I don't think any of us seriously imagines that our institution of marriage came about because some individual had a ‘bright idea’ one day about how he could make everybody happy. Marriage is a social institution, and social institutions are developed because they serve a social purpose, not because they bring personal fulfillment to certain individuals within the community. Whether or not you believe God created marriage makes no difference. If He did, God did it for the sake of the community as a whole and not for the sake satisfying every individual’s social, emotional and sexual needs.He elaborates...
What is the purpose of marriage? To create a stronger society. Strong marriages create strong families who build a stronger community. Marriages contribute stability. They contribute structure. And most importantly, marriages contribute children.
[Much more after the jump.]
He reminds me of Dennis Prager, who writes and talks a lot on happiness and says we have an obligation to others, especially our spouse, to cultivate happiness in our life, when he writes:So how come every time someone says 'I'm not happy in my marriage' we treat it as if something is horribly wrong? If someone expresses dissatisfaction with other social institutions, such as the government or the taxation system.. we don’t normally get too worked up.
When someone says they are unhappy in their marriage, it is usually because of one or more of the following: 1) they picked the wrong person to marry; 2) they are not putting into the marriage what they should; 3) they are incorrectly assigning blame for their discontent to marriage or their spouse; 4) they are looking for sympathy.
Smith emphasizes:
Marriages exist for the sake of the community as a whole. That’s the bad news if you thought that your marriage existed for the sake of your individual happiness. On the other hand though, the community exists to meet those needs we all have as individuals. That’s the good news.And finally...
What if we saw the importance of our roles as parents in terms of the great good that could be achieved in the community if we bring up our children to be strong and capable? What if we stopped assessing our partners and our children in terms of the amount of satisfaction they bring us, and were able to see those relationships as being our gifts to humanity?I have maintained that if an unhappy person is looking for another person to make them happy (unless that person is Jesus, as I am a Christian), they are looking in vain. If they think that marriage will make them happy or that a state marriage license will, they are sorely mistaken. I do believe that a good marriage encourages the happiness of a happy person. I recommend reading all of Smith's article.
Great thoughts!
ReplyDelete"Marriages contribute stability."
ReplyDeleteSuck on that, Op-Ed.
Miles, the author is clearly writing about bride+groom pairings. It's like if someone is talking about running, and they say, "exercise helps people run faster", and someone applies that to "exercising" stock options.
ReplyDeleteMr. Walrus,
ReplyDeleteDo you deny that allowing gay couples to marry would contribute to the stability of those relationships? (Op-Ed already has, elsewhere: "'Gay couples' are 'allowed' to be as stable as they choose. Redefining marriage won’t change that." That's why my comment was directed at him.)
Miles...PW.'s point stands.
ReplyDeleteIts the height of subterfuge & bad faith to claim gay "marriage" as marriage when that is the focus of discussion.
Try and stay on-topic and argue in good faith. No one has ever asserted that the benifits to society of marriage can be transfered without consequence to same-sex "marriage"
Even a crude rule-utilitarianism will get you there. A more sophisticated rule-utilitarianism will get you their with greater sophistication.
Everyone here at Opine often make posts on traditional marriage. If everytime they do so you try and shoe-horn same-sex "marriage" into that paradigm you will reveal yourself to be incapable of making the very distinction that is in dispute.
And ergo- a bad faith actor.
I just read the Reverend's article. Pretty communistic there at the end; anyone else bothered by that?
ReplyDeleteI liked the part where he revealed what was on God's mind when marriage was instituted.
I also liked how he supported his claim that, "most importantly, marriages contribute children": the Old Testament Israelite-necessity-is-the-mother-of-marriage-invention argument. Yes, the Israelites had to promote procreation to the exclusion of nearly all else in order to survive. That's why rape was treated like no big deal, while masturbation and homosexuality were capital offenses. We don't live under the same conditions as the ancient Israelites; as conditions change, so does society. As the Reverend pointed out, institutions exist to serve society, not the other way around.
