| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Do I hear Wedding Bells for Kenny? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 15 2008, 10:11 AM (1,676 Views) | |
| blondie | May 15 2008, 09:26 PM Post #51 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Huh? I just hope this ruling makes Kenny a happy boy. |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | May 15 2008, 10:25 PM Post #52 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Me too. I just wish Kenny was here to share his thoughts and feelings about this, but I'm going to link to all of these threads for him if he doesn't get back in time to see them. |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | May 16 2008, 12:31 AM Post #53 |
|
Cheers
|
By 'the first one' I assume you mean Waco... :lol: |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | May 16 2008, 08:12 AM Post #54 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Nah, I meant the War of Northern Aggression. I'm not dumb enough to get caught up in a static firefight against numerically superior forces.... |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 16 2008, 09:18 AM Post #55 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I don't buy the rhetoric, but it is good rhetoric. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 16 2008, 09:26 AM Post #56 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Yeah, I understood that you meant The War Against Amoral Slaveowners. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 16 2008, 09:45 AM Post #57 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I suspect you would be quite pissed if people ever said "Oh they have a gay marriage" to denote a different *kind*. If it is such a different *kind* why not just give it a different *name*?
I have no idea what you mean by that. There are *not* many kinds of straight relationships that are recognized as marriage by the state (at least in the monogamous West). There is one kind, between one and one woman that is basically presumed to be exclusive, faithful and permanent. I don't think you are using "type" and "kind" very clearly.
You presume that the state is unable to make an compelling argument This happens in all sorts of ways: you can't go around calling yourself a policeman and acting like one if you are not actually one. The policeman has a basic relationship to society at large involved with the protection of the civic order. You can't go around calling yourself a medical doctor and acting like one if you are not actually one, nor a lawyer, etc. You can't call yourself a publicly traded company and sell stocks if you are not incorporated as such. etc. The reason marriage is historically reserved for heterosexual couples has to do with the basic nature of the relationship and the role of such relationships in society -- the begetting and rearing of children. It has nothing to do with whether the relationship is actually fertile or not, since that is a proper matter of privacy. A homosexual couple is incapable of engendering a child between them. A homosexual couple requires the contribution of DNA from a third party, outside the relationship. The state has a vested interest in promoting stable, exclusive, life engendering relationships for its survival. There are *strong* arguments -- you would find none of them compelling but that is already a given. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | May 16 2008, 10:00 AM Post #58 |
|
Cheers
|
I of course knew you meant The War Against Amoral Slaveowners, I was just tweaking your chain. But I was also making a point. You won't find a lot of people who would go to war because some human beings love people of the wrong gender. Its not like your entire economic foundation (and self-image) is under threat, like in 1860. And the one's who do make money off of gay marriage (and of course I mean the bigoted pastors and politicians who raise money fear mongering) will make even more once gays can marry in a few states. Face it, Jolly, you're on the wrong side of history. Again. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 16 2008, 10:08 AM Post #59 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
So what do you think about Sullivan's rhetoric that *his* self image is under threat by not being allowed to call himself "married"?
My, you are able to stretch logic to a gossamer thinness. You should post that in the Weird Skills thread.
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | May 16 2008, 10:12 AM Post #60 |
|
Cheers
|
Sullivan has a point. Re my logic, I suppose its only thin for those who can't follow it, I never would have put you in that category. (do you think it was coincidence that so many anti-gay plebiscites made it on the ballot in 2004?) |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 16 2008, 10:21 AM Post #61 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Why does he have a point that *his* self image is damaged because "marriage" has been reserved to heterosexuals, and married heterosexuals' self image is not damaged by allowing other different *kinds* of relationships to be considered "marriage"? Do you think that any cohabiting couple or menage-a-beaucoup should have all the rights of married *couples* and likewise be called "marriage"? Re: your logic -- that would work if it were too thick, not too thin.
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | May 16 2008, 10:31 AM Post #62 |
|
Cheers
|
When I said "Sullivan has a point", I was referring to the argument Sullivan made, not the straw-man replica of it you constructed. (again, I would have thought that would be obvious, I'm learning I really need to be explicit with you :lol: ) |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 16 2008, 10:58 AM Post #63 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Nice try, but the "point that *his* self image is damaged because "marriage" has been reserved to heterosexuals" is not a straw man of what he actually wrote.
That *is* his argument. So why shouldn't cohabiting couples likewise be called "married" so that they are not wounded in the souls and psyches, so that they are not considered inferior as family members and citizens? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | May 16 2008, 12:33 PM Post #64 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Slave owners, or not, I suspect their interpretation of Federalism more closely matched what the Consitution intended, than anything Mr. Lincoln may have conjured up. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | May 16 2008, 12:34 PM Post #65 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
Call me a Suthuhn Sympathizer but I agree with Jolly. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | May 16 2008, 12:37 PM Post #66 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Maybe. Maybe not. Over 60% of Californians voted on a referendum that called for marriage to be defined as one man/one woman. I understand that they will soon be getting a chance to vote on a California Constitutional Amendment basically stating the same thing. If this plebicite passes, and the state constitution is amended, what happens to the court's ruling? |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 16 2008, 12:42 PM Post #67 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Yeah, and the Founders also made explicit provisions for slavery. It just goes to prove that the Founders and the document they drafted were not perfect. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 16 2008, 12:43 PM Post #68 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Nothing happens to the court's ruling, per se. It just no longer has any effect because it's been superseded by a subsequent amendment to the Constitution. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | May 16 2008, 12:52 PM Post #69 |
|
UPDATE: South postpones rising again for yet another year |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 16 2008, 12:55 PM Post #70 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
That was in 2000. You're so eight-years-ago. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | May 16 2008, 01:00 PM Post #71 |
|
MAMIL
|
If the South rises again, will that mean that what's left over of proper America gets to elect someone with a slightly less silly accent? That would be real nice, y'all. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 16 2008, 01:15 PM Post #72 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I don't see them making explicit provisions for slavery, it would be more accurate to say that they recognized that reality in determining a formula for proportional representation.
I am not sure of your point. I don't know anyone who would suggest the Constitution was a perfect document, so it needs no evidence to show it is not a perfect document. It is obviously the result of compromise, and as such agreements go it is pretty darn good. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | May 16 2008, 01:21 PM Post #73 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
So...why did the South go to war when slavery was still legal? |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 16 2008, 01:26 PM Post #74 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
You say po-tay-toe, I say po-tah-toe. Same difference. The point is, they were enablers. It was a horrific, detestable practice. And they chose to perpetuate it because it was a fight they weren't ready to have. In truth, all they did was make Lincoln's fight inevitable.
My point isn't about the Constitution, it's about the Founders. There are things that the Founders were willing to accept that, today, we'd find utterly unthinkable. Slavery is a good example. Barring women from voting is another. So, to say that the Founders would never have conceived of marriage as including a same-sex marriage is, afaic, utterly meaningless. The Founders weren't the pinnacle of morality. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Luke's Dad | May 16 2008, 01:34 PM Post #75 |
![]()
Emperor Pengin
|
Yep, like chamberpots.
|
| The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it. | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |










4:59 PM Jul 10