I am not opposed to gay civil unions and I've said that before. I am for being precise in using the term marraige. Even the ancient Greeks which allowed for homosexual relationships and pederasty never used "marraige" to describe such realtionships. That the term has been co-opted for political gain is typical of progressives advancing their fascist attempts of using government as a bludgeon.

gosh that is strange or latent for someone opposed to gay "marriage" you seem fixated on guys' butts.

Not at all, I just know shit when I see it, and where it comes from..

HitsRus;1739342 wrote:I am not opposed to gay civil unions and I've said that before. I am for being precise in using the term marraige. Even the ancient Greeks which allowed for homosexual relationships and pederasty never used "marraige" to describe such realtionships. That the term has been co-opted for political gain is typical of progressives advancing their fascist attempts of using government as a bludgeon.



Not at all, I just know shit when I see it, and where it comes from..

gosh a ruddies, hardly co-opting for gay couples to use the same term to apply to their union as other couple use.
gosh you refer to the Ancient Greeks and then you apply an ancient Greek aphorism to what you know, "know thyself."

HitsRus;1739342 wrote:I am not opposed to gay civil unions and I've said that before. I am for being precise in using the term marraige. Even the ancient Greeks which allowed for homosexual relationships and pederasty never used "marraige" to describe such realtionships. That the term has been co-opted for political gain is typical of progressives advancing their fascist attempts of using government as a bludgeon.



Not at all, I just know shit when I see it, and where it comes from..

By law, marriage in the US is between a man and a woman and same sex couples. It's okay to believe what you believe, but the law says otherwise.

It's no different than me believing that poor and/or stupid people should not be allowed to vote, but the law says otherwise.

By law, marriage in the US is between a man and a woman and same sex couples.

That is true, but it does not make it a correct application of the term marriage. I understand that cars and trucks are both motor vehicles, but I'm not going to call a truck a car. I understand that dogs and cats are animals, and if animals have "rights" they'd be equal under the law....but a dog is one thing, and a cat is another.
As I said earlier, even in societies where homosexual relationships were accepted, that relationship was not called marriage.

how unbelievably petty. Meanings evolve often for the better. A voter in the United States used to mean a white adult male property holder, that has changed for a more inclusive society as has the definition of marriage.

HitsRus;1739406 wrote:That is true, but it does not make it a correct application of the term marriage. I understand that cars and trucks are both motor vehicles, but I'm not going to call a truck a car. I understand that dogs and cats are animals, and if animals have "rights" they'd be equal under the law....but a dog is one thing, and a cat is another.
As I said earlier, even in societies where homosexual relationships were accepted, that relationship was not called marriage.

Okay, but in America, the country you live in, marriage is now defined to include same sex couples. I understand your religious point of view but your logic is frankly terrible. Words can change meaning and just because the word meant something different in the past has no basis on what it means now and in the future.

Marriage is just a word. Words often have new definitions.

Now if you are arguing that marraige is a religious privilage, you are wrong yet again. Religions also change.

A religious privilage would be not paying tax, not marriage.

HitsRus;1739342 wrote:I am not opposed to gay civil unions and I've said that before. I am for being precise in using the term marraige. Even the ancient Greeks which allowed for homosexual relationships and pederasty never used "marraige" to describe such realtionships. That the term has been co-opted for political gain is typical of progressives advancing their fascist attempts of using government as a bludgeon.



Not at all, I just know shit when I see it, and where it comes from..

Dude no. It is not fascism to want your valid bilateral promises to be enforced. One would think a guy who claims to be sympathetic to limited government and libertarianism would get that. And, when the promises are exchanged are about lifelong love and devotion the contract is a marriage.


Little Kids are not allowed to sell their labor in exchange for a wage anymore but if we passed a law that said they could it would not change the definition of a labor contract.

When will the GOP stand for the liberty and contract rights of gays?

Wouldn't that be great? In 2004 W wins cuz he promises to save us from gay married terrorists. In 2016 Hillary wins because Jeb promises to save us from gay married terrorists.

Know when to fold Em.

QuakerOats;1739006 wrote:2 men can certainly be partnered together and have a civil union etc... it's just not marriage. That's all.

After Obama remains in power for a third term and purchases Quaker Oats and places him in perpetual bondage mowing the yards of black folks I can only imagine Am Sharpton demanding that we come with a different term than slave to describe the same relationship so as not to denigrate the historical experience of Slavery.

The Civil Bondage Act of 2018 enacted to preserve the historical definition and history of Slavery.

HitsRus;1739406 wrote:even in societies where homosexual relationships were accepted, that relationship was not called marriage.

"Ancient societies didn't call it marriage therefore we shouldn't" is a brilliant legal argument. :rolleyes:

Ugh. You always hear how our educational system is failing, and reading some of these posts illustrates why. Where do I even start?