All in all, the entire article was a fine example of "Do as I say, not as I do." The Reverend doesn't say if he's in communication with his ex-wife about remarrying, righting his wrong. Until I hear that, the Reverend's words carry no credibility with me.
Compare and contrast exercise opportunity here, between what Miles said Smith say, and what Smith actually said...
ReplyDeleteMiles: > Pretty communistic there at the end; anyone else bothered by that?
Smith: > "What if we began to look at our marriages as being the most significant contribution we could make to the broader community?
"What if we saw the importance of our roles as parents in terms of the great good that could be achieved in the community if we bring up our children to be strong and capable? What if we stopped assessing our partners and our children in terms of the amount of satisfaction they bring us, and were able to see those relationships as being our gifts to humanity? Perhaps then we'd find ourselves saying things like 'well, I don't get on brilliantly with my wife, but I think we've managed to achieve some fine things together and that the world is a better place for our union, and perhaps that's more important than my individual happiness'."
Miles: > I liked the part where he revealed what was on God's mind when marriage was instituted.
Smith: [as relayed in the post above] > "Whether or not you believe God created marriage makes no difference. If He did, God did it for the sake of the community as a whole and not for the sake satisfying every individual’s social, emotional and sexual needs."
Fitz,
ReplyDelete"the height of subterfuge"? I didn't realize I was getting that good at it. Thanks, at least, for not using the adjective "rank"; it was getting a little tired.
I'm not talking about "same-sex 'marriage'," Fitz. I don't even use the term. I'm just talking about marriage, and whether it's sensible to exclude gay couples from participating in marriage. You would like to define marriage so as to preempt that discussion.
The Reverend wrote that marriage strengthens society by stabilizing relationships, and I'm asking whether gay couples' relationships would not also be stabilized by marriage. My hunch is that you're not at all concerned about the stability of gay couples' relationships. Am I right?
More fact checking for Miles...
ReplyDeleteMiles: > "I don't even use the term. I'm just talking about marriage, and whether it's sensible to exclude gay couples from participating in marriage."
Merriam Webster's definition of marriage: > "(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage "
And this one for free...
Merriam Webster's definition of subterfuge: > "1 : deception by artifice or stratagem in order to conceal, escape, or evade"
In spite of your assertion, M-W lists two definitions. If you were right, M-W wouldn't have to say one is "like that of" the other. That is a paradigm you refuted for yourself. And it wouldn't exclusively note "same-sex couples" as the object of one, and "opposite sex" as the object of the other.
If your argument is based solely on, "talking about marriage, and whether it's sensible to exclude gay couples from participating in marriage", then you are simply engaging in an amphibology. A fallacy, and well said by Fitz to be the height of subterfuge. They are apples and oranges.
Speaking of apples and oranges, how manipulating our understanding of categories can influence results can be explained with a parallel to school lunches. In the Reagan administration, ketchup was classified as a fresh vegetable. In the Clinton administration it was salsa (which is more nutritious than ketchup). And more recently it is battered fries. While each case has its own origins and explanations, the underlying shock to the news is the same. When you change your expectations, it is easier to see them met. Counting ketchup as a fresh vegetable and kids are all of a sudden eating more fresh vegetables. Ditto with salsa. Raising the results by lowering the expectations is something that is not unheard of at school.
But are the children healthier? Are they getting more fresh vegetables? There is no way to know since the method of accounting has changed. And that inability to deal directly with the social concern of child nutrition because of creative accounting is, in and of itself, suspect.
I ask whether it's sensible to exclude gay couples from participating in marriage, and On Lawn responds with the equivalent of "That's the way it's always been, well, up until recently at least." As I've explained elsewhere, the dictionary reflects; it doesn’t dictate. It’s descriptive, not prescriptive. No one is disputing that gay couples have historically been excluded from the institution of marriage; that history is reflected in the dictionary. On Lawn's dictionary also reflects that the times, they are a changin'. I wonder: when the day comes that the dictionary definition of marriage no longer refers to the sex of the individuals, will that "authority" be accepted as the end of the matter by On Lawn and his ilk?
ReplyDeletemiles: Suck on that, Op-Ed.
