Text 11177, 151 rader
Skriven 2007-01-30 23:48:42 av Josh Hill (14614.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: My Presidential Pick for 2006
=========================================
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:26:49 -0600, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message=20
>news:0ehqr21ecr5pgdqger0e27v7buakjsvp2o@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 22:52:26 -0600, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"lizardgirl" <gabiks@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:1169957417.440682.222520@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 28 2006, 2:07 pm, "Vorlonagent" <nojts...@otfresno.com> wrote=
:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The thing about gay marriage is that the legal benefits of marriage
>>>>>are bestowed by the government.  Those benefits are not "rights", th=
ey=20
>>>>>are
>>>>>privileges.  Which means that the government must determine who=20
>>>>>qualifies
>>>>>for those benefits.  It is within the government's rights and powers=
 to
>>>>>restrict legal marriage to heterosexuals.  It isn't necessarily the=20
>>>>>right
>>>>>or
>>>>>moral thing to do but there are lots of things that governments can
>>>>>legally
>>>>>do that aren't right or moral.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't buy the argument that marriage is a 'privilege' determinable
>>>> by the government.  What was marriage before government?
>>>
>>>A religious ceremony that through history guaranteed the birthright
>>>of children.  I don't think you wish to move the dictating authority
>>>for marriage to the church, do you?
>>
>> Marriage antedates the Church, and anything resembling organized
>> religion. And IIRC, the Church long recognized, may still recognize
>> "common law" marriages.
>>
>>>Marriage is a privilege by the simple example that the government says=
=20
>>>that
>>>a man or woman can't marry 5 women (or 5 men or any combination thereo=
f)
>>>concurrently.
>>
>> I don't think that saying that banning the misuse of something makes
>> it a privilege. One can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, yet
>> freedom of speech is considered a right. And governments have often
>> been known to trample on rights.
>
>You're begging the question of "misuse" aren't you?
>
>What is the defining difference that gives homosexual marriage a higher=20
>right
>than polygamy among consenting adults?

The same defining difference that applies in the theater situation:
polygamy appears to be socially harmful, whereas homosexual marriage
doesn't.

>>>The simple fact that states feel they may not have to recognize a marr=
iage
>>>from another state would also indicate fairly clearly that marriage
>>>is a privilege.
>>
>> That would appear to be unconstitutional.
>
>I suspect we'll eventually see if the Supreme Court agrees.
>
>>
>>>Marriage is official recognition of a a union, and it is up to the=20
>>>"official
>>>body" to determine the requirements that it grants that recognition un=
der.
>>
>> That was never the definition of marriage.
>
>You're sidestepping the issue of definitions again.

I was specifically referring to the past; you've included a number of
definitions from the present.

>Dictionary.com:
>
>mar=B7riage
>      1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish th=
eir=20
>decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious=20
>ceremonies, etc.
>
>      <I would say this constitutes "Official recognition of a union">

>      2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock=
: a=20
>happy marriage.
>
>    <implies #1>
>
>      3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of=
 a=20
>man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying so=
cial=20
>festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
>
>      <I would say this constitutes "Official recognition of a union">
>
>      4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to e=
ach=20
>other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial=
=20
>marriage; homosexual marriage.
>
>      <In this case the term is used with a qualifier in a way that=20
>currently implies a lesser state bercause of the lack of legal status>

No, the absence of legal sanction imply anything except that it
doesn't have legal sanction. The judgment in this case is entirely
yours. A dictionary is simply a survey of usage, and this usage is
compatible with my point.

>> The state simply found, quite late in the game, that it was convenient=
 to=20
>> nanny state
>> something that people have been doing since they were protozoa.
>
>You're saying that the state believes that anyone that has sex is marrie=
d?=20
>Don't think so.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the state took
the common law institution known as marriage and decided to regulate
and license it, the way they regulate and license driving.

--=20
Josh

[Truly] I say to you, [...] angel [...] power will be able to see that [.=
..]
these to whom [...] holy generations [...]. After Jesus said this, he dep=
arted.

- The Gospel of Judas
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)