Finally the Courts Give Meaning to the 10th Amendment

[Timshel]

Again, let's look at the one's that are trying to control language in order to discrminate.

SM, defines "race" as nationality to absurdly argue that an Irish-Scottish marriage is interracial.
He defines "church" to exclude non-Catholic churches or, alternatively, any church that he defines as "new-age."
He defines marriage in attempt to exclude homosexual couples just as many once defined it to exclude interracial couples.

Meanwhile, nAHZi is trying to figure out how "flock" does not mean "group" but means "group of birds", except when it means "group of people" or "group of sheep" except when herd means "group of sheep" or "group of cattle" or "group of cats" except when pride might mean "group of cats" or maybe we could call them a "den" or "litter" or... there is no end with all the various words that just mean "group."

You guys make great punching bags. In case you are confused, I don't actually mean you are a piece of leather stuffed with some material.

 

[Timshel]

Having words derived from a strictly religious context maintain their meaning is not writing religion into law, you fucking dunce cap.

Marriage is not derived from a strictly religious context. Certainly, not as we are discussing it. You don't have to be married by a church to be married in this country. What sm is doing is trying to pretend that the word must be defined by religion, but we are past that in this nation. Go to fucking Iran if you don't like it.

 

[Bai Lan]

Again, let's look at the one's that are trying to control language in order to discrminate.

Let's consider who is trying to erase and revise what words mean to erase notions of traditional family from our psyches.

SM, defines "race" as nationality to absurdly argue that an Irish-Scottish marriage is interracial.

How is race defined?

He defines "church" to exclude non-Catholic churches or, alternatively, any church that he defines as "new-age."

When the word marriage came into existence, it was based on those traditions. Not new age revisionism.

He defines marriage in attempt to exclude homosexual couples just as many once defined it to exclude interracial couples.

He's really just being true to what words mean.

Meanwhile, nAHZi is trying to figure out how "flock" does not mean "group" but means "group of birds", except when it means "group of people" or "group of sheep" except when herd means "group of sheep" or "group of cattle" or "group of cats" except when pride might mean "group of cats" or maybe we could call them a "den" or "litter" or... there is no end with all the various words that just mean "group."

Im not talking about the word "group". Im talking about words like "flock", or "gaggle" (of geese), which are more specific in what they refer to.

just like marriage is specific union between a man a woman. It doesn't mean just any union between two people.

You guys make great punching bags. In case you are confused, I don't actually mean you are a piece of leather stuffed with some material.

Except i just beat your ass, again.

 

[Timshel]

The Church is the Catholic Church. Prior to that look to Judaic tradition. The definition also includes churches that adhere to its basic tenets. It does not include new-age crap that steep themselves in the sin of homosexuality.

No, he is obviously not trying to write his religion into the law. Freedom of religion, just means the right to practice his religion to the exclusion of all others. I wonder what religion this guy was practicing...

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races show that he did not intend for the races to mix."

It must have been some "new age" crap, though that argument had existed for a looooong time and was virtually always based on religion. But it was not really religion as defined by the sm and the Catholic church.

You are not simply claiming a religious right to define marriage, but YOUR churches right to define what is a religion. That will not fly here. It is anti-American and contradicts our more noble traditions, ones that are not based on faith in some superghost but reason. Go to Iran if you want a theocracy.

The only thing I'm attempting here is to teach you that queer marriage and interracial marriage are poor analogies for your argument, which is why it fails. Dick.

And you are trying to redefine the common usage of "race", as it has been used throughout recorded history, to mean "nationality." Science has shown that there really is no good definition of race, but it never meant just nationality.

Homosexual marriage and interracial marriage are so analogous that you guys can not make an argument against it that was not also used by the opponents of interracial marriage.

 

[Bai Lan]

No, he is obviously not trying to write his religion into the law. Freedom of religion, just means the right to practice his religion to the exclusion of all others. I wonder what religion this guy was practicing...

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races show that he did not intend for the races to mix."

It must have been some "new age" crap, though that argument had existed for a looooong time and was virtually always based on religion. But it was not really religion as defined by the sm and the Catholic church.

You are not simply claiming a religious right to define marriage, but YOUR churches right to define what is a religion. That will not fly here. It is anti-American and contradicts our more noble traditions, ones that are not based on faith in some superghost but reason. Go to Iran if you want a theocracy.



And you are trying to redefine the common usage of "race", as it has been used throughout recorded history, to mean "nationality." Science has shown that there really is no good definition of race, but it never meant just nationality.

Homosexual marriage and interracial marriage are so analogous that you guys can not make an argument against it that was not also used by the opponents of interracial marriage.

How about Japanese? Or chinese? I think they consider themselves separate races.

 

[Timshel]

I have to go do more challenging things than wail on nAHZi and would-suck-a-dick-if-society-told-me-it-was-okay-man (not Ditzy, in this case though he's another).

 

[Bai Lan]

I have to go do more challenging things than wail on nAHZi and would-suck-a-dick-if-society-told-me-it-was-okay-man (not Ditzy, in this case though he's another).

Don't let the door hit your blistered and defiled ass on the way out.

Nice punk out, bitch.

You = fail.

 

[Timshel]

How about Japanese? Or chinese? I think they consider themselves separate races.

I already told you "race" is useless because it fails to make anything but superficial distinctions. But, I don't see anywhere it has been widely used in our culture (the one you demand determines meaning through common usage) to mean nationality. We don't usually distinguish Chinese from Japanese, except in regards to nationality.

I'll be back.

 

[Bai Lan]

I wonder if Stringfield would also say "gaggle of dogs"?