ReplyDeleteThe reverend is talking about society. You are talking only about "gay couples."
Rev: What is the purpose of marriage? To create a stronger society. ... Marriages contribute stability.
miles: Do you deny that allowing [sic] gay couples [sic] to marry would contribute to the stability of those relationships?
[Emphasis added in both.]
It is only your narcissistic preoccupation that makes you see "gay couples" when the text refers to "society" generally. The fact is, "gay couples," single individuals, small businesses, and every other non-marital situation benefits from the stability marriage imparts to society.
miles: On Lawn responds with the equivalent of "That's the way it's always been,..."
ReplyDeleteHere miles shows himself incapable of following a conversation or for that matter, defending an argument.
Fitz started out by pointing out miles was presuming that "same-sex marriage" was the same as marriage, which is illegitimate since that is what miles is supposedly arguing for:
Fitz: Its the height of subterfuge & bad faith to claim gay "marriage" as marriage when that is the focus of discussion.
Fitz is right. Presuming one's conclusion in one's argument is illegitimate.
Miles assures Fitz that is not what he is doing. Instead, he claims he is only presuming that "same-sex marriage" is the same as marriage, ... which is also the conclusion he is trying to argue.
miles: I'm not talking about "same-sex 'marriage'," Fitz. ... I'm just talking about marriage, and whether it's sensible to exclude gay couples...
Good one, miles. Way to show Fitz.
On Lawn then points out that the ("descriptive") dictionary describes exactly that the two terms are distinct. He doesn't point to what the terms meant in the past or future, only that at the time when miles was attempting to presume they were the same, they are actually different.
On Lawn: In spite of your assertion, M-W lists two definitions. If you were right, M-W wouldn't have to say one is "like that of" the other.
miles tries to summarize On Lawn's point as "That's the way it's always been, well, up until recently at least." Miles then goes on to explain that if he lived in a future world where his conclusion was already accepted, that it would be legitimate of him to presume it in arguing for it.
miles: I wonder: when the day comes that the dictionary definition of marriage no longer refers to the sex of the individuals, will that "authority" be accepted...
Way to show On Lawn. If miles were OJ's attorney he'd have argued OJ didn't murder his wife, he murdered her.
So not only does miles fail to summarize On Lawn's point with any degree of competence, but on two different occasions he denies relying on the begging the question fallacy by admitting he is begging the question.
Miles: > I ask whether it's sensible to exclude gay couples from participating in marriage [...]
ReplyDeleteWell, and you got the answer immediately from Playful that what you say is as sensible as saying you can become more healthy by exercising your stock options.
Do keep up.
Miles: > and On Lawn responds with the equivalent of "That's the way it's always been, well, up until recently at least."
Actually, no. Fitz noted you were eliding the dispute over the use of the term. I re-enforced that observation by noting the current use as noted by the dictionary supports Fitz's use and not yours.
As you said, "the dictionary reflects; it doesn’t dictate. It’s descriptive, not prescriptive". Fitz, in reflecting what the dictionary says, is simply being more objective and intellectually honest in this conversation.
Miles: > No one is disputing that gay couples have historically been excluded from the institution of marriage
Actually, it would be more accurate to say the term was never used to describe their relationships. There have been a number of historic references to same-sex relationships being recognized as their form of marriage.
And the dictionary only shows that even when people use the term to describe it today, it is still a different usage -- just as Fitz noted.
Miles: > "I wonder: when the day comes that the dictionary definition of marriage no longer refers to the sex of the individuals"
Then you distinctly describe how the definition of marriage is being neutered.
And if your scenario does come true, it would no doubt be followed shortly after with a term for the distinctly different and humanitarian cause that is currently seen after by marriage. Because without specifically referencing the man-woman union, it cannot meet the equality and stability expected in that foundation of where and how children are created.
In short, perhaps you believe that gay couples are less stable and their cares are not well enough cared for by government if the government doesn't specifically recognize their relationship the way they see themselves as having it. If so, then it follows that is true for those who expect the government to recognize their commitment to the person they create children with, and the children themselves, as marriage.
