Now that the definition of marriage has been trashed, one can only wonder what else lies in store. Changing the meaning of words is just good policy!

In 1964 would you have said "Now that the definition of equal protection and voting rights have been trashed, one can only wonder what else lies in store. Changing the meaning of words is just good policy!"?

Now that the definition of marriage has been trashed, one can only wonder what else lies in store. Changing the meaning of words is just good policy!

In 1964 would you have said "Now that the definition of equal protection and voting rights have been trashed, one can only wonder what else lies in store. Changing the meaning of words is just good policy!"?

Being that no definitions were changed, I doubt it. Those terms were enforced to a higher degree, I'll grant you that. And rightly so.

Also, the legislation involved was actually put to a vote in the House and Senate. Imagine that!

Now that the definition of marriage has been trashed, one can only wonder what else lies in store. Changing the meaning of words is just good policy!

[Edited on 6/27/2015 by alloak41]

The SC finds laws unconstitutional. This is the function of the SC - arbiter of laws. Sometimes individuals agree with the decisions and sometimes not. This has been a good week if one is open-minded in society & has an inkling of care for his fellow men & women.

You refer to the definition of marriage. So you mean from a biblical / religious angle? There are those who live and breathe religion and the bible, and there are those who don't. Why do we need to co-mingle the bible, definitions, and laws of the land? Not everyone eats from the same plate just as everyone does not have their lives governed by scripture.

Let me ask you this alloak - Does the decision have an impact upon your marriage or future potential marriages one way or the other? Does it cause damage or harm to you in any way? You'd prefer that those who do not fit your narrow views should not be allowed to marry?

If same sex couples can find love and also share the same rights as heterosexuals, then why do you get caught up in the triviality of a definition or a label?

It's alarming to see that the economy is contracting. What's the answer in Washington? To introduce legislation that would improve the climate for business formation and/or business expansion? Or perhaps to introduce legislation that might jumpstart some economic activity?

Nah. Just change the way GDP is calculated. Juggling some numbers around is real change we can all believe in and will improve the lives of everyone. If we can just make it look like the economy is actually growing everything is super!

No one really believes numbers that are released from government agencies, corporations, and even individual taxpayers who are running for office.

I know nothing about economics and won't pretend I do. I do know that jobs are only part of the overall economic picture. IMO service and manufacturing jobs are disappearing due to the technology revolution. I just bought movie tickets sent to my phone. Banking, insurance, tax prep all online. Patients email docs their questions, schedule their own appointments, and review test results online. Durable goods are disappearing at a mind-boggling pace - landlines, tvs, and audio equipment (except for diehards). All of this eliminates the need for an on-site human being. Other than a short boom for wedding planners, florists, and bridal wear, I don't know what industry is on the rise to create jobs.

I don't know what you think the government should do to combat this phenomenon.

[Edited on 6/27/2015 by cyclone88]

 

What Orwell more likely would have said was that the traditional definition of marriage was too narrow and boxed in by religious views and the revised definition is apropos and better accommodates the increasing recognition of diversity as US society evolves.

George Orwell from Politics and the English Language

If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase -- some jackboot, Achilles' heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno, or other lump of verbal refuse -- into the dustbin, where it belongs.

George Orwell wrote "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." I'm pretty sure he would approve.

Now that the definition of marriage has been trashed, one can only wonder what else lies in store. Changing the meaning of words is just good policy!

In 1964 would you have said "Now that the definition of equal protection and voting rights have been trashed, one can only wonder what else lies in store. Changing the meaning of words is just good policy!"?

Being that no definitions were changed, I doubt it. Those terms were enforced to a higher degree, I'll grant you that. And rightly so.

Also, the legislation involved was actually put to a vote in the House and Senate. Imagine that!

No definitions were changed in 1964 or in 2015. In both cases the only thing that changed was that denial of certain rights to specific groups of people was no longer sanctioned by the government. The analogy is valid in that respect.

I agree with your point that unlike this decision, the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 was a product of the legislative process, and this case should have been as well.

Alloak... I'm pretty sure the inflation calculation was changed during the Reagan administration.

Look it up. That assured the inflation numbers would never again get close to what happened with Carter.

That aside, Orwell did a good job predicting the future. Bradbury did a GREAT job. Re-read "Fahrenheit 451" and the short story "The Pedestrian". That cat nailed modern America.

You refer to the definition of marriage. So you mean from a biblical / religious angle? There are those who live and breathe religion and the bible, and there are those who don't. Why do we need to co-mingle the bible, definitions, and laws of the land? Not everyone eats from the same plate just as everyone does not have their lives governed by scripture.

Let me ask you this alloak - Does the decision have an impact upon your marriage or future potential marriages one way or the other? Does it cause damage or harm to you in any way? You'd prefer that those who do not fit your narrow views should not be allowed to marry?

1. Of course I mean from a religious/biblical angle. Marriage is a SACRAMENT. Whether you "live and breathe religion" or live life "governed by scripture," that fact doesn't change. Thus, it should come as no surprise when it's viewed from a religious angle.

2. Generally, if it's not affecting me, I don't care what other people do. I have no problem with homosexuals, and feel they should get the same benefits that heterosexual couples get. Just call it something besides marriage. That term is already taken and has meant something to people for thousands of years, the union of one man and one woman. I don't think that's asking too much.

