Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycanbemisinterpreted by SUV drivers)

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

> > Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a
> > dog, does that make it a dog?
> 
> We're not considering cats, dogs or trees. We're considering two people
> who wish to affirm their relationship to each other, thereby taking on the
> social and financial responsibilities and attaining the social and
> financial privileges accorded by society to two people in such a
> relationship.

I have no problem with two people who love each other affirming their
relationship. I also have no problem with laws being changed to accord
these people the same rights and benefits that are accorded to people
married under the traditional definition. I just don't agree that it is
correct to call this a marriage - at least in the traditional sense.
English words frequently have multiple meaning and certainly the word
marriage in the general sense can be used to describe a union between
all sorts of things (as in "He was married to his life style.").
However, when we are discussing the legal definition of a marriage, I
don't think the people who wrote the laws regarding marriage intended it
to cover same sex unions, and I don't like the idea that we can just
arbitrarily expand the legal meaning because some people like the idea.

> You have yet to explain why the sex of the two partners is at all relevant
> other than to make circular parrot noises ("Rawk! Man and woman! Reehoo!
> Redefining! Rawk! Not a marriage").

If I can't count on the consistent meaning of words in a legal sense,
how can I trust the laws the words describe?

 
> You seem very convinced of your rightness on this matter. Surely, then,
> you can articulate the basis for your belief in a persuasive and logical
> manner, rather than simply repeating a dogmatic statement...?

What do you mean by "repeating a dogmatic statement?" I just wants legal
terms to have a consistent understandable meaning. I don't like the idea
of laws being molded into a new shape by adjusting the meaning of words.

> > The laws related to the institution of marriage were set in place with
> > the understanding that a marriage was a union between a man and a woman.
> 
> Fifty years ago, your type was saying "The laws related to the institution
> of marriage were set in place with the understanding that a marriage was a
> union between members of the same race."

I think you missed the mark here. At the time and places these sort of
believes were held, separate laws were passed prohibiting such unions.
The definition of "marriage" was not adjusted to exclude such unions. 

> > Trying to extend those laws to cover same sex unions is not the right
> > way to fix a perceived injustice.
> 
> While I'd be interested to learn what you think *is* the right way, I
> hardly think you have much basis to be making pronouncements on the
> matter. You're not on the receiving end of the injustice.

The "right way" is to pass laws recognizing civil unions and endowing
them with the rights and benefits that lawmakers agree on. Traditional
man/woman marriage could be a sub-set. I suppose you could pass laws
explicitly redefining the legal meaning of the word "marriage" to
include same sex union, but this seems needlessly provocative. Of course
maybe that is the whole objective of those who want to change the legal
definition of marriage to include same sex unions.

I really don't know what else I can say on the subject. I just prefer
that words have a consistent legal interpretation. I have no desire to
discriminate again people of the same sex who love each other, I just
don't agree that we can just decide to redefine the legal meaning of
marriage to include same sex unions because it is the expedient way to
implement a desirable policy change.

Ed