Solution to Gay Marriage issue

[hornadylnl]

Thank you. Your question makes my point precisely.

The point of my question is that not all words have a precise or quantifiable meaning. I think the hangup on redefining the word is a cop out for most. How you define your marriage has no effect on how I define mine.

"Notify the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary: the word "plenty" has been redefined to mean "two"." - Sheldon Cooper

 

[foszoe]

The point of my question is that not all words have a precise or quantifiable meaning. I think the hangup on redefining the word is a cop out for most. How you define your marriage has no effect on how I define mine.

"Notify the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary: the word "plenty" has been redefined to mean "two"." - Sheldon Cooper

How words are defined have definite impacts on all of us.

To deny that reduces any discussion to a frivolous pursuit.

Few is a term that Should ONLY be used when a determinate number is unknown. Just as most in your statement above. What you are basically saying is you are comfortable with two being defined as few or three or 4 or between x and y yet if I ask you the definition of few you wont reply with an answer of 2 or 3 or an answer of any specific number why is that? You are not defining plenty as two you are defining two as few.

 

[gunowner930]

Where do we draw the line?

Can a mother marry her adult son?
Can a father marry his adult daughter?
Can a man marry two women if he loves them both?

You draw the line at consenting adult humans. I think all three should be legal.

 

[Yup!]

You draw the line at consenting adult humans. I think all three should be legal.

Seems reasonable.

 

[hornadylnl]

Where do we draw the line?

Can a mother marry her adult son?
Can a father marry his adult daughter?
Can a man marry two women if he loves them both?

You draw the line at consenting adult humans. I think all three should be legal.

Seems reasonable.

We all know the only thing preventing the combinations above from doing the freak nasty is the lack of a state sanctioned marriage.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

We all know the only thing preventing the combinations above from doing the freak nasty is the lack of a state sanctioned marriage.

Used to be a time the only thing required was a sense of common decency and a regard as to how you'd answer your maker for your decisions.

Probably, if you searched the bowels of the internet, you can find people willing to satisfy these needs, describe their own exploits, or find support groups advocating for these aggrieved classes of people.

 

[GBuck]

Used to be a time the only thing required was a sense of common decency and a regard as to how you'd answer your maker for your decisions.

Yup... back before murder, rape, theft and terorrism... I remember that time well. Or, does your statement only apply to sexual actions with which you do not agree?

 

[hornadylnl]

Used to be a time the only thing required was a sense of common decency and a regard as to how you'd answer your maker for your decisions.

I don't need the government to play mediator between my Maker and I. I'm certainly not going to play mediator for others.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yup... back before murder, rape, theft and terorrism... I remember that time well. Or, does your statement only apply to sexual actions with which you do not agree?

You're equating "sexual actions" a great majority of society found indecent with rape, murder, and terrorism? Interesting.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I don't need the government to play mediator between my Maker and I. I'm certainly not going to play mediator for others.

Neither do I.

Neither am I.

 

[Roadie]

You're equating "sexual actions" a great majority of society found indecent with rape, murder, and terrorism? Interesting.

Just to play devil's advocate here..

Found indecent when/where?

Sexual mores have gone up and down, back in forth, throughout the history of time, and are different culture to culture.

The Romans were pan-sexual in ancient times, and there are societies now where heterosexuality is the norm for marriage, but homosexuality is acceptable for casual dalliances.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Just to play devil's advocate here..

Found indecent when/where?

Yep. And there were societies that believed in human sacrifice. There are still people that believe in slavery and honor killings.

I guess indecent is in the eye of the beholder

 

[GBuck]

You're equating "sexual actions" a great majority of society found indecent with rape, murder, and terrorism? Interesting.

A "sin" is a "sin", no?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

A "sin" is a "sin", no?

To many of today's society, there is no such thing of sin.

 

[Roadie]

Yep. And there were societies that believed in human sacrifice. There are still people that believe in slavery and honor killings.

I guess indecent is in the eye of the beholder

Hyperbole. Sexual activities between two consenting adults, compared to the deaths of innocents? Really?

 

[foszoe]

To many of today's society, there is no such thing of sin.

Depends on which definition of sin you are using. Dictionary.com only has 7 different ones.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Hyperbole. Sexual activities between two consenting adults, compared to the deaths of innocents? Really?

It's hyperbole in your opinion. To those people, of those societies, those were/are accepted, normal parts of life. You are rejecting them based on your arbitrary paradigm that acceptable behavior can only be seen as ok if two consenting adults agree. Who says that all parties to an activity have to agree to participate? If there are no absolutes, no final authority, then who gives you the arbiter of normal?

 

[Roadie]

It's hyperbole in your opinion. To those people, of those societies, those were/are accepted, normal parts of life. You are rejecting them based on your arbitrary paradigm that acceptable behavior can only be seen as ok if two consenting adults agree. Who says that all parties to an activity have to agree to participate? If there are no absolutes, no final authority, then who gives you the arbiter of normal?

OK, firstly, I havent said what *I* personally believe in for myself, as I cannot without breaking the "Rules".. but I can say that my beliefs involve someone CHOOSING to believe, and CHOOSING a moral life, not having it forced upon people by the Government.

Personal rights, and personal choice, IMO, are absolutes.. until such time as those rights and choices infringe upon someone else's rights and choices..

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

OK, firstly, I havent said what *I* personally believe in for myself, as I cannot without breaking the "Rules".. but I can say that my beliefs involve someone CHOOSING to believe, and CHOOSING a moral life, not having it forced upon them by the Government.

Personal rights, and personal choice, IMO, are absolutes.. until such time as those rights and choices infringe upon someone else's rights and choices..

I was stating those points in a rhetorical manner, not as a direct attack or anything.

To your other point: There you go...in your opinion personal rights and personal choice...are absolute...

To people with other beliefs, their principles are absolutes and represent the best way of structuring society and living their lives. I believe the Constitution provides the framework to allow these competing viewpoints to co-exist. If a state wants to legalize ways of life that would make Romans and Aztecs flinch, I say go for it. If another state wants to enact a state religion, blue laws, and outlaw booze--same thing--go for it. I'll choose where I want to live and the people with which i feel most comfortable. We're all entitled to work towards changing our environment to suit our preferences and/or preserving it.

 

[Yup!]

We all know the only thing preventing the combinations above from doing the freak nasty is the lack of a state sanctioned marriage.

So you think these things aren't happening in society today?