Why do ya even care?!

[water]

Jenyar:
1297, from O.Fr. marier, from L. maritare "to wed, marry, give in marriage," from maritus "married man, husband," of uncertain origin, perhaps ult. from "provided with a *mari," a young woman, from PIE base *meri- "young wife," akin to *meryo- "young man" (cf. Skt. marya- "young man, suitor").

Now where precisely was it defined "as the union of a man and a woman"?

We cannot mechanically conclude what a word means merely from the etymological meaning of a word.

(For example, in German, "das Gift" means 'poison, toxin, venom', but the etymological meaning of the word is 'that which is given; a portion'.)

 

[Xev]

Water:

We cannot mechanically conclude what a word means merely from the etymological meaning of a word.

Of course not, and the etymological evolution of the word adds nothing to the debate.
Your point?

(For example, in German, "das Gift" means 'poison, toxin, venom', but the etymological meaning of the word is 'that which is given; a portion'.)

Either you or Gendanken brought that up already.

 

[Roman]

Actually Killjoy mentioned the poison is gift in German thing, and gendanken just rubbed herself mad with it.

 

[water]

Of course not, and the etymological evolution of the word adds nothing to the debate.
Your point?

You said:

1297, from O.Fr. marier, from L. maritare "to wed, marry, give in marriage," from maritus "married man, husband," of uncertain origin, perhaps ult. from "provided with a *mari," a young woman, from PIE base *meri- "young wife," akin to *meryo- "young man" (cf. Skt. marya- "young man, suitor").

Now where precisely was it defined "as the union of a man and a woman"?

You went for the etymology of the word, as if a meaning of a word could be properly explained from there; and from the etymology of a word asked a question that is extraneous to etymology.

 

[Tiassa]

Aesthetics v. U.S. Constitution

Jenyar

So I overlooked something.

In 1992, "special rights" for gays was defined as allowing a book in a library. Or being able to have a state job. By some interpretations of the Oregon measure, the "acute homophobia" defense for murder would be insurmountable. Public university medical schools would have been obliged to omit information pertaining to homosexuality that did not declare it abnormal, wrong, and perverse. Special rights, then, came to mean something rather ridiculous. Against this backdrop, a similar measure passed in Colorado and was derailed by the courts. The chorus against "judicial activism" hasn't stopped since. It has been a litany from the conservative side to assert that states can ignore the U.S. Constitution.

Right now, for the purposes of government, marriage is a legal contract, a record on file somewhere. Attached to this legal contract is a recognition of status that brings certain privileges not afforded unmarried partners.

That is the right gays are being denied. But the rush to define marriage as a specific thing may come too late.

Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest. The Court will also apply a strict scrutiny test if the classification interferes with fundamental rights such as first amendment rights, the right to privacy, or the right to travel. The Supreme Court also requires states to show more than a rational basis (though it does not apply the strictly scrutiny test) for classifications based on gender or a child's status as illegitimate.

Legal Information Institute

While gender issues do not receive strict scrutiny, how confident are any traditionalists that a rational basis for this discrimination can be had? And how rational can it be? Will it be enough to convince the Supreme Court?

Eleven states voted for laws with the specific intent to discriminate on the basis of gender. That in itself is pretty stiff. Add to that the implications, including the fundamental inability of the homosexual to express a certain level of commitment. The right to privacy enters the issue too, whether it be from the hospital issue to the spousal testimony issue. And all of this is for what? A sentimental argument about aesthetics drawn from religious principles?

I think it needs to be explained how not being subject to gender discrimination is a "special" right.
____________________

Notes:

Cornell University Legal Information Institute. "Equal Protection: An Overview". See http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/equal_protection.html​

 

[Xev]

water:

You went for the etymology of the word, as if a meaning of a word could be properly explained from there; and from the etymology of a word asked a question that is extraneous to etymology.

Dear god, I posted the etymology, I did not claim it as an argument.
Perhaps you should go back to looking for spelling errors?

 

[RubiksMaster]

Person X may not like person Y, person X says it is because of Y's feature y.

Nobody cares.

But what if a big group of people, what if a whole nation of people thinks feature y is bad?

Then the "multi-culti" libs attempt to brainwash the people with "newspeak" (i.e political correctness) and they try to denigrate the traditional white male. They attempt to raise person Y (and feature y) to a height greater than it is, and then have the gall to say that person X is less of a person (and painted as an oppressor) because of their own painting of Y as the victim.
It is twisted, unfair, and not right. But that is how the mental disease of liberalism works. . .

