Changing Definitions

[magooch]

It shouldn’t come as any great surprise that liberals don’t understand the meaning of marriage (the union of one man and one woman); it has been painfully clear to gun owners for too long, that liberals also fail to understand the meaning of “the right to keep and bear arms…”

Liberals have gotten used to the idea, that if you disagree with a rule or law, you don’t have to change the law; all that’s necessary is to change the definition of the words in the law.  And to do that, you don’t have to have a majority consensus; all you need is a squishy judge or two.

In the liberal mind, homosexuality equates to male, female, Caucasian, “Black”, etc. etc.  The fact is, homosexuality is a type of behavior, not a human classification.  Their deviant behavior aside, homosexuals are not denied the privilege of being married; in fact they have exactly the same privilege as heterosexuals—they can marry one (one at a time) person of the opposite sex.

If the definition of marriage can be changed to accommodate homosexual behavior, then why should it not be changed to allow for interspecies marriages, or groups?  After all, some people do love their animals and it is possible to love more than one person.  

There might be valid arguments for having legalized human partnerships, but here again, certain definitions must be adhered to and such partnerships shouldn’t be based on behavior.

[papajohn428]

Magooch, you're exactly right about the way liberals love to bastardize the language to suit their purposes.  Remember Mario Biaggi, the idiotic New York state politician?  He decided that since he didn't like stun-guns,  and there was no "proper" legal way to ban them, he'd just change the language to suit him.  He tried to have them classed as........are you ready?  Machineguns! :?
Just as many state lawmakers have gotten airguns restricted, by calling them "Firearms", when by definition, that is precisely what they AREN'T, which is why they're called something completely different in the first place!
As long as we let these fools pass laws against Objects, rather than Behavior, we are doomed.  
I know why the gays want what they want, and I don't begrudge them the right to have a legally recognised "union".  But I refused to let them change my language to do it!
PJ

[Dali Llama]

The fact is, homosexuality is a type of behavior.

Dali Llama say magooch leave out significant descriptive adjective: "deviant." :eek:

[magooch]

You're right Dali--deviant and disgusting.

[Dali Llama]

You're right Dali--deviant and disgusting.

Dali Llama say it be "alternative lifestyle" he prefer have no part of whatsoever.    

[Major]

You're right Dali--deviant and disgusting.

Dali Llama say it be "alternative lifestyle" he prefer have no part of whatsoever.    

And now they say it’s OK for cows to marry.    I see where Rosy O’ went to San Francisco today.

I'm with you Dali, keep those deviant's away from me!

[Dali Llama]

You're right Dali--deviant and disgusting.

Dali Llama say it be "alternative lifestyle" he prefer have no part of whatsoever.    

And now they say it’s OK for cows to marry.    I see where Rosy O’ went to San Francisco today.

Dali Llama say bestiality apparently condoned in some jurisdictions. :-D  :lol:

[Mikey]

magooch - ya got my total support on this one and you are absolutely correct.

The mention of mario biaggi brought back memories of a time when changing definitions, lying, pandering and crooked politicians were the stocking label of New York State.  And it wan't just the changing of definitions of guns and the like that they pulled - they used the same approach to define public servants as 'wealthy' and took effort to reduce the size an effective civil service population that was struggling to stay at or even just below cost of living increases just to hire democtaptic appointees who ran the state out of money.

I just loved mario cuomo's plaintive cry of 'I can fix it', after he and his predecessors ran this state into a fiscal hole.  

You called this one right.  Mikey.

[Leftoverdj]

Why do you think the government should enforce your religious beliefs by law?

Seems to me that there is a clause in the constitution that forbids that.

Perhaps the best way out of this mess would be to get government out of the marriage business entirely and leave it to the churches and the private parties where it belongs. None of the government's business what the living arrangments of free citizens are, anyway,

[Mauser]

I've been told all along that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman and God.  Why do people want the govt involved?

The fact that one has to get a marriage license from the king and pay a fee (tax) is offensive to me and should be for everyone.  A license implies that the govt can refuse you.  Why do we tolerate this?

[magooch]

Why do you think the government should enforce your religious beliefs by law?

Seems to me that there is a clause in the constitution that forbids that.

Perhaps the best way out of this mess would be to get government out of the marriage business entirely and leave it to the churches and the private parties where it belongs. None of the government's business what the living arrangments of free citizens are, anyway,

The problem with the marriage thing is not religious and as long as spousal benefits are not an issue, then the government need not be involved.  However, it is a sad day when deviates and perverts get to shape our society and determine what social norms will be.