You can fit the needs of both groups, but not with the same name.
Speaking words of wisdom, let marriage be marriage. There is no need to neuter it.
Neutering marriage, if enacted, would be seen akin to slavery and abortion as one of the most cruel things one group of people did to oppress and extort another group of people.
miles: I just read the Reverend's article.
ReplyDeleteThat would be great... if this wasn't miles's third comment about it. Next time, miles, read it first, then comment.
Pretty communistic there at the end;...
More of the brilliant analysis we have come to expect of miles. Communism is a system of government where individuals are prevented from owning property. Nothing in the Reverend's article can be construed to argue for such a system. In fact, the early founders of communism argued communism would do away with marriage. In his 1847 work "The Principles of Communism", Frederick Engels writes:
"What will be the influence of communist society on the family?
"It will transform the relations between the sexes into a purely private matter which concerns only the persons involved and into which society has no occasion to intervene. It can do this since it does away with private property and educates children on a communal basis, and in this way removes the two bases of traditional marriage – the dependence rooted in private property, of the women on the man, and of the children on the parents."
If miles is so worried about sounding "communistic," maybe he should look at which side of this debate is trying to eliminate marriage licensing as no longer needed in these modern times.
On Lawn claims that "without specifically referencing the man-woman union, [marriage] cannot meet the equality and stability expected in that foundation of where and how children are created." Why? On Lawn provides no support for this statement.
ReplyDelete"Neutering marriage, if enacted, would be seen akin to slavery and abortion as one of the most cruel things one group of people did to oppress and extort another group of people." This is the second time I've seen this incredible paragraph from On Lawn. I pray that he keeps repeating it, as often and to as many people as possible.
Op-Ed, why are you so hostile to the term "gay couple"? Is it that you don't believe that they exist--or that you don't like that they exist? Clearly something has you riled up.
For the record, I agree with Op-Ed that the benefits of marriage extend beyond the couple to society more broadly. Of course, I contend that this is no less true of a gay couple's marriage than any other; Op-Ed disagrees, though he has yet to explain why.
Finally, though I know it will invite more of Op-Ed's scorn, I will offer what I believe to be a more apt analogy than that offered earlier by the Playful Walrus: it's as if you all are saying that playing tennis is a great way to stay in shape, provided that your partner isn't the same sex as you; and I'm saying that the health benefit accrues, regardless.
What, Miles, do you mean by "gay couple's marriage"?
ReplyDeleteYou do emphasize gay. You have yet to justify the limitation of two in an arrangemet defined by one -- one sex included -- so couple remains superfluous until you get around to that.
And you haven't put forth the essentials of the type of relationship you have in mind before you pin the label, marriage, on it. Those essentials might justify the limit of two, if you get around to that.
You emphasize gay and immemdiatley de-emphasize gay. So it is fair to ask you to state something about "gay couple's marriage" that does not also apply to other types of relationships which are ineligible to marry.
Something other than "gay", for instance.
Something that makes it "marriage" (as you imagine it) and at the same time distinguishes it from those other types of relationships. Something of societal, rather than personal and private, significance.
miles: Op-Ed, why are you so hostile to the term "gay couple"?
ReplyDeleteYou are wrong.
...the benefits of marriage extend beyond the couple to society more broadly. Of course, I contend that this is no less true of a gay couple's marriage...
Still stuck on begging the question. Is it that miles just can't grasp the concept or that his whole argument evaporates once this fallacy is removed?
Op-Ed disagrees, though he has yet to explain why.
It is miles that has yet to explain. I already have, as have the other contributors here. miles's argument is basically that if marriage benefits society, then applying the term more broadly would benefit society more broadly. This is an obviously bad argument. We know hospitals benefit society, but we don't think applying the term to, say, casinos would benefit society more broadly.
I could not have (and would not have) refuted miles rank supterfuge any better myself.
ReplyDeleteThank you On Lawn & op-ed and company for exposing this linguistic co-opting.
Language is supposed to make intellegent conversation possible, not to hinder its application so as to confuse & conflate.
If an apple is different than an orange than two apples are different than two oranges
& each is distinct from an apple and an orange.