Isn't teaching tolerance supposed to be a good thing?

Yes, it is supposed to be, but it has been twisted around to fit the liberal agenda. It is no longer about tolerance. It is about raising the "trait" of homosexuality to a high degree, and teaching that it is "normal."

Note, there is a difference betwixt "normal" and "natural." I read earlier in this thread (or maybe it was one of Athelwulf's many other gay threads) that even animals are gay sometimes, and that it may be genetic. This means it may be "natural", but not "normal," because it is an anomaly in the sample.

So when Mrs. Smith, the 2nd grade teacher says "Jonny laid down with Timmy, and they should thus be praised for being exceptional to the rest of us because they found a way around the God-given characteristics of human beings," it has been twisted above tolerance. It is a plan for breeding intolerance toward the majority.

Actually, you'd be wrong. Heterosexuals have the right to marry who they love. Homosexuals don't. This turns out to be unequal. This is a fight for equality.

Refer to my previous paragraph about tolerance breeding inequality. Then hear this: NOBODY has the right to "marry whom they love." If you can find a section from an actual law (and don't start this declaration of independence crap again) that says this, I would be ever greatful. What you'll find (assuming you actually look through the ORS [since, I believe, you live in Oregon] and don't get lazy) is that EVERYONE (note that I didn't say "straight, white, males") has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. "Love" is never a factor. Keep your love out of my politics. Keep your sex out of my politics. Keep your twisting of the facts out of my politics.

You are playing word-games here. You twisted a right that everyone has and turned it into a lack of rights that no one has. You are painting straight people as the oppressors.

Off the top of my head, as far as I know, homosexuals can't serve in the military or give blood. Is this equal treatment?

What head? Anyone with half a brain knows what I'm about to say. Yes it is equal treatment. It is a matter of public safety. What you might not know is that it is not only gays who are not allowed to give blood. The list also includes junkies, hookers, people who have been to certain parts of Africa in the past six months, people with certain diseases, etc.. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't take blood that has a significantly higher risk of infection, simply on the basis of being fair. Sometimes "quality" is better than "equality." (I am referring to the blood, not the gays themselves)

You just have a problem with true equality, or you feel insecure, and you thus try to create inequality in the opposite direction as the percieved inequality. Basically, you have a problem with gays (or maybe even other minorities) being treated like "any other person" (because you feel all minorities should be held to higher standards) so you elevate them while denigrating the others.

How quaint . . . Phychology told ya I'm gay . . . Or ya think it did, when in reality, I'm not. I think ya need to learn some more about phychology. I seriously doubt that it says that about me.

Actually, it was a perfectly reasonable application of Sigmund Freud's ego defense mechanisms. You need to learn some more about psychology. Go to the library and get a book. I tihnk you will be surprised, and you might even learn a bit about yourself. . .

 

[Athelwulf]

Yes, it is supposed to be, but it has been twisted around to fit the liberal agenda.

How quaint . . . The liberal "agenda".

It is no longer about tolerance. It is about raising the "trait" of homosexuality to a high degree, and teaching that it is "normal."

Um . . . I think homosexuality is normal.

Note, there is a difference betwixt "normal" and "natural." I read earlier in this thread (or maybe it was one of Athelwulf's many other gay threads) that even animals are gay sometimes, and that it may be genetic. This means it may be "natural", but not "normal," because it is an anomaly in the sample.

And why, pray tell, is it not "normal"?

So when Mrs. Smith, the 2nd grade teacher says "Jonny laid down with Timmy, and they should thus be praised for being exceptional to the rest of us because they found a way around the God-given characteristics of human beings," it has been twisted above tolerance. It is a plan for breeding intolerance toward the majority.

Haha.

No one ever said that homosexuals should be "praised for being exceptional to the rest of us". You know that.

"Love" is never a factor.

Really? So someday ye'r gonna marry some woman ya barely know and don't even like? That's funny.

It is a matter of public safety.

Ya know what else is a matter of public safety? Blood tests!

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't take blood that has a significantly higher risk of infection, simply on the basis of being fair.

Even if the blood was tested?

You just have a problem with true equality, or you feel insecure, and you thus try to create inequality in the opposite direction as the percieved inequality. Basically, you have a problem with gays (or maybe even other minorities) being treated like "any other person" (because you feel all minorities should be held to higher standards) so you elevate them while denigrating the others.

OMFG! I can sure count on you for a good laugh! Ya just described a totally opposite scenario.

