|
|
|
 |
OneWithDunamis Riviera de la Mancha OneWithDunamis Riviera de la Mancha OneWithDunamis Riviera de la Mancha
No, not at all. Read with attention.
What I am saying is that the current debate over gay marriage is centered on the discussion of marriage not as a ceremony, but as a state-created creature. Marriage is an institution, for the purposes of gay rights, that the government created and got into the business of establishing with particular benefits. As it is created by the state, where state means government, the state may define it as it so wishes, and can change it at any time.
Therefore, there is nothing within the word 'marriage', that binds it exclusively to man and woman, for the purposes of the present political debate.
We just said the same thing. The state has the right to change definitions of terms, which causes mass confusion, making people acting stupid. When what we say no longer means only what we mean, communication breaks down. Perhaps one day "grab milk on the way home" means "I saw you milking that whore after work". There will be hell on earth, or worse. Because hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Or however the line goes.
What mass confusion? I never spoke to this. I am addressing the OP, which makes the argument that the government cannot re-define marriage because to do so causes chaos. Ignoring the chaos point, I addressed the idea that a government cannot do x because of effect y on the populous. I am saying that the government can do whatever it wishes to anything it creates, and the government created marriage, so it is free to do what it wills to it, regardless of the effects it has on the populous, provided it does so in accordance to the proper regulation and law.
It is incorrect to say that if I make product y I cant then change to call it product t if I so wish because I created product y; it is mine to do with as I wish. The government created marriage and, so long as it abides by the rules and regulations, it may define it as it wishes. To talk of chaos is merely irrelevant babble as it relates to the argument presented in the OP.
Yes, technically they are able to do so, but they mustn't, because it'll destroy society. It's like calling Pluto a moon instead of a planet now. People will likely refer to it as either moon or planet, but only one is right. Think of the mass confusion!!
We're talking more than legal issues here. The impact will certainly decimate the nation.
Again, for the second time, 'the destruction of society' argument is irrelevant. If the change is made within the confines of regulation, then it is permissible. There is nothing within the idea of marriage that demands it retain one definition over another.
As one of the great justices on the Supreme Court wrote in an opinion, and I paraphrase, if the people wish to go to hell in a hand basket, then the courts are obliged to allow it to occur, so long as it is in accordance with the law.
How is that irrelevant? If society isn't destroyed as a result they can change every word in the dictionary for all I care. Even if it's permissible by law, people don't forget what words used to mean. And by change I'm including the addition of meanings to pre-existing words.
The courts are wrong then and are not fulfilling their duty to preserve society. If everyone wanted to rape and kill, should they allow it? I think not.
All you did was go off on a tangent.
Show me where, in the description of the court's powers, does it state that it is their job to 'preserve society'. I await your citations.
|
|
| |
|
|
