LGP Political Discussion Thread

Forum for posts that are not hockey-related.

Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby MRandall25 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 4:22 pm

Again, Tif, I think most of the argument against what you're saying is due to semantics. People who oppose gay marriage because of so-called "sanctity" are those who believe marriage and matrimony are synonymous.
MRandall25
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 19,693
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:11 pm
Location: BOBROVSKY!!!

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby canaan on Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:05 pm

are those same people opposing divorce as vehemently as they are opposing same-sex marriage? doesn't that put a dent in the "sanctity of marriage"?
canaan
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 39,699
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 11:13 am
Location: Nevin Shapiro A&M

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby MRandall25 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:16 pm

I think that's an entirely different discussion, canaan, mostly because I think the people who claim sanctity of marriage don't even have a full understanding of the the term "marriage".
MRandall25
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 19,693
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:11 pm
Location: BOBROVSKY!!!

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby obhave on Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:18 pm

MRandall25 wrote:I think that's an entirely different discussion, canaan.

I don't think that it is. If you are opposing same sex-marriage solely on the basis of the "sanctity of marriage" then you should be opposing divorce as much as you oppose same-sex marriage.
obhave
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 2,918
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:56 pm

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby MRandall25 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:22 pm

obhave wrote:
MRandall25 wrote:I think that's an entirely different discussion, canaan.

I don't think that it is. If you are opposing same sex-marriage solely on the basis of the "sanctity of marriage" then you should be opposing divorce as much as you oppose same-sex marriage.


Check my edit.
MRandall25
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 19,693
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:11 pm
Location: BOBROVSKY!!!

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby tifosi77 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:23 pm

MRandall25 wrote:Again, Tif, I think most of the argument against what you're saying is due to semantics. People who oppose gay marriage because of so-called "sanctity" are those who believe marriage and matrimony are synonymous.

Which is fine; as I've said, I have no quarrel with that, nor do I think it would be proper to impose this on religious institutions.

However, in our system there is a necessary difference between what is good and proper in the eyes of god and what is good and proper in the eyes of the law. The former has no business informing the latter.

obhave wrote:
MRandall25 wrote:I think that's an entirely different discussion, canaan.

I don't think that it is. If you are opposing same sex-marriage solely on the basis of the "sanctity of marriage" then you should be opposing divorce as much as you oppose same-sex marriage.

It's one of the great dichotomies of the day; when you look at the political landscape, many of the most vocal opponents to marriage equality are old white men who have been married and divorced, sometimes multiple times.
tifosi77
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 14,085
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby ExPatriatePen on Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:29 pm

tifosi77 wrote:when you look at the political landscape, many of the most vocal opponents to marriage equality are old white men who have been married and divorced, sometimes multiple times.


Careful now... that one stings a bit. :)

=
ExPatriatePen
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,691
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:57 pm
Location: Source, Destination, Protocol, Port, size, sequence number, check sum... Yep, that about covers it.

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby columbia on Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:33 pm

:lol:
columbia
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 51,889
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:13 am
Location: دعنا نذهب طيور البطريق

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby tifosi77 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 6:00 pm

Hey now.
tifosi77
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 14,085
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby doublem on Wed Mar 27, 2013 6:12 pm

Image
doublem
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 13,430
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:05 pm

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby MWB on Wed Mar 27, 2013 6:43 pm

Shyster wrote:
pittsoccer33 wrote:
MRandall25 wrote:Would this whole "gay marriage" thing be an issue if the government had used a term other than "marriage" to define the union between 2 people? I think most people (at least those who oppose same-sex unions) see the term "marriage" as religious in connotation. Marriage to them is something sacred, done in a religious context. Using "gay marriage" is a threat, in a way, to their definition of religious marriage between a man and a woman as laid out in the Bible. "How dare two people of the same sex try to infringe on our religious institution," they may think.

Perhaps if the government moved away from the term "marriage", maybe those who oppose "gay marriage" would lessen their stance? If the various parties were arguing over "same-sex unions" as opposed to "same-sex marriage", would we even be worrying about this issue now?


Yes I think that would eliminate 95+% of the opposition.


I concur. I think a lot of the opposition to gay marriage comes from people (including myself) who believe that the word marriage refers—and has throughout recorded history referred—to a heterosexual relationship. Thus, there cannot be gay marriage without changing the fundamental societal definition of marriage. Chief Justice Roberts raised this point yesterday in an exchange with Mr. Olson:

If you tell—if you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, this is my friend, but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend. And that’s it seems to me what the—what supporters of Proposition 8 are saying here. You’re—all you’re interested in is the label and you insist on changing the definition of the label.


The word "gay" used to be the common term for "happy." Times changes and the meanings of words changes with the times.
MWB
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 15,748
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:36 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby MRandall25 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:00 pm

I just want to put it out there that I'm not saying I agree with the people who oppose gay marriage because of how they define marriage. That's far from it. I was just bringing up a point that maybe some of the resistance is because they believe marriage to mean one thing, while the other side believes a different thing.

I really hope I'm not being grouped in with the people who oppose gay marriage, because that's far from it. I guess I'm just trying to figure out why this argument has had to go to the Supreme Court when it's basically a semantics issue. IMO, I think you'd have a hard time finding people who would oppose gays getting the same benefits (next-of-kin, etc) brought up earlier in this thread.
Last edited by MRandall25 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MRandall25
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 19,693
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:11 pm
Location: BOBROVSKY!!!