You would have thought that Justice Scalia's scathing rebuke of his colleagues for their creative rewriting of obamacare.....(when is a state the federal governmnet and the Secretary of Human Services)... would have opened some eyes for the necessity of precision in writing law. Words have meanings, and you just can't rewrite stuff to make it work better(in your opinion). You just can't rewrite definitions of words, or interpretations of words to fit an argument...that's academically dishonest.

Some have argued that word meanings "evolve" over time....that is true...millennia, centuries, multiple scores.....but in ten years?...that's not evolving, that's a rewrite to fit a political cause.

A basic rule in logic is that you cannot draw generalizations from specifics. You can draw specifics from generalities, but vice versa is a logical fail.

Words and terminiology are no different. Some words are more general terms and some more specific.

A voter in the United States used to mean a white adult male property holder

No....a "voter" means one who votes. "an adult white male property holder" (circa 1800)is a sub set of that term. We can add other subsets at a later date...and we did.
Marriage on the other hand is specific for a man and a woman in that we cannot find any( or if any, very very few) other definitions to the contrary prior to the last decade or two. Any subsets for that word would start with the basic definition of a union between man and a woman...such as arranged marriages, marriages of convienience...etc etc. Adding same sex unions to "marriage" is changing the basic definition of the word, and is taking a specific and making it more general. Should we be in the habit of changing definitions of words for political expediency?

Last but not least, I want to thank boatshoes for providing the ultimate example of what I'm talking about. We all know the traditional, historical definition of slavery. It's reared it's ugly head in Egypt, Europe and all over the African continent. But here...in his "Civil Bondage Act of 2018" we are talikng about rewriting the definition to satisfy a political group. Fail.

Lastly some have called it petty...if it's so petty then let it go and throw the fundamentalists a bone. It doesn't mean anything, right?

HitsRus;1739537 wrote:Ugh. You always hear how our educational system is failing, and reading some of these posts illustrates why. Where do I even start?

You would have thought that Justice Scalia's scathing rebuke of his colleagues for their creative rewriting of obamacare.....(when is a state the federal governmnet and the Secretary of Human Services)... would have opened some eyes for the necessity of precision in writing law. Words have meanings, and you just can't rewrite stuff to make it work better(in your opinion). You just can't rewrite definitions of words, or interpretations of words to fit an argument...that's academically dishonest.

Some have argued that word meanings "evolve" over time....that is true...millennia, centuries, multiple scores.....but in ten years?...that's not evolving, that's a rewrite to fit a political cause.

A basic rule in logic is that you cannot draw generalizations from specifics. You can draw specifics from generalities, but vice versa is a logical fail.

Words and terminiology are no different. Some words are more general terms and some more specific.

No....a "voter" means one who votes. "an adult white male property holder" (circa 1800)is a sub set of that term. We can add other subsets at a later date...and we did.
Marriage on the other hand is specific for a man and a woman in that we cannot find any( or if any, very very few) other definitions to the contrary prior to the last decade or two. Any subsets for that word would start with the basic definition of a union between man and a woman...such as arranged marriages, marriages of convienience...etc etc. Adding same sex unions to "marriage" is changing the basic definition of the word, and is taking a specific and making it more general. Should we be in the habit of changing definitions of words for political expediency?

Last but not least, I want to thank boatshoes for providing the ultimate example of what I'm talking about. We all know the traditional, historical definition of slavery. It's reared it's ugly head in Egypt, Europe and all over the African continent. But here...in his "Civil Bondage Act of 2018" we are talikng about rewriting the definition to satisfy a political group. Fail.

Lastly some have called it petty...if it's so petty then let it go and throw the fundamentalists a bone. It doesn't mean anything, right?

I am afraid your cognitive dissonance is not allowing you to see that it is you that are trying to give a contractual relationship a new name based on who the parties are.

A bilateral contract about fidelity, devotion, commitment, sickness and in health etc. Is a marriage. The parties to this relationship do not change that if the parties are now of the same sex.

You are confusing the type of contract with the parties.

Women did not used to be able to own land. When they were suddenly no longer persecutd and were,able to acquire title to land, this did not change the definition of a land contract.

When persecuted minorities are liberated and ble to excercise the same contract rights as everyone else, that does not change the definitions of contracts.

A contract wherein a supplier agrees to provide as many goods as a merchant requires is a requirements contract under the UCC. Because blacks used to be historically barred from working in such a capacity does not change the definition of a requirements contract when they are liberated and able to do so.

A marriage is a contract wherein the promises exchanged are eternal love and devotion and all that. Because two chicks exchange the promises in no way alters that fact.