On this note I would refer you too (what will be a subject of a post of its own)
George Orwell's
"The politics of the English Language"
"If you cant describe something accuratley you cant think about it"
Miles: > On Lawn provides no support for this statement.
ReplyDeleteNo, you just dishonestly (or simply incompetently) missed it. In fact it was the whole next paragraph.
"In short, perhaps you believe that gay couples are less stable and their cares are not well enough cared for by government if the government doesn't specifically recognize their relationship the way they see themselves as having it. If so, then it follows that is true for those who expect the government to recognize their commitment to the person they create children with, and the children themselves, as marriage."
So, which way do you fall on that edge, Miles? Do Domestic Partnerships and/or Civil Unions and/or Reciprocal Beneficiaries recognize the same-sex relationships the way they see themselves as having it?
If "yes" then your pursuit is over, and DP's, CU's, and RB's are plenty good enough for all the benefits for gay couples you seek. If "no" then "gay couples" are not well enough cared for by government.
But that cuts both ways. When marriage is re-defined away from recognizing the commitment between two person who create children, and the children themselves, then they are no longer cared for well enough. Because even you said, you expect the definition of marriage to "no longer refers to the sex of the individuals", thus no longer referencing the human biology of how children are created at all. Thus leaving a large blind-side to the government in being able to treat their specific needs at all.
It is up to you to explain why the need is true for "gay couples" to be specifically recognized the way they want, but that is not true for the couples which are actually creating the children between each other.
Op-Ed's point is another look at your special pleading, by the way. If re-defining an institution so that its social benefits might be more broadly applied is obviously wrong, for instance re-defining casinos to be hospitals, then why is it true for your case?
Chairm's point also speaks to your false equivalence also. For the "two" of marriage is one of each gender, the biological unit of procreation. But the single-sex unit has no such biological basis. Why would one expect the stability to follow, moving into more and more abstract likenesses of that relationship?
Its something we all detect as a smoke and mirror routine in your argument, a false equivalence, an elided contradiction. It is the difference between the couples that need stability to provide equality between the sexes and to the children they have together, and the much broader group of individuals (much broader then "gay couples") who need recognition to just assist their attempts to band together. You might as well face the questions head-on.
Op-Ed,
ReplyDeleteyou're not hostile to the term "gay couple"? I'd hate to see you when you are hostile to something.
Miles, you are still wrong. Op-Ed hasn't shown anything that I would see as hostility to a the term "gay couple". For someone who suspiciously missed evidence offered to support a claim, I'm sure missing any evidence you have presented to that claim.
ReplyDeleteWhere might I find a good example to give you on how such an argument can be made. Ah, here is one. I submit that a good example of hostility is you openly being bothered by a call to contribute the stability of our marriages as "being the most significant contribution we could make to the broader community". You red-labeled that as communistic and cried, "anyone else bothered by that?"
I only guess that your hostility is because such magnanimity and general humanitarian concern is so remarkably opposite to the cry that the community needs to contribute the term "marriage" to gay couple stability. A claim you've made repeatedly in this thread alone.
On Lawn,
ReplyDeleteyour reliance on personal attacks is telling.
If you really need me to provide the evidence of Op-Ed's hostility to the term "gay couple," I'm happy to do so. However, if you will look for yourself, you will see that Op-Ed never uses the term without encasing it in "scare quotes;" and that when he quoted my use of the term, he followed it with "[sic]."
Funny, when you make a claim that someone is hostile to a term (because they use quotes), that is presented as all you need to say to Op-Ed.
ReplyDeleteBut when I use something you said simply in an example argument of establishing hostility, it is a personal attack. In fact you went even further as to suggest that my position (presented as an example) was relying on personal attacks. It seems you don't understand what "example" means, along with the obvious hypocrisy.
Very interesting.
miles: I'd hate to see you when you are hostile to something.
ReplyDeleteHate away. It's what you're good at.
if you will look for yourself, you will see that Op-Ed never uses the term without encasing it in "scare quotes;"
OOooooo. Not just quotes but "scare quotes." Spoooooky. It's a good thing the photo of scare quotes at Abu Ghraib never got out!