Hmm. Probably. what a maroon.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dixie:
My solution relies on us not "redefining" the definition of traditional meanings or intent of words used in our lexicon, like "marriage!" If we are to go down that path, my solution is irrelevant, we will be a society which recognizes any deviant sexual right as equal under the law, because that is the established law of the land. When that is the case, the issue of "consent" can be further considered, and we will have to restrain our "moral" ideals because that again, is the standard we have set for ourselves.

Again, nobody would be "redefining" anything, in fact they'd be kept from defining it at all. You still argue against what you supposedly support, and I begin to suspect it is because you don't actually support it.

Now I don't know how much clearer I could have been, when I stated that my solution relies on us NOT REDEFINING the definition of traditional meanings or intent of words, it's verbatim, what I posted.... Yet Dumo somehow read the complete opposite, it seems.

Dumo, I don't WANT people to redefine anything! I want them KEPT from redefining things! Nothing I have said is an argument AGAINST what I suggested as a solution. You, however, claim you support my solution, yet you continue to lobby for Gay Marriage!

 

[Bai Lan]

I already told you "race" is useless because it fails to make anything but superficial distinctions. But, I don't see anywhere it has been widely used in our culture (the one you demand determines meaning through common usage) to mean nationality. We don't usually distinguish Chinese from Japanese, except in regards to nationality.

I'll be back.

Who is we? You need to ask them.

Well, it's importance is emphasized when "race" data is collected and used as a means of discrimination in government, business, and academia. For something this superficial it seems to be pretty important.

 

[DamnYankee]

Again, let's look at the one's that are trying to control language in order to discrminate.

SM, defines "race" as nationality to absurdly argue that an Irish-Scottish marriage is interracial.
He defines "church" to exclude non-Catholic churches or, alternatively, any church that he defines as "new-age."
He defines marriage in attempt to exclude homosexual couples just as many once defined it to exclude interracial couples.

Awesome but failed attempt to define my position for me.

On interracial marriage- were you aware that Shakespeare's Othello was about a Moorish husband and a Venetian wife?

Oh look, M/W's definition of race:

a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock

Therefore Irish is a different race then Scot.

 

[Bai Lan]

Would you say "gaggle of dogs", stringfield?

 

[DamnYankee]

....Science has shown that there really is no good definition of race, but it never meant just nationality....

:lol: Dick.

 

[Bai Lan]

:lol: Dick.

 

[Damocles]

Now I don't know how much clearer I could have been, when I stated that my solution relies on us NOT REDEFINING the definition of traditional meanings or intent of words, it's verbatim, what I posted.... Yet Dumo somehow read the complete opposite, it seems.

Dumo, I don't WANT people to redefine anything! I want them KEPT from redefining things! Nothing I have said is an argument AGAINST what I suggested as a solution. You, however, claim you support my solution, yet you continue to lobby for Gay Marriage!

What I argue for relies on not letting government define it at all, for the positive or negative. There would be no "change" to the "definition" of marriage by government because it wouldn't be allowed to define "marriage" at all. I've lobbied for this solution for the decade we've known each other. You simply read into what I say what you want to argue.

Basically you argue against the very solution you say you prefer. As I said, I suspect (and believe) you do that because you actually wouldn't find it acceptable for religions to define marriage as they wanted.

I wonder if Dixie thought King Solomon wasn't married with his hundreds of wives...

 

[Bai Lan]

My solution relies on not letting government define it at all, for the positive or negative.

That also means not REDEFINING it to mean 'whatever people want'.

It can have policies that are perhaps supportive of the institution of marriage. that doesn't mean marriage is meaningless.

Civil unions should be acceptable to libertarians, but they're not acceptable to stringfield the anti-family nihilist. He must destroy the meaning of the word. why?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Again, let's look at the one's that are trying to control language in order to discrminate.

SM, defines "race" as nationality to absurdly argue that an Irish-Scottish marriage is interracial.
He defines "church" to exclude non-Catholic churches or, alternatively, any church that he defines as "new-age."
He defines marriage in attempt to exclude homosexual couples just as many once defined it to exclude interracial couples.

Meanwhile, nAHZi is trying to figure out how "flock" does not mean "group" but means "group of birds", except when it means "group of people" or "group of sheep" except when herd means "group of sheep" or "group of cattle" or "group of cats" except when pride might mean "group of cats" or maybe we could call them a "den" or "litter" or... there is no end with all the various words that just mean "group."

You guys make great punching bags. In case you are confused, I don't actually mean you are a piece of leather stuffed with some material.

Let me help you with some analogous examples....

Let's say you wanted to pass some harsh law against assault perpetrated on gay people, but the populace is not interested in making assault on gay people punishable by the death penalty, as you desire.... What do you do? Well, you proceed to try and CHANGE the definition of "Murder" so that it includes the assault of a gay person! Your reasoning is, there is already laws allowing the death penalty for 'murder' on the books, so you can obtain your desired result by simply CHANGING what "murder" has traditionally meant.

This sort of gerrymandering of words to suit your intentions or desires, is not going to fly. Marriage means what marriage means! What marriage has always meant! You can't "redefine" marriage so that something you desire can be enabled without changing the laws. That's a completely absurd assault on our rule of law, on our freedom to establish laws, and on the will of the people in general. It is honestly something HITLER might have pulled!

 

[Damocles]

That also means not REDEFINING it to mean 'whatever people want'.

It can have policies that are perhaps supportive of the institution of marriage. that doesn't mean marriage is meaningless.

Civil unions should be acceptable to libertarians, but they're not acceptable to stringfield the anti-family nihilist. He must destroy the meaning of the word. why?

Talk to Dixie, he says he wants the same thing. Civil unions would be fine, if all of the licenses were for unions, including heterosexual unions... The government does not need to define and support any specific religion's definition of "marriage". Even AssHat's.

 

[Bai Lan]

lol. Shit dixie. That's an illustrative yet highly unfortunate example you thought up!


lol.