Haha. I have a problem with them being treated like "any other person", despite the fact that I'm persuading people to treat them like "any other person".

Actually, it was a perfectly reasonable application of Sigmund Freud's ego defense mechanisms.

Are we talking about the same Sigmund Freud that said that I'm jealous of my dad kuz he gets to have sex with my mom and I don't?

So ye'r saying that since I'm so adamantly fighting for gay rights, I'm gay? Oh, ye'r so right<Sub>i</Sub> And whoever adamantly fights for women's rights is a woman<Sub>i</Sub> And whoever adamantly fights for Blacks's rights is Black<Sub>i</Sub>

You need to learn some more about psychology. Go to the library and get a book. I tihnk you will be surprised, and you might even learn a bit about yourself. . .

Poor thing . . . The fundies have gotten into yer poor little head.

Since ye'r still under the impression that I'm gay, I guess subtleties don't work. Here's something not so subtle for ya.

I am not a homosexual.

Let me know if that's still a little too subtle, 'kay? Otherwise, drop it.

 

[water]

Dear god, I posted the etymology, I did not claim it as an argument.
Perhaps you should go back to looking for spelling errors?

Huh. On your own wave of mutilation ...
This is off topic, but really -- something is happening with you Xev, and I'm not the first one to say it.
At least spill some Nordic gall on me or something. Your your latest attempts at cynicism are an insult to yourself.

 

[Xev]

water:

Huh. On your own wave of mutilation ...

Well perhaps you will say where I posited it as an argument.
I simply wondered where, during the cultural evolution of marriage, someone sat down and wrote out precisely what marriage is and what purposes it serves.

Personally, I don't see why gays should be allowed to marry each other.
Then, I don't see why they shouldn't.

This is off topic, but really -- something is happening with you Xev, and I'm not the first one to say it.

Really? Ohmygodbeckydidyouseewhatshewaswearingitissoshortsheissuchaslut!
Geez, you people need to get a collective life.

At least spill some Nordic gall on me or something. Your your latest attempts at cynicism are an insult to yourself.

Who said I ever attempted cynicism or was doing so lately?
The funny thing is, I am by no means a cynical person. That is entirely your construction.
Well, perhaps only in the Ancient Greek way. Now where is my barrel?

 

[sniffy]

Mmm
tsk tsk aren't we all getting hot under the collar
Whether you like it or not there is plenty of historical evidence to prove that marriage is a purely social construct invented to keep power and resources within a small number of families, and little to do with love or sex for that matter. It is only relatively recently that 'love' matches have been allowed to go ahead as the decision for a marriage rested with parents.
In evolutionary terms, the pairing up of the opposite sex is for breeding and the rearing of offspring, if indeed both parties stick around long enough after coitus to bother with the rearing side of things. Human babies are poor helpless ickle things so need mumsy wumsy and/or dadsy wadsy to stick around for a bit until they can literally stand on their own to feet.
Humans have discovered that sex can be pleasurable in itself and that babies do not necessarily have to be a product of the act.
Taking all this into consideration I can see no reason whatever why same sex couples should not marry or at least have the same rights as opposite sex couples. In fact all 'couples' whether married or not, whether same sex or not should have the same rights. Also, as the production of children is now a matter of personal choice, morality, religion or any other argument for or against marriage is irrelevant as far as I can see.

 

[Ophiolite]

Ah, sniffy, now you are employing common sense. That is a rare commodity in these parts. You are meant to employ dogma, prejudice, insularity, narrow-mindedness, and alll the other character traits the other guy has in spades. Or you can use an irony so refined that its velvety transition to sarcasm appears almost deliberate.

Anyway you have an appreciatiive audience of at least one

 

[sniffy]

dogma, prejudice, insularity, narrow-mindedness have no place in a science forum or any other forum for that matter. It is only by opening our minds that we can ever hope to advance as human beings.
Just because I dislike sausages (if that's not a fraudian slip considering the current issue) do I have the right to deny anyone else the right to them? Some of the arguments I'm reading are that simplistic. As we now have evidence that homosexuality exists in nature (and as a product of nature are we not all natural in the true sense of the word) the 'unnatural' arguments are null and void. Animals don't happen to marry. Kill them all!! I mean really..

 

[Mystech]

This battle has been fought in the courts as well, as I'm sure you're aware.

This battle, but not exactly this very same issue, no. I'm sure you must realize how ridiculous making theological arguments in a secular court seems to those among us who still posses the ability to get a smile at life's wonderfully absurd ironies.