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Shyster on Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:00 pm

MWB wrote:The word "gay" used to be the common term for "happy." Times changes and the meanings of words changes with the times.

That’s not really a good example, as much of the shift in meaning of gay was due to homosexuals themselves, who increasingly used the word to refer to themselves starting around the 1960s. I would say it’s actually an example of gays trying to seize another word and twist the definition to suit themselves.
Shyster
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,754
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:32 pm
Location: Here and there

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Gaucho on Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:07 pm

A cunning bunch, them.
Gaucho
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 44,371
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Ignoranti

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby columbia on Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:11 pm

What's next? Fat people insisting on being called phat?
columbia
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 51,889
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:13 am
Location: دعنا نذهب طيور البطريق

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby obhave on Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:13 pm

MRandall25 wrote:I just want to put it out there that I'm not saying I agree with the people who oppose gay marriage because of how they define marriage. That's far from it. I was just bringing up a point that maybe some of the resistance is because they believe marriage to mean one thing, while the other side believes a different thing.

I really hope I'm not being grouped in with the people who oppose gay marriage, because that's far from it. I guess I'm just trying to figure out why this argument has had to go to the Supreme Court when it's basically a semantics issue. IMO, I think you'd have a hard time finding people who would oppose gays getting the same benefits (next-of-kin, etc) brought up earlier in this thread.


I think people realize what you were arguing, don't worry!

Depends on the benefits. I know many people that oppose homosexual couples being able to adopt (a benefit of a married couple). They oppose it because a child needs a mom and dad to "turn out alright". Because, ya know, those of us raised by single parents did not turn out alright.
obhave
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 2,918
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:56 pm

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby obhave on Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:13 pm

Gaucho wrote:A cunning bunch, them.

:thumb:
obhave
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 2,918
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:56 pm

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby obhave on Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:14 pm

Shyster wrote:
MWB wrote:The word "gay" used to be the common term for "happy." Times changes and the meanings of words changes with the times.

That’s not really a good example, as much of the shift in meaning of gay was due to homosexuals themselves, who increasingly used the word to refer to themselves starting around the 1960s. I would say it’s actually an example of gays trying to seize another word and twist the definition to suit themselves.


I think you will find for the most part its not us that is trying to use the word to our advantage.
obhave
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 2,918
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:56 pm

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Gaucho on Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:15 pm

Have I told you about the famous encounter between a friend of mine and Peaches at a party in Bielefeld's so-called Chelsea Hotel?

My friend: "Hi, I'm a conservative gay." - Peaches: "F*** off."

Classic.
Gaucho
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 44,371
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Ignoranti

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby tifosi77 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:15 pm

Shyster wrote:
MWB wrote:The word "gay" used to be the common term for "happy." Times changes and the meanings of words changes with the times.

That’s not really a good example, as much of the shift in meaning of gay was due to homosexuals themselves, who increasingly used the word to refer to themselves starting around the 1960s. I would say it’s actually an example of gays trying to seize another word and twist the definition to suit themselves.

You mean like, 'normal'? And 'equal'?
tifosi77
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 14,085
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Gaucho on Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:45 pm

Gaucho
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 44,371
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Ignoranti

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby MWB on Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:51 pm

Shyster wrote:
MWB wrote:The word "gay" used to be the common term for "happy." Times changes and the meanings of words changes with the times.

That’s not really a good example, as much of the shift in meaning of gay was due to homosexuals themselves, who increasingly used the word to refer to themselves starting around the 1960s. I would say it’s actually an example of gays trying to seize another word and twist the definition to suit themselves.


What difference does it make how it changed? As with many words, society accepted a different meaning because enough people used it differently.
MWB
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 15,748
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:36 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby tifosi77 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 8:20 pm

It was once pointed out to me here that the word 'nimrod' actually means hunter or warrior (in reference to a Biblical character). But in a Warner Bros cartoon, Bugs Bunny once referred to Elmer Fudd as "poor little Nimrod", and people who didn't know the reference (most) interpreted it as as a dig at Elmer's depressed intelligence. Which is how the current definition of the word in American English came into being.
tifosi77
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 14,085
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Shyster on Wed Mar 27, 2013 8:28 pm

MWB wrote:What difference does it make how it changed? As with many words, society accepted a different meaning because enough people used it differently.

First, that is a different thing than what we are facing now, which is a situation where the Supreme Court may potentially order what I believe would be a definitional change.

Second, I work in a profession where the meaning of words is a manner of critical importance, and I myself am personally peeved by sloppy or imprecise usage. I’m a big fan of Bryan Garner and an aspiring snoot. I have two usage dictionaries that are right at this moment within arm’s reach. I generally view definitional drift as an enemy to be combated at every turn. Saying “who cares what marriage means?” is to me the linguistic equivalent of fingernails on a chalkboard.
Shyster
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,754
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:32 pm
Location: Here and there

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Shyster on Wed Mar 27, 2013 8:32 pm

columbia wrote:What's next? Fat people insisting on being called phat?

I prefer “Naturally Insulated American,” thank you very much.
Shyster
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,754
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:32 pm
Location: Here and there

PreviousNext

Return to NHR

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


cron
e-mail