Pilot's Political Orientation

"L Smith" wrote in message
link.net...

This seems to be boiling down to an argument over semantics,
where you choose to define terms in such a way as to give you
the moral high ground. Given that, please define, as precisely as
possible, how you define a "gay marriage" and how it differs from
a same-sex marriage. It appears that your definition is not in
agreement with how the general population interprets the term, and
until we understand your definition any meaningful discussion on the
topic is impossible.


Marriage is the union of a man and woman as husband and wife. When at least
one of the persons is gay you have a gay marriage. Same-sex marriage cannot
exist because marriage, by definition, requires persons of opposite sex.



If we were discussing abortion procedures, we would be talking
about things like D&C, partial-birth abortions, and the like. The
discussion was about abortion, not procedures.


You obviously misunderstood the discussion.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"L Smith" wrote in message
hlink.net...


This seems to be boiling down to an argument over semantics,
where you choose to define terms in such a way as to give you
the moral high ground. Given that, please define, as precisely as
possible, how you define a "gay marriage" and how it differs from
a same-sex marriage. It appears that your definition is not in
agreement with how the general population interprets the term, and
until we understand your definition any meaningful discussion on the
topic is impossible.




Marriage is the union of a man and woman as husband and wife. When at least
one of the persons is gay you have a gay marriage. Same-sex marriage cannot
exist because marriage, by definition, requires persons of opposite sex.

1) Extending this argument, there is therefore no need for Bush's
proposed constitutional
amendment, since by definition there can be no same-sex marriage.

2) This is indeed the traditional definition currently accepted in the
western world. It is
far from a universal definition, though. Until fairly recently Mormon's
believed firmly
in polygamy, and polygamy is still a common practice in much of the
world (the general
rule being that you had to be able to support the entire family if you
elected to have more
than one wife). And IIRC, polyandry is an acceptable approach in parts
of Tibet and
other areas where life is considered so hard, more than one "wage
earner" is required
to support a family.

3) Many traditions are good, but that doesn't mean they should be
unchangable. All
traditions should be examined periodically to see if they still make sense.

4) If we accept your definition, then the question we need to ask is
"what is your view
on same-sex civil unions?" This is, after all, what's usually being
referred to when most
people are talking about "gay marriage".

Rich Lemert

L Smith wrote:
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"L Smith" wrote in message
link.net...


This seems to be boiling down to an argument over semantics,
where you choose to define terms in such a way as to give you
the moral high ground. Given that, please define, as precisely as
possible, how you define a "gay marriage" and how it differs from
a same-sex marriage. It appears that your definition is not in
agreement with how the general population interprets the term, and
until we understand your definition any meaningful discussion on the
topic is impossible.




Marriage is the union of a man and woman as husband and wife. When at
least
one of the persons is gay you have a gay marriage. Same-sex marriage
cannot
exist because marriage, by definition, requires persons of opposite sex.

1) Extending this argument, there is therefore no need for Bush's
proposed constitutional
amendment, since by definition there can be no same-sex marriage.

If it weren't for liberal activist judges who try to make law rather
than interpret the law, the amendment would, in fact, be superfluous.
It is simply restating the obvious, but liberal judges are unable to
understand it any other way.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

If it weren't for liberal activist judges who try to make law rather
than interpret the law, the amendment would, in fact, be superfluous.
It is simply restating the obvious, but liberal judges are unable to
understand it any other way.

Are "liberal activist judges" any worse than conservative activist judges?

Isn't case law created in courts rather than by legislation, and a part of
the balance of power of the government?

Peter Gottlieb wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

If it weren't for liberal activist judges who try to make law rather
than interpret the law, the amendment would, in fact, be superfluous.
It is simply restating the obvious, but liberal judges are unable to
understand it any other way.


Are "liberal activist judges" any worse than conservative activist judges?

Probably not, there are just more of them as society as a whole
continues to decline and standards of morality and behavior are lowered.


Isn't case law created in courts rather than by legislation, and a part of
the balance of power of the government?

That wasn't the intent behind the design of our government. The
legislature creates legislation ... could be why they call it the
legislature. :-)

The courts are only to ensure that the legislature adheres to the
constitution, they are not to "create" new law through interpretation.
They are to affirm or deny a given law as being constitutional or not,
and that is it.


Matt

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
et...

Are "liberal activist judges" any worse than conservative activist judges?


Since conservative philosophy precludes judicial activism there can be no
"conservative activist judges".

"L Smith" wrote in message
link.net...

1) Extending this argument, there is therefore no need for Bush's
proposed constitutional
amendment, since by definition there can be no same-sex marriage.


That, and the fact that marriage is not a federal issue per the US
Constitution.



2) This is indeed the traditional definition currently accepted in the
western world. It is far from a universal definition, though. Until
fairly recently Mormon's believed firmly in polygamy, and polygamy
is still a common practice in much of the world (the general
rule being that you had to be able to support the entire family if you
elected to have more than one wife). And IIRC, polyandry is an
acceptable approach in parts of Tibet and other areas where life is
considered so hard, more than one "wage earner" is required
to support a family.


I don't see how that definition necessarily excludes polygamy or polyandry.



3) Many traditions are good, but that doesn't mean they should be
unchangable. All traditions should be examined periodically to see
if they still make sense.


And proposed changes should be examined to see if they make sense. Same-sex
marriage does not make sense.



4) If we accept your definition,


It's not my definition.



then the question we need to ask is "what is your view on
same-sex civil unions?" This is, after all, what's usually being
referred to when most people are talking about "gay marriage".


Same-sex civil unions do not make sense.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

then the question we need to ask is "what is your view on
same-sex civil unions?" This is, after all, what's usually being
referred to when most people are talking about "gay marriage".


Same-sex civil unions do not make sense.

Same sex civil unions are redistribution away from heterosexual women to gay
men, just the same as gay marriage. In Canada when AIDS broke out the
medical system quit treating breast canacer to keep the fags alive. If
women went for more than 6 months without threatment the Canadian
Governement would buy them a bus ticket to Vermont.

Same-sex civil unions do not make sense.

.... to you.

"John Harlow" wrote in message
...

... to you.


True. Of course, if they made real sense, they'd make sense to me.