Author Topic: High Logic  (Read 2703 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
High Logic
« on: February 15, 2016, 04:27:05 PM »
http://tailsteak.com/archive.php?num=495





Well, it isn't indisputable , but it isn't easy to pick apart.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2016, 05:04:54 PM by Plane »

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: High Logic
« Reply #1 on: February 15, 2016, 06:04:33 PM »
Marriage used to be a religious thing. Before priests decided they could make a living off of it, people paired off without any religion involved, as animals do.
If people want a religious ceremony, they are welcome to have one, and the government recognizes this. But there is no reason it needs to be religious. So people can have a civil ceremony, and the government recognizes that as well.

If you want a sacred ceremony, you can have one. You can declare anything you wish to be sacred.

Marriage is not only a religious thing, it can be simply an official declaration of two people living together and owning things jointly.

It can be whatever the people want it to be.

Since tax laws and property laws deal with people owning things jointly, and since a huge number of people do not believe in invisible deities, the government has an obligation to provide a non-religious alternative.

Religious people still have their ceremonies recognized and have no right to demand that those that are not religious be married in churches, mosques, synagogues or whatever.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: High Logic
« Reply #2 on: February 15, 2016, 07:52:03 PM »
Can Marriage mean that I own a pet and play tennis?

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: High Logic
« Reply #3 on: February 16, 2016, 10:49:42 AM »
If that is what you want it to mean. it won't bother me a bit.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: High Logic
« Reply #4 on: February 16, 2016, 07:20:16 PM »
In that case Marriage means nothing at all.

Thanks so much to activists who spread the meaning too thin.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27065
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: High Logic
« Reply #5 on: February 16, 2016, 07:46:07 PM »
Since tax laws and property laws deal with people owning things jointly, and since a huge number of people do not believe in invisible deities, the government has an obligation to provide a non-religious alternative.

And THAT can be referred to as a civil union...or a domestic partnership...or a narriage.  No need to hijack a word that has had a clear and concise definition for eons, and try to redefine it to meet current politically correct parameters
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: High Logic
« Reply #6 on: February 16, 2016, 10:51:01 PM »
There is a purpose that "Civil Union" does not serve, social approval is strong for Marriage, civil union seems like a second class.

One of the things that the gay rights movement would like very much to have is respect, and they think that this will crowbar them into respectability.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27065
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: High Logic
« Reply #7 on: February 17, 2016, 04:39:24 AM »
And that is indeed the effort here.  It's never been about granting equal representation, in the eyes tax laws and health care related matters, since that can all be addressed with Civil Unions.  This whole push is to co-opt the word marriage, which everyone accepts as legitimate, and apply it on a subset of those who want to try and lay claim to their choices as being wholly respectable.  The effort is pretty transparent, despite the smoke screen of how the Government needs to deal with matters of joint taxation, property, and healthcare issues
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: High Logic
« Reply #8 on: February 17, 2016, 09:16:00 AM »
It is not a matter of "crowbar them into respectability". It is simply a desire to have EQUALITY.

Calling it "civil union" is like separate but (nudge nudge) "equal".

This has been decided by the courts. No silly cartoon is going to change that.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27065
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: High Logic
« Reply #9 on: February 17, 2016, 01:06:47 PM »
Equality in the eyes of the law can be attained thru civil unions....IF....that's what this was all about.  Instead, its about trying to apply a term that is associated with respectability, to an act, which half the nation believes to be sinful.  And I'm not talking about polls accepting gays into the mainstream.  We're talking about an act, that to staunch Christians (and apparently staunch Muslims as well) consider NOT respectable.  Which is why this whole issue isn't about attaining equality, since that is already accomplished thru civil unions, its about browbeating over half the nation to accept an act, which most consider right up there with adultery, as perfectly ok & "natural".  Sure it is.....just as natural as adultery is.  Both are consentual 
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: High Logic
« Reply #10 on: February 17, 2016, 01:18:41 PM »
If words matter, then equality must consist of using the identical words to describe all marriages.

If by some very unlikely quirk, present gay marriages were officially relabeled  civil unions, there would be a bazillion lawsuits and taxpayers would get hit with the expense in every state and territory. If they allowed present gay marriages to be still called marriages, then  that would be unequal treatment before the law and that would involve great and unnecessary legal expense.

Marriage in the US  is of two types: civil and religious. We have been calling them by the same name forever, and with no  serious repercussions.


I cannot imagine why anyone gives a damn whether Adam and Steve are  married, civilly unified, religiously unified or just living in sin.  The only difference is a piece of paper no one except  perhaps loan officers or  police investigators have a right to see..

I am thinking that the next time you have  one of your chats with God or Jesus, you discuss the unease you have with seeing gay couples talk about their "marriages". It seems like a better alternative that discussing it with Adam or Steve, since one of them might just punch you in the nose., and Jesus did not punch people. Of course, God might be tempted to make you the next Job,and  let Satan  diddle you.





Just wait and buy a new dictionary in which you will find the word redefined, and stop bitching. On a scale of one to ten in importance, this one rates a 0..
« Last Edit: February 17, 2016, 01:29:55 PM by Xavier_Onassis »
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27065
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: High Logic
« Reply #11 on: February 17, 2016, 02:28:48 PM »
If words matter, then equality must consist of using the identical words to describe all marriages.

No, it doesn't.  A marriage is that of a union between a man and a woman....period.  That's literally its definition.  If you want LEGAL equality, that doesn't require an identical word, simply a word or phrase that can be applied in the eyes of the Government.  Civil Unions provide exactly what so many supporters of gay marriage claim that they want....equality in the eyes of the Government.  The only thing it doesn't provide is a term that generations have come to define as sacred. 

and THAT's what they want.....to co-opt that term/word, to then stamp their actions as completely acceptable and normal.  The equality tact is largely bunk

« Last Edit: February 17, 2016, 06:12:10 PM by sirs »
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: High Logic
« Reply #12 on: February 17, 2016, 05:36:14 PM »
Marriage is ....sacred?
Where on Earth do you get that?
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27065
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: High Logic
« Reply #13 on: February 17, 2016, 05:47:34 PM »
When it's the union of a man and women with a lifetime pledge to be there for each other.  That's about as sacred as it gets
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: High Logic
« Reply #14 on: February 17, 2016, 06:20:49 PM »
You are strange.

What does "sacred" mean to you?
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."