No sir, the best solution to the problem is to leave the definition of marriage as is; the union of one man and one woman.  PERIOD!

[Leftoverdj]

Magooch. your definition of marriage and your opinion of those of different sexuality are, indeed, religious beliefs.

You do not get to have the government enforce your religion.

"Religious" = "Belief, held on faith, on matters not rationally provable."

[Dali Llama]

Magooch. your definition of marriage and your opinion of those of different sexuality are, indeed, religious beliefs.

You do not get to have the government enforce your religion.

Dali Llama say "thou shalt not steal" arguably have religious foundation in Ten Commandments.  Dali ask if Leftoverdj allow magooch's government to enforce that???

[Major]

Magooch. your definition of marriage and your opinion of those of different sexuality are, indeed, religious beliefs.

You do not get to have the government enforce your religion.

Dali Llama say "thou shalt not steal"   Dali ask if Leftoverdj allow magooch's government to enforce that???

And "Thou Shalt not kill" arguably has religious foundation in Ten Commandments too.    Should magooch's government enforce that??

[Leftoverdj]

The constitution is real clear. Citizens have the right to life, liberty, and property. Gubmint can and oughta protect those. That takes care of murder and theft.

The test is rationality.  Even religions sometimes coincide with reason. The biblical prohibitions against theft, murder, and perjury go to potection of life, liberty, and property. The forbidding of the making of graven images, eating of cheeseburgers, and wearing of polyester blends are purely religious and none of the gubmint's business.

You wanna control someone else's behavior, you need to show that that behavior clearly adversely affects your life, liberty or property. "God said not to" and "It makes me disgusted" don't count.

[Major]

Leftoverdj,

I have nothing against a partnership or joining for legal reasons just don’t call it marriage.

[Leftoverdj]

Major, would you care to explain how what people CALL their relationship affects your life, liberty, or property rights?

[Dali Llama]

"God said not to" and "It makes me disgusted" don't count.

Dali Llama say he postulate that many would differ with Leftoverdj on this point, and more astute might even ask him to provide operational definition of word "count" as he employ it in present context. :-)

[Major]

Major, would you care to explain how what people CALL their relationship affects your life, liberty, or property rights?

I did not say it affected life, liberty, or property rights… don’t put words in my mouth.   I find the use of the term by gays, etc. to be offensive.   I am NOT talking religion here.   Since the beginning of written history marriage has been between a man and a woman.    The Ancient Greeks, who recognized a man and his male lover or a woman and her female lover, still defined a marriage as being between a man and a woman.   Even in Ancient Egypt marriage was between a man and a woman.   Even races with oral traditions instead of written text have the same meaning for marriage.

What gives these people the right to change the meaning of a term that has had the same meaning in every culture for thousands or maybe even tens of thousands of years?   Every civilization this world has even know has had the same meaning for marriage and I find it VERY OFFENSIVE for gays and lesbians to use it to describe their behavior when it is against the very meaning that word has ever held.

I am not saying the constitution needs to be changed, just their use of that terminology.

[Leftoverdj]

Major, it's the job of the government to protect your life, liberty, and property, not your feelings.

[Major]

Leftoverdj,

Then you tell me why the people in this country have to give up saying things because others find them offensive, racial slurs for instance, even though the constitution guarantees our freedom of speech.   The constitution says we have freedom of religion, it doesn’t say you have to have a religion or which one to have.   We can’t say Christian prayers in public places and functions because someone finds that offensive and yet Muslims can bow to Mecca and pray to Allah wherever they happen to be.   Why do the calendars have holiday names like Christmas changed to winter celebration because someone finds it offensive.   Then when I, someone who put my life on the line in the military to serve my country and defend that constitution, find something offensive that doesn’t matter any more.   Either everything that someone finds offensive is allowed or none of the things that someone finds offensive are allowed.   We can’t have it both ways and I find the use of the term marriage by them to be very offensive.

[Dali Llama]

We can’t have it both ways and I find the use of the term marriage by them to be very offensive.

Dali Llama say he concur with Major.

[bpjon]

Major,
 
What law bans you from saying a Christian prayer in public?  Or even from using racial slurs?  And I don't know where you get your calendars, but all mine still say "Christmas".

[Dali Llama]

Major,
 
What law bans you from from using racial slurs?

Dali Llama say he curious if bpjon ever hear of late 20th Century category of crime known as "hate crimes" :x  :evil:  :twisted:

[bpjon]

Bpjon most familiar with hate crime statutes, he former police officer.  He also know statutes not cover speech.  Speech only relevant if element of another crime, not crime themselves.

