Heavy or not, "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..." seems to be the bottom line here and not semantics.
On Oct 14, 3:45 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.htmlforthe > > 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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