The definition of marriage was not changed. persecuted minorities are just now able to have their marital promises enforced like everyone else.

^^^No, no no. it's not about "my cognitive dissonance", but about your failure to grasp the order of terms...from general to specific.... and the importance of it in regards to the law. It's okay, apparently half the Supreme Court doesn't it get it either.( side note: if you look at how and why they were appointed it's easy to see why).

Let's take your example of "contracts"....contracts being the general term.

Under contracts you have more specific types....

Contracts
a.Land contracts
b. business contracts
c. Marriage contracts

We can take or add, by law, any of the subsets underneath without changing the fundamental nature of the term Contracts.

Now let's get more specific....Land Contracts.
You can change all the subsets under Land Contracts as long as it still pertains to Land. Adding additional "property" to a Land contract, changes the fundamental meaning of Land Contract.

Marraige Contracts are a specific type of contract also....a contract that relates to marriage, which is defined first as a contract between a man and a woman. You can change the subsets under the term Marraige, just as in land contracts, so long as it pertains to marriage. Adding other participants besides the fundamental nature of this type of specific contract....i.e....a man and woman....changes, rewrites the fundamental nature...and now it is something else.

Perhaps I will elaborate more later...but for now, I'm outta time. TTFN.

HitsRus;1739549 wrote:^^^No, no no. it's not about "my cognitive dissonance", but about your failure to grasp the order of terms...from general to specific.... and the importance of it in regards to the law. It's okay, apparently half the Supreme Court doesn't it get it either.( side note: if you look at how and why they were appointed it's easy to see why).

Let's take your example of "contracts"....contracts being the general term.

Under contracts you have more specific types....

Contracts
a.Land contracts
b. business contracts
c. Marriage contracts

We can take or add, by law, any of the subsets underneath without changing the fundamental nature of the term Contracts.

Now let's get more specific....Land Contracts.
You can change all the subsets under Land Contracts as long as it still pertains to Land. Adding additional "property" to a Land contract, changes the fundamental meaning of Land Contract.

Marraige Contracts are a specific type of contract also....a contract that relates to marriage, which is defined first as a contract between a man and a woman. You can change the subsets under the term Marraige, just as in land contracts, so long as it pertains to marriage. Adding other participants besides the fundamental nature of this type of specific contract....i.e....a man and woman....changes, rewrites the fundamental nature...and now it is something else.

Perhaps I will elaborate more later...but for now, I'm outta time. TTFN.

I got all excited because you used bold but I was disappointed. If you will read your post again you will see that you made the same mistake again.

The subject matter of a contract...the promises exchanged...determine what kind of contract is in play...not the parties.

In your example with the land contract you change the subject matter which alters the nature of the contract.

When you start talking about marriage you equivocate in your reasoning and change the parties, not the subject matte/promises exchanged.

The parties to a contract are not the subject matter or "subsets" to use your terminology.

It is a contract where the gender is specified, and the subject matter relates to that relationship.
You are the one equivocating, taking license with the definition of the word marriage, which has no connotation or traditional or historical definition of being anything but the relationship between a man and a woman. What you keep doing is generalizing the specific term marriage into a general relationship contract.
This.....
Relationship contracts
a. marriage
b. same sex unions
c. other

not this...
Relationship contracts
a. Marriage
---a. same sex
---b. other

because to fit "same sex" into the category "marriage", you have to change the definition of "marriage". This is an important distinction, not because it has anything to do with preventing the rightful expansion of state sanctioned unions to same sex couples, but because it diminishes the rights of people who hold true to the traditional definition. There are other reasons that the SCOTUS should not make a habit of changing definitions or take liberties with language, because it is in the precision of words that our law is based.

Hits, you're completely wrong and boatshoes is right. It doesn't take a lawyer to understand that the subject matter determines the contract not the parties.

BoatShoes;1739553 wrote:I got all excited because you used bold but I was disappointed. If you will read your post again you will see that you made the same mistake again.

The subject matter of a contract...the promises exchanged...determine what kind of contract is in play...not the parties.

In your example with the land contract you change the subject matter which alters the nature of the contract.

When you start talking about marriage you equivocate in your reasoning and change the parties, not the subject matte/promises exchanged.

The parties to a contract are not the subject matter or "subsets" to use your terminology.

The bolded part below is wrong:

HitsRus;1739584 wrote:It is a contract where the gender is specified, and the subject matter relates to that relationship.
You are the one equivocating, taking license with the definition of the word marriage, which has no connotation or traditional or historical definition of being anything but the relationship between a man and a woman. What you keep doing is generalizing the specific term marriage into a general relationship contract.
This.....
Relationship contractsa. marriage
b. same sex unions
c. other

As boatshoes said, a marriage contract is a marriage contract because it contractually binds two people by law to the consequences of marriage: community property laws, spousal liability laws, etc. As the laws change and other categories of people are allowed to be parties to a legally binding marriage contract, it still doesn't change the nature of the contract. Even if you want to be stubborn and refuse to call a spade a spade.

