new definitions, while those who anticipate, welcome, and fight for societal change will be impatient when new definitions do not appear as quickly as they would wish. [b]But we should all remember that while it is not the job of a dictionary to drive social change, it is inevitable that it will reflect such change. [/b

]

The world has changed Tom... and already language is changing to reflect those changes...

Yes, "the world has changed" says the authority on world change.

Did the world change when the US outlawed alcohol?

Did it change when Utah abandoned polygamy?

Did it change when Roe passed?

The answer is "yes, but . . . not unalterably."

The same is true now.

You think same-sex marriage is a boulder running down a slope. Maybe it is, but maybe it's not. Pendulums tend to swing. When you look at it at a given moment and conclude that's where it always will be, you err.

fate

You think same-sex marriage is a boulder running down a slope. Maybe it is, but maybe it's not. Pendulums tend to swing. When you look at it at a given moment and conclude that's where it always will be, you err.

I agree with you that things change constantly. In fact I've always argued that ... Therefore I do not err....
And I also know that the SCOTUS has changed the way it views the Constitution.
The change in interpretation regarding seperate but equal treatment under the law, allowed as Constittuional in 1898, but deemed unconstittuional in 1954 .... demonstrates that even the way the Constitution is interpreted and applied changes...
I think that once a society accepts and tolerates new liberties for larger groups of people ... those liberties tend to be protected and grow ever more..
Trying to take away a liberty enjoyed (say access to alcohol) rarely survives the backlash.
The notion that there will be a backlash and that gays will suddenly find the courts and public opinion taking their protection to equal access under the law away ... is delusional..
You can't unring the bell of freedom!!!!

rickyp wrote:fate

You think same-sex marriage is a boulder running down a slope. Maybe it is, but maybe it's not. Pendulums tend to swing. When you look at it at a given moment and conclude that's where it always will be, you err.

I agree with you that things change constantly. In fact I've always argued that ... Therefore I do not err..../quote]

Please point me to ONE time you said something like, "gay marriage may not always enjoy the level of support it does now."

Go ahead.

You can't.

You've always pointed to polls and said it was inevitable. You have NEVER said that the pendulum could go the other way on this. And, in fact, you (see below) refute your own argument.

I think that once a society accepts and tolerates new liberties for larger groups of people ... those liberties tend to be protected and grow ever more..

As long as it's not freedom of speech, which you would like to see regulated.

Trying to take away a liberty enjoyed (say access to alcohol) rarely survives the backlash.
The notion that there will be a backlash and that gays will suddenly find the courts and public opinion taking their protection to equal access under the law away ... is delusional..
You can't unring the bell of freedom!!!![

Thus contradicting your earlier statement. Well done. I expect no less from you.

Btw, the "bell of freedom," with regard to abortion . . . is it ringing a little less loudly?