Arguing that same sex marriage can’t be allowed because it makes some Christians uneasy is an argument which just wouldn’t stand in a rational society. . . lucky for the evangelical right-wing, however, we don’t live in one of those, haha. Sooner or later backward traditionalists are going to have to admit that we do not live in a “Christian nation”, they didn’t invent marriage, and believe it or not equal protection under the law is an ideal that we were all supposed to be upholding all along.

When that happens I think we'll all be a bit red in the face. And upon my death, should I find myself before a Christian God for final judgement, then I'm sure I'll be red in the face as well, but for the time being leave earthly law to men, and enforcement of heavenly mandate to God, things get confused when we try to mix the two up.

 

[sniffy]

yeah verrily

 

[Mystech]

It should be said that "gay rights" are actually not a fight for equal rights, but for special rights. The problem is that they are treated like "anybody else", are under the same laws, and have the same rights -- but that these do not protect their unique demands. This is the case whenever difference has to be treated as "no difference", as in the case of race.

What viciously incorrect rhetoric this is! I'm afraid you have your facts backwards, Jenyar. Homosexuals do not receive equal protection and treatment under the same laws as heterosexuals, there are in fact scores of laws in the United States which target homosexuals specifically in order to deny them what would otherwise seem rather natural and practical rights. Anti-marriage laws are, of course, the biggest in the news right now, though there is also a specific ban on any openly homosexual person serving in the armed forces, and up until the summer of '03 the act of homosexual sexual behavior itself could be criminalized. The supreme court ruling on Lawrence V. Texas technically invalidates these laws, though they're still on the books in most states which still had them, and this ruling doesn't necessarily trump blanket anti-sodomy laws clearly intended to target homosexuals despite supposed application to all persons in their region of governance.

Regarding homosexuals receiving special treatment as the problem in this issue, you're absolutely correct, but you misjudge the goals of the gay-rights movement. Homosexuals don't seek this special treatment, they seek to end it that they might stand equal in the eyes of the law with all other people. So I agree with you entirely: end special treatment of homosexuals!

 

[Mystech]

What head? Anyone with half a brain knows what I'm about to say. Yes it is equal treatment. It is a matter of public safety. What you might not know is that it is not only gays who are not allowed to give blood. The list also includes junkies, hookers, people who have been to certain parts of Africa in the past six months, people with certain diseases, etc.. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't take blood that has a significantly higher risk of infection, simply on the basis of being fair. Sometimes "quality" is better than "equality." (I am referring to the blood, not the gays themselves)

You know, usually you just sound like an indoctrinated child who's father beat him with a bible, or at least transcripts of the Rush Limbaugh show who doesn't concern himself with being educated about the actual state of social movements, laws and the goals of the groups arguing over political and social issues here in the grown-up world, turning a blind eye to them instead in favor of trying to build up your own entirely ridiculous persecution complex founded on the fact that some people are unhappy with the way they are treated by law and society, but on this one point I've got to agree with you.

I don't want dirty blood, I sure as hell don't want the blood of a black man. A hell of a lot more black-men have AIDS then do homosexuals, and so I'd flat out have to turn that down. Those dirty AIDS infected blacks probably laugh as they're trying to give blood, and I think it's a shame that they're allowed too. After all, a few bad apples ruin the bunch, and the black community sure does have a lot of bad apples and AIDS is eating them alive! It's just irresponsible to even take a black man seriously if you ask me.

Stay strong, brother, with all of those darkies dykes and *shudder* liberals out there campaigning for egalitarian reforms the white-male is the last true minority!

 

[RubiksMaster]

I think homosexuality is normal.

That is my point. Soon everyone will think that. The fact is, only a very small percentage of the population (or any given random sampling) is homosexual. Because of that LOW PERCENTAGE, it is an anomaly in the sample. Do you think serial killers are normal? You may argue that in any sampling there will be homosexuality (even in animal kingdoms). Just because something is inherent to a sample does not mean it is "normal." Did you know there is a reason for the male and female having the parts they do? I'll bet you didn't know that a person's sexualty comes from the need for humans to propogate. For someone to go against nature like that IS abnormal - WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!

And why, pray tell, is it not "normal"?[?QUOTE]
Read previous paragraph.

No one ever said that homosexuals should be "praised for being exceptional to the rest of us". You know that.

Actually, a lot of people do. They twist the "tolerance" princliple way past its usefulness.

Ya know what else is a matter of public safety? Blood tests!

