Must be CA!“Satanist” “Pervert” “Anarchist” “Idiot” “Fool” “Hair hopper*” “Whipersnapper” “Not so smarty pants”
Feel better?
*Baltimore slang: hair-hopper, a nickname for teenagers who favor mile-high 'dos that are kept towering with hairspray
BobObob;7265591Who defines “marriage” to begin with and what gives them the authority to define it? Lets remember that whether individuals are recognized as married (regardless of how one defines marriage) has practical implications. [/QUOTE said:
Definitions of words are not absolute. Language is a creation of man.
Define “nature”. Obviously, since some individuals are attracted primarily to others of the same sex, it is in “nature” to be attracted to the same sex (depending on what one means by “nature”).
I’m glad you and I can agree in this respect. That was my political stance even when I was Catholic. I’m assuming that you would agree with me that the government does have the power and responsibility to fight against rape and sexual abuse of minors, since these things violate the rights of others.
Can you elaborate?
To simplify, if one chooses to define marriage a certain way, then one cannot argue that “this is simply the definition of marriage” (post 248) because that’s how one chose to define it. If there’s no universally excepted definition of marriage, then someone can chose to use another definition to make their point (as in the case of a racist person arguing that a union between a Caucasian-American and an African-American isn’t a marriage).
“One” chooses? Definitions of societal institutions are not invented by individuals. They come about out of common, universal experience and understanding. Definitions are not arbitrary, but rather are a recognition of reality as it is. They articulate, name, and describe common norms, perception, and accurate language which has an actual basis in origin, which also includes a stable history of the term over time. Definitions reflect a consistency of understanding within the broadest possible base of the population for the language and culture in which those dictionaries, oral and written, are written and referred to.
This theoretical doesn’t exist; there’s no “if.” There particularly was no absence of universal definition before Loving vs. Virginia, but rather what had occurred was that the State had regressed to ignore the previously established, constitutionally recognized right to marry (which by definition was only heterosexually) across racial lines. It was a subversion of the definition that had to then be corrected (restored) by the Court to affirm that heterosexual marriage could not be restricted by race.
Except when 2 + 2 = 11
Go back to school.
I guess that you did not learn any computations in bases other than 10 in your “school.” Try 2 + 2 in base 3…
Would that be 11?
My favorite line about that is 2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2.
Actually, the salient point is that there is assumption of base 10 until such time as there is a legislative consensus (which often reflects also popular support) for the computational base to change, or even to shift within specified boundaires. For an individual or an interest-group to declare that change by fiat de-legitimatizes the announcement of a base change, and certainly de-legitimatizes it outside of the confined jurisdiction in which that change is sought.
hahaha
It’s an analogy. Obviously you didn’t get that.
Math was also brought up as an “analogy” by a Catholic poster. I’d be just as glad to drop analogies altogether, yours and his.
Language is ultimately created by man. Usually, this is done by many people over some time. For example, the word “gay” changed from meaning happy to meaning a homosexual man over time by the usage of this word by many people.
The tenth amendment forbids the federal government from defining marriage. The tenth amendment forbids the federal government from exercising any power that the constitution doesn’t grant it. No where in the constitution have I read anything that would grant the government power to define marriage.