Your drama aside, I used quotes because I was quoting you. That's what quotes are for. I thought you understood these simple basics of the language.
...and that when he quoted my use of the term, he followed it with "[sic]."
Same. You have yet to define what you meant by the term. You have already said that you didn't mean the normal use of the term which is two "gay" people.
I also copied verbatim your term "allowed," which you clearly don't mean in the usual sense. Tell me, if I redefine "ground" to mean "sky" am I "allowing" you to fly?
Human sexuality is more about obligations, then it is about happiness. Specifically to children that may come from the creation of one female and one male (which would be all of us). As newborns, we have no say or control in the circumstances we are born into.
ReplyDeleteOne of the arguments that have been used on Opine have been 'responsible procreation', while I never liked the term it actually is appropriate. Usually when we think in terms of 'responsible procreation' to the benefit of the government, eugenics or population control. Rather was termed as a benefit to the individual, not to the individual marrying but to the individual being conceived out of copulation between one's mother and father. The mother and father are responsible to the child, that's marriage.
Human biology is driven to create life and protect it. Humans with their free-will have always throughout history have tried to manipulate to its own desires though. The exploitation of human sexuality is nothing new, to become selfish to serve one's own needs then recognizing it for its true meaning. Women have always been exploited, treated like property, as a lesser in polygamous marriages, human trafficking/prostitution, rape, and plain old sexual humilation for man's gratification.
As mentioned for up-tee-nth time, women get pregnant men don't. Women get pregnant from men, even in artificial circumstances where the man gets paid to be 'a donor'. A woman's ability to get pregnant from a man, should not be seen as a burden treating her full sexuality as a disease. Yes, pregnancy, birth, and breastfeeding are ALL apart of a woman's healthy sexuality.
Having a child though does take time and resources away from the mother, so how do we make it just? We make men accountable for their children, and make them into responsible fathers to serve mother and child.
Today the common exploitation's of human sexuality are abortion, no fault divorce, and neutering of all aspects of legislation regarding the family. Yes, these are exploitations of women, because men hold no obligation to women and can walk away because it is all 'her problem' and that's what equality is all about isn't? 'Why should I pay child support, it was her choice to have the baby?' Sounds familiar, right? Is that the attitude true feminists wants to believe in?
We know sex (conjugal/copulation)can makes babies, so it is best everyone is aware of their obligations so promoting and supporting marriage as a viable option to heterosexual couples, so there are no surprises nine months down road.
Coping with the reality of function and purpose of sexuality is really all which is the caring and nurturing of human life, actually can bring anger and hostility that at times we see here on Opine.
Who hasn't been duped in their own way, thinking sex is about them and their happiness?
Sex is about babies though, it can't be anything else. Nothing compares to such an obvious fact what human sexuality really does.
Every individual no matter who they are deserves respect, but that respect for every human being can only exist when we respect and value the origins (mother and father) of each of our lives.
Renee Aste
Lowell Massachusetts
Back in July of 2009, I saw this comment from the Boston Globe.
ReplyDelete"Marriage is a contract - basically money rights.
Sex is an appetite to be satisfied.
Children well they are the responsibility of the taxpayers."
Renee Aste
Lowell Massachusetts
Oh and another "Parents will raise happier children 'if they put them second to their marriage'
ReplyDeleteUS therapist David Code argues that an over-focus on kids creates demanding offspring and anxious, exhausted parents"
There was a saying I remember from my marriage prep classes, if a man loves his wife, he will love his children. Yes, this may sound completely contradictory in my previous comment. "Wait, parents first isn't that selfish?" Children directly benefit from a healthly relationship between their mother and father, it creates stability for the children within the home.
What does time for the parents mean?
It doesn't dumping the children at the in-laws for a week at Las Vegas blowing the tax return money. What it means is that the children also have to respect the marriage, and respect the privacy and rolls of parents. Children are the obligation, yes but that obligation only works if the foundation of love is between the mother and father.
