Hi y'all - that's rather a heavy piece of artillery to use in a case of nomenclature dispute.
On Oct 14, 5:06 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well said Liz! > > 'Forever' there have been same sex 'marriages'. In our culture and > time, seldom are such events 'legitimized' by law. The reasons to > rectify such an obvious exception to our original declaration are > legion. > > Declaration of Independence > (Adopted by Congress on July 4, 1776) > The Unanimous Declaration > of the Thirteen United States of America > > When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one > people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with > another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and > equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle > them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they > should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. > > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created > equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable > rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of > happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted > among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the > governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to > these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, > and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such > principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall > seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. … > > http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.htmlfor the > rest of the story. > > On Oct 14, 2:36 pm, "Liz Purkrabek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > But that seems like needing to know whether your guests will be black or > > white. It shouldn't matter. > > > The word "marriage" is itself an important symbol to many in the gay > > community. I think we should give them the satisfaction of legitimacy, even > > if it cramps your semantic style. :-) > > > Liz > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clogtowner > > Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 2:09 PM > > To: Memphis Freethought Alliance > > Subject: Re: This comes close to my Philosophy > > > Hi y'all - the legal acceptance of same sex unions is a new phenomenon > > in this country therefore it should be suitably named - there is no > > more to my argument than that. > > Let's see if I can spell it out more clearly: If I buy some real > > estate the heading on the contract is "Contract for the sale of real > > estate." If I take out a loan the heading is "Contract for a loan > > agreement." The traditional marriage certificate is entitled > > "Certificate of Marriage." As we have a new situation, which has not > > legally been recognised before, what is wrong with choosing a suitable > > name to identify it? Marriage won't do as I have indicated earlier. > > What does everyone have against a new name? The very least that would > > be achieved is that when I call someone and ask them to dinner, I > > would know if they are bringing someone of the same sex or opposite, > > and I can make preparations accordingly. In this instance, it is > > simply a matter of etiquette. > > > On Oct 14, 12:03 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > "This being the case, there is no harm in calling a new phenomenon by > > > a new name to remove any confusion." - clog > > > > Of course, seen from a provincial point of view, it is ‘a new > > > phenomenon’. In the larger view of all of humanity, it is not. So, > > > there is no ‘harm’ in attempting to accept that the word ‘marriage’ > > > can have different meanings, which it has ALWAYS had and will continue > > > to have. > > > > On Oct 14, 8:42 am, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi y'all - I agree that language changes over time. I remember one of > > > > my favorite songs as a youth containing the phrase "shall I be blamed > > > > if god has made me gay." Of course, it referred to a happy person and > > > > a womanizer. > > > > This being the case, there is no harm in calling a new phenomenon by a > > > > new name to remove any confusion. > > > > > On Oct 14, 9:58 am, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > <<Therefore, a different purpose requires a different name. Q.E.D. >> > > > > > > No, it doesn't. The meaning of words can change and this one will. > > > > > Just like the meaning of the word "gay" changed to a new purpose.- > > Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