Hits, you're completely wrong and boatshoes is right.

You really could have stopped there.

BoatShoes;1739553 wrote:I got all excited because you used bold but I was disappointed. If you will read your post again you will see that you made the same mistake again.

The subject matter of a contract...the promises exchanged...determine what kind of contract is in play...not the parties.

In your example with the land contract you change the subject matter which alters the nature of the contract.

When you start talking about marriage you equivocate in your reasoning and change the parties, not the subject matte/promises exchanged.

The parties to a contract are not the subject matter or "subsets" to use your terminology.

Predictably a liberal lawyer might attempt to justify his/her incorrect reasoning, and rationalize an incorrect decision by 5 radically liberal lawyers with nothing more than a political agenda. Marriage by its very definition and true meaning involves the unification of a man and a woman. Period. Similarly, water is comprised of the joining of oxygen and hydrogen, because that is what it is. It will never be oxygen and oxygen, or oxygen and nitrogen, even if some liberal lawyer wants you to believe that. There is good reason that marriage is what it is.

I do not have a problem at all with civil unions and the like, nor with the human beings involved in such relationships. They are some of the finest people we all know. It was only the radical left among them that have attempted to hijack the definition; but that just can't happen.

Words do have meanings.

QuakerOats;1739635 wrote:
Words do have meanings.

And those meanings evolve over time in all different aspects of the law. Your analogy of h20, which is a chemical formula and by definition cannot be anything else, is absolutely terrible for that reason.

To believe otherwise is to be ignorant to the entire history of the legal system.

It has nothing to do with left vs right. It has to do with the evolution of the law, something you're either choosing to ignore or extremely ignorant of.

It is not up to liberal lawyers to interject their agenda upon an already developed truth.


Good luck.

QuakerOats;1739643 wrote:It is not up to liberal lawyers to interject their agenda upon an already developed truth.


Good luck.

You choosing to ignore the evolution of law doesn't render it nonexistent.

But please, continue to enlighten us with your illogical analogies.

Next, can you please analogize the view you see from a stationary position to that from a moving vehicle?

And LOL @ the notion that the evolution of the law only comes from liberal lawyers. If your ignorance of the law and its evolution wasn't apparent before, it certainly is now.

It doesn't take a lawyer to understand that the subject matter determines the contract not the parties.

Apparently it does...or least a good one.
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/M/Marriage.aspx

The law defers to marriage like no other contract.

I am "wrong" only since 2013 since the SCOTUS took it upon itself to strike down DOMA and redefine marriage to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution. That it did so is not a surprise or a problem. The problem comes from them redefining/rewriting a law passed by the people's representatives and changing it's terms.. The law, as unconstitutional as it may be, was written with specific language that holds specific meaning, and it is the proper place of the court to strike it down, but return it to the legislature such that a constitutionally correct law written by the people's representatives can be resubmitted. Had that properly happened, Congress would have had to re-submit a law that was rightfully inclusive of same sex unions and marriage alike for state sanctioning, or done nothing, in which case the state would not sanction/license ANY union. The Court has continued this pattern of usurping authority particularly in it's rulings last week.....taking liberties in interpreting terms, changing definitions or flat out ignoring them and in rewriting law, which is the constitutional duty of Congress. By doing so, it assumes a primacy over the other branches of government....not exactly what was intended in the checks and balances instituted by our founding fathers. If you think this is the proper place of the court, you deserve what you get.

HitsRus;1739654 wrote:Apparently it does...or least a good one.
.

No, it doesn't. I'll refer you to what I said to Quaker--just because you don't understand or agree with a concept doesn't make it untrue. The concept of a contract, and its construction, has remained unchanged. The only thing that changes from contract to contract is the subject matter and the parties. The Supreme Court didn't rule that the subject matter of a marriage contract changed, only that the parties eligible to enter into that contract changed. That is completely in line with what Boatshoes said about blacks being able to enter into contracts, or women being allowed to enter into land contracts as the law evolved.

Or maybe you're failing to conceptualize checks and balances--the Supreme Court still has to answer to Congress. When Congress is unequivocally clear about a law, there is nothing the Supreme Court can do unless the law is unconstitutional. If you have a problem with how the system works, the same way "judicial activism" has worked since Marbury v. Madison​ in 1803, feel free to move to Canada.

1. Did someone remove the Political forum and not tell me?

2. This thread has been everything I hoped it would be. At this point, I'm just commenting so I'm subscribed to it.