Romantic love can be obligatory love, to spouse and any children created from the personal sexual relationship. We don't just do the things for our family because we 'have to'. We do it because we want to, it is a form of expressing love to well deal with things.
I think next week here on Opine, I will argue the gay marriage arguments because the gay marriage supporters are apparently doing a horrible job defending themselves, always having to resort to personal attacks. Right now many types of personal adult relationships fall into a limbo, that are not based on kinships, yet should and need to be recognized and respected by society. I think it is great that we could recognize such relationships, it just the word marriage has already be taken.
Renee Aste
Lowell Massachusetts
Yes, you do that Renee.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile I'll sit back and let US Jurisprudence, the courts (DC) and Judge Walker set you straight.
O.K. caleb...And I will inturn let both the voters of D.C. & the Supreme Court of the U.S. set the undemocratic D.C. council and the rougue Judge Walker set you straight.
ReplyDeleteDream on.
ReplyDeleteWe'll see who wins this one.
This is gonna be great. Meanwhile:
400 same-sex couples on March 20th will get married in Washington DC. To celebrate the passing of gay marriage rights, Washington's GLBT wedding services will be hosting the event in order to enter the Guinness world records. Those who are getting married on the day will be part of a large ceremony, individual ceremonies and a giant reception.
The ceremonies will be a non-denominational service with contemporary flair. The aim of the ceremony is to solidify people in long term relationships and celebrate those who have just recently been engaged. The focus of the day is standing together in unity.
Great day for justice, equality and just plain good ol' decency.
Yes, so I read...
ReplyDeleteWhat is this silly triumphalism?
You forced your way through without the will of the people...you bought off the D.C. city council.
When the Republicans take over the House next year they will get a vote to the floor to allow D.C. to vote. That COngress will approve it with large numbers of democrats voting yes...
Unless of coarse the Appellate court overrules the Cuncil first..and allows the vote under the charter.
caleb: Meanwhile I'll sit back and let US Jurisprudence, the courts (DC) and Judge Walker set you straight.
ReplyDeleteYes, yes. Best to leave the actual thinking to your intellectual masters.
Fitz: What is this silly triumphalism?
ReplyDelete"Silly triumphalism" is all that is left to the impotent. It is like the talentless spectator up in the stand whose only resort to feeling part of the game is to cheer when they see something they like on the field. Witness caleb's earlier comment to which I just replied.
"What is this silly triumphalism?"
ReplyDeleteNope just a:
Great day for justice, equality and just plain good ol' decency.
"When the Republicans take over the House next year they will get a vote to the floor to allow D.C. to vote. That COngress will approve it with large numbers of democrats voting yes...
Unless of coarse the Appellate court overrules the Cuncil first..and allows the vote under the charter."
Now cling to that, close your eyes tight shut and repeat to yourself, it will happen, it will happen, it will happen etc......."
"Yes, yes. Best to leave the actual thinking to your intellectual masters."
ReplyDeleteThat's whats so fantastic. I get to be dumb as a brick and the law and the courts are on my side!
Thanks DC Council!
Thanks People of DC!
Soon to be a married a couple, what a great start to the year.
"Silly triumphalism" is all that is left to the impotent. It is like the talentless spectator up in the stand whose only resort to feeling part of the game is to cheer when they see something they like on the field. Witness caleb's earlier comment to which I just replied."
ReplyDeleteOh I dont think so, far from impotent here (just ask my partner and soon to be husband!)
Rather think the charge of impotence rebounds to you!
im·po·tence /ˈɪmpÉ™tÉ™ns/ Show Spelled[im-puh-tuhns] Show IPA
ReplyDelete–noun
1.the condition or quality of being impotent; weakness.
2.chronic inability to attain or sustain an erection for the performance of the sexual act.
3.sterility, esp. in the male.
4.Obsolete. lack of self-restraint.
If you and your partner are both men then your relationship itself is impotent.
In the true sense of the word it is sterile, The quality or condition of being impotent.
This of cvoarse has everything to do with why we define marriage as male & female to begin with.