[Dali Llama]

Bpjon most familiar with hate crime statutes, he former police officer.  He also know statutes not cover speech.  Speech only relevant if element of another crime, not crime themselves.

Dali Llama say that unfortunately speech may be sole additional element that convert crime into so-called "hate crime."    

[Fla Brian]

Leftoverdj,

You've made a number of assertions that I must disagree with.

1. "Perhaps the best way out of this mess would be to get government out of the marriage business entirely and leave it to the churches and the private parties where it belongs. None of the government's business what the living arrangments of free citizens are, anyway,"

Have you thought of the consequences of getting government "out of the marriage business" and leaving it to churches and private parties? Do you favor the idea of people marrying children, for example?

And nothing in this discussion involves dictating the "living arrangements of free citizens." As far as I'm concerned, they can live together for the rest of their lives, they can wear rings on their fingers or in their noses, they can tattoo each other's names on their butts and they can bequeath their estates to one another. They should not be allowed to legalize their "relationships" into marriage.

2. "The constitution is real clear. Citizens have the right to life, liberty, and property. Gubmint can and oughta protect those. That takes care of murder and theft."

I think you rely on the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution for this assertion.

"Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time
of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense
to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law (italics mine); nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation."

Are you seriously contending that the intent of this amendment, in any way, shape or form, was to allow for homosexual marriage. What we are talking about here when we discuss a constitutional amendment is, in fact, "due process of law."

3. You made the assertion that we want to force our religious beliefs on others.

What about when it is the other way around?

I call you attention to the following:

"Article IV.

Section 1
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records,
and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general
Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be
proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities
of Citizens in the several States."

If homosexual citizens of one locality are allowed to legally marry, then citizens of all communities must accept these "unions." Is it then OK for them to force their beliefs on us?

4. You asked the following question: "Major, would you care to explain how what people CALL their relationship affects your life, liberty, or property rights?"

Again, what they call themselves is irrelevant. What is relevant is the legal status they seek for their relationships.

The definition of "marriage" has remained consistent in cultures throughout the world, throughout the ages, throughout virtually all religious and/or secular beliefs or traditions. Marriage is a covenant between man and woman. I find nothing in the Constitution that contradicts this and confers, or recognizes, the right of legal status of marriage for homosexuals. I am fed up with people who conjure up non-existent "constitutional rights" where none exist. I am tired of people stretching and distorting the meaning of that document in ways that would have enraged, I am sure, the framers of that document.

If the gays want the right to marry, it is, in truth, incumbent on them to alter the constitution, by amendment, to change their status and not upon us to amend that document to provide for what is already the legal standard that has existed throughout civilized history.

[Fla Brian]

Bpjon most familiar with hate crime statutes, he former police officer.  He also know statutes not cover speech.  Speech only relevant if element of another crime, not crime themselves.

Explain that to the individual who's had years tacked onto his sentence because his offense was classified as a "hate crime" because of his speech.

[Dali Llama]

Bpjon most familiar with hate crime statutes, he former police officer.  He also know statutes not cover speech.  Speech only relevant if element of another crime, not crime themselves.

Explain that to the individual who's had years tacked onto his sentence because his offense was classified as a "hate crime" because of his speech.

That be good way of word it, say Dali Llama. Dali say let us see what Bpjon reply....

[bpjon]

I would explain it to that individual the same way I'll explain it to you, slowly and simply.  

Racist language itself is not illegal.  However, it can be used as evidence of intent.  For example, if I beat a black man on the head with a baseball bat while saying, "Pay me the money you owe me or I'll kill you."  Does this show any hatred or racism?  No, it just shows I'm not real familiar with normal business practices, and I probably should not loan money to deadbeats.  Now, if I use the same bat to hit the same black man on the head while saying, "You filthy, KFC eating, watermelon sucking porch monkey, I'll kill you," this shows that my attack may have been racially motivated.  

Using someone's speech as evidence of intent is nothing new or radical.  If I walked up to a man on the sidewalk and shot him, I would probably be charged with second degree murder.  If I walked up to a man on the sidewalk and shot him, and then said, "I've been planning to do this all week," I would almost certainly be charged with first degree murder.  Why?  Because my speech revealed my mindset and actions leading up to the shooting.  The speech itself is not illegal.  

Racist speech, when combined with a crime, can be considered an element of a "hate crime," but it is not illegal in and of itself.