Here is another example of how ignorance influences your (not "yer") opinions. Did you know that the tests are not always accurate? That's right. They can fail. Expecially if the test is done within a few weeks of contraction of HIV. Would you want to pay more money for the testing of high-risk blood or simply refuse that blood? Oh, wait. You probably think that even viruses have feelings. You wouldn't want to exclude any viruses from being able to multiply, now would you?

Even if the blood was tested?

Yes. Read my previous paragraph.

OMFG! I can sure count on you for a good laugh! Ya just described a totally opposite scenario.

I just described, like, a so totally opposite scenario! That was, like, soooo what I was tring to do. I'm, like, so glad you got it. Far out! Bitchin'!
No, actually it is really not that opposite. When gays have all the same rights, and you get all pissy about them not having more rights, you claim I am wrong without providing any logic (or rational arguments, for that matter). I see your aforementioned ignorance has spread to your abilities to communicate your opinions.

Are we talking about the same Sigmund Freud that said that I'm jealous of my dad kuz he gets to have sex with my mom and I don't?

Yes and no. It is the same person, but he did not say that how you think he did. You are referring to the Oedipus Complex. It gets its name from the ancient myth of Oedipus (who falls into the situation you described). However, the way Sigmund Freud theorized has nothing to do with sex at all. He simply came up with a name to describe the observable identification by the child with the parent of opposite sex. This really has nothing to do with feelings of anger because you can't have sex with your mother. Learn a bit about psychology before you try to use it in your favor!. You completely weakened your argument with that. Even if Freud speaks of "sexual" drives, he doesn't mean it in quite the same sense of the word.

Geez, you people need to get a collective life.

I also feel that most everyone else here needs to acquire one of those. I'm glad I'm not alone!

end special treatment of homosexuals!

Right on! Too many people try to twist the idea of tolerance to mean "special treatment of." This is wrong. I only want homosexuals to be equal to everyone else. But that also means using the same marriage laws as eveyone else. Just because they don't [Ichoose[/I] to utilise these laws doesn't mean we need to give them special treatment.

 

[Mystech]

Right on! Too many people try to twist the idea of tolerance to mean "special treatment of." This is wrong. I only want homosexuals to be equal to everyone else. But that also means using the same marriage laws as eveyone else. Just because they don't [Ichoose[/I] to utilise these laws doesn't mean we need to give them special treatment.

Hmm, so marriage laws written in the past few years specifically to exclude same-sex partners from entering into a marriage contract is your idea of equal treatment? I say that the special treatment is over when laws which exist specifically to target homosexuals for anything have been abolished and people can get their heads out of their asses and admit that homosexuals are human beings.

 

[Athelwulf]

Here is another example of how ignorance influences your (not "yer") opinions. Did you know that the tests are not always accurate? That's right. They can fail. Expecially if the test is done within a few weeks of contraction of HIV.

Well then what's the point of having blood tests at all?! If they're not always accurate, we can't even trust that all the heterosexual blood that's donated is healthy.

Would you want to pay more money for the testing of high-risk blood or simply refuse that blood?

The former, if ya must know.

Somewhere out there, there's a clean homosexual with O-neg blood. We need all the O-neg blood we can get! That stuff is red gold!

And you wanna cut off that supply of O-neg blood?

Oh, wait. You probably think that even viruses have feelings. You wouldn't want to exclude any viruses from being able to multiply, now would you?

Hey, Rubiks. Yer fundie is showing.

Just so ya know, describing overtly exaggerated examples like that only makes me look like the good guy and weakens yer argument. Plus, it's very fucking annoying.

I just described, like, a so totally opposite scenario! That was, like, soooo what I was tring to do. I'm, like, so glad you got it. Far out! Bitchin'!

Like, oh em gee! That, like, so doesn't sound like me. Ya need to, like, totally grow up and not, like, make people, like, sound like Jessica Simpson. 'Specially when they, like, so don't!

Learn a bit about psychology before you try to use it in your favor!.

Ya know how hard I laughed after reading that?

How many psychology classes have ya taken? Where and how did ya learn psychology? Kuz it seems like you are the one that needs to learn a bit about psychology before ya try to use it in yer favor. Especially when ya use it to accuse someone of being a homosexual.

You completely weakened your argument with that.

Ha!

But that also means using the same marriage laws as eveyone else.

Ya know what else works as "the same marriage laws as everyone else"? Everyone can marry whom they love.

Wow! What an ingenious idea! Someone oughtta do something about that.