Au contraire:
ReplyDeleteI can assure you am extremely virile and far from being sterile, well lets just say surrogacy is one of the options we will be pursuing to have kids, that or adoption, we will see.
Of course you may define marriage any way you want.
Soon we will be united as one in that great tradition called marriage and duly recognized as such by the only institutions that matter, the law and the courts. Your little private definitions have all the force and relevance to me of, well, nothing at all.
well, othing really
fining us united in that great tradition called marriage
caleb: I get to be dumb as a brick and the law and the courts are on my side!
ReplyDeleteWell, while you are obviously keeping up your end of that deal, the law and courts don't seem to be. Remember the anti-8 suit is in Walker's court precisely because it was ruled against by the California Supreme Court. As for Judge Walker, the U.S. Supreme Court has already struck down two of his rulings relative to this case, with more likely to follow.
Soon to be a married a couple, what a great start to the year.
Glad you find aping man-woman couples so satisfying.
...far from impotent here (just ask my partner and soon to be husband!)...Rather think the charge of impotence rebounds to you!
Sexual innuendo and the ol' rubber-glue taunt? You're either emotionally frozen in the third grade or you're just trying too hard. Either way, bricks are starting to take offense at the comparison.
Lets see, what effect do your words have on me, mmmm, why none at all!
ReplyDeleteBe officially married soon- thanks DC Courts, thanks People of DC!
And oh yeah, I do indeed find it satisfying, very satisfying.
Can hardly wait for Judge Walker's ruling, its gonna be so good.
Dont have to try at all, just comes naturally.
Third grade!
Heck, emotionally I never really got outa 2nd grade.
Thanks Mayor Fenty for all your help and sterling hard work for justice and equality in DC.
Lets see, what effect do your words have on me, mmmm, why none at all!
ReplyDeleteSo why do you bother responding to them then? If they had no effect you would simply ignore us all.
"So why do you bother responding to them then? If they had no effect you would simply ignore us all."
ReplyDeleteOh you mean kinda like what the US Courts and Legal system does with you bunch?
There once was a boy who dared his friends that he could put his hand over a candle longer then the rest. Sure enough, he took pain killers and could hardly feel it as his finger started turning black and crackling. I guess he showed them.
ReplyDeleteIt seems Caleb is uniquely hopeful in Walker's judgement. No doubt, Walker's prejudice in this case only amounts to justice. At least a court is on Caleb's side.
While marriage is happy news, neutering marriage is not.
So, I say, Caleb seems to have learned the lesson of Miles. Don't ever be coaxed into a conversation on the facts with Opine. No matter how comfortable you are, Miles showed that neutering marriage is best done with celebrations of sad acts, and mockery of good sense.
Oh you mean kinda like what the US Courts and Legal system does with you bunch?
ReplyDeleteNow where did we ever claim that what they do doesn't affect us all?
"Now where did we ever claim that what they do doesn't affect us all?"
ReplyDeleteOh, I'm sure they do affect you, thats great and all to the greater good!
Rather meant your effect on them is....crickets chirping......
"There once was a boy who dared his friends that he could put his hand over a candle longer then the rest. Sure enough, he took pain killers and could hardly feel it as his finger started turning black and crackling. I guess he showed them."
ReplyDeleteIt hurts soooo good!
Now remember what I said, "eyes tight shut, deep breath, and repeat, it is true, it is true, it is true......"
Caleb: > Now remember what I said, "eyes tight shut, deep breath, and repeat, it is true, it is true, it is true......"
ReplyDeleteNo thanks, we'll keep doing the articulation of reason, and you can continue on that track for yourself.
After all, it doesn't look like it is a winning strategy from watching you do it.
caleb: And oh yeah, I do indeed find it satisfying, very satisfying.
ReplyDeleteNot surprising. That's the only direction that ever works. Bride-groom couples don't feel the need to ape same-sex couples to be happy.
Rather meant your effect on them is....crickets chirping......
ReplyDeleteSo again, why does it bother you so much that you even respond? I haven't gotten an answer yet.
Who was it who said you should not wish for something too much as you just may get it?
What eventually follows euphoria?