.

Alloak... I'm pretty sure the inflation calculation was changed during the Reagan administration.

Look it up. That assured the inflation numbers would never again get close to what happened with Carter.

Those are interesting facts and I have no reason to doubt that.

But who said anything about the inflation calculation? I haven't.

George Orwell wrote "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." I'm pretty sure he would approve.

Approve of what?

You refer to the definition of marriage. So you mean from a biblical / religious angle? There are those who live and breathe religion and the bible, and there are those who don't. Why do we need to co-mingle the bible, definitions, and laws of the land? Not everyone eats from the same plate just as everyone does not have their lives governed by scripture.

Let me ask you this alloak - Does the decision have an impact upon your marriage or future potential marriages one way or the other? Does it cause damage or harm to you in any way? You'd prefer that those who do not fit your narrow views should not be allowed to marry?

1. Of course I mean from a religious/biblical angle. Marriage is a SACRAMENT. Whether you "live and breathe religion" or live life "governed by scripture," that fact doesn't change. Thus, it should come as no surprise when it's viewed from a religious angle.

2. Generally, if it's not affecting me, I don't care what other people do. I have no problem with homosexuals, and feel they should get the same benefits that heterosexual couples get. Just call it something besides marriage. That term is already taken and has meant something to people for thousands of years, the union of one man and one woman. I don't think that's asking too much.

.

For something that you supposedly admit doesn't affect you, you're holding out on terminology? Why would a word upset you if you don't care what other people do? Something's not adding up. Are you truly that much of a quasi purist living in a time gone by?

George Orwell wrote "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." I'm pretty sure he would approve.

Approve of what?

The Supreme Court ruling yesterday, which made all animals (people) more equal.

You refer to the definition of marriage. So you mean from a biblical / religious angle? There are those who live and breathe religion and the bible, and there are those who don't. Why do we need to co-mingle the bible, definitions, and laws of the land? Not everyone eats from the same plate just as everyone does not have their lives governed by scripture.

Let me ask you this alloak - Does the decision have an impact upon your marriage or future potential marriages one way or the other? Does it cause damage or harm to you in any way? You'd prefer that those who do not fit your narrow views should not be allowed to marry?

1. Of course I mean from a religious/biblical angle. Marriage is a SACRAMENT. Whether you "live and breathe religion" or live life "governed by scripture," that fact doesn't change. Thus, it should come as no surprise when it's viewed from a religious angle.

2. Generally, if it's not affecting me, I don't care what other people do. I have no problem with homosexuals, and feel they should get the same benefits that heterosexual couples get. Just call it something besides marriage. That term is already taken and has meant something to people for thousands of years, the union of one man and one woman. I don't think that's asking too much.

For something that you supposedly admit doesn't affect you, you're holding out on terminology? Why would a word upset you if you don't care what other people do? Something's not adding up. Are you truly that much of a quasi purist living in a time gone by?

I don't care about gay marriage. If you don't believe that, fine.

Just call it something else. The definition of marriage is already taken, and me saying so seems to upset YOU. Like you said, it's just words so why should you care one way or another?

Didn't marriage in the bible once include polygamy?

And isn't there something in the old testament that if your brother dies before his wife has a kid then you get his wife?

I'm no bible scholar but I don't think marriage has always been narrowly defined as one man and one woman.

And how did the world get repopulated after that flood?

What we have here is a Federal government takeover of marriage, a sacrament that's meant one thing and one thing only for thousands of years.....I'm wondering if it's legal and/or constitutional for the Federal government to re-define a sacrament to achieve some political end. I can't believe they have this authority.

And let's prohibit the States right to make their own laws while we're at it.

Nine unelected individuals were able to pull this off.

They made corporations people. They can do anything.

Is marriage a sacrament? The simple answer is 'yes' But this deceptively simple answer raises a whole lot of other questions. Is marriage always a sacrament? The answer is 'no', there are many examples - civil weddings, marriages between non-baptised spouses, marriages where one or both partners cannot celebrate the sacrament because of age or previous commitments or some other impediment. Was marriage always a sacrament? The answer is `no'; it is only because of the life, death and resurrection of Christ that the natural union of man and woman has been transformed and raised to a higher plane.

So, they didn't redefine a sacrament....

http://gettingmarried.ie/pages/index.php?nd=13&art=23

Also:

Is Marriage a Sacrament?

For Catholics and Orthodox Christians, yes. For Protestants, no. Here's why.

It is generally agreed that sacraments originate in the Bible, and in particular in the words and deeds of Jesus.

Christians universally agree that Baptism and Communion (or the Eurcharist) were specifically initiated by Christ. Jesus himself was baptized by John and he advised his disciples to do likewise. Jesus also presided at the Last Supper and at that time he instructed his disciples to repeat the ritual of the breaking of bread and the sharing of wine "in remembrance of me." In a very real sense the New Testament documents the emergence of these two, specifically Christian rituals.

Baptism and Communion were central and distinguishing marks of the Christian church from the time of Jesus forward.

Marriage has a far more complicated history.
First, it was adopted by Christians from Jewish practice. Jesus did not initiate or even change the institution of marriage. He did perform his first miracle at a wedding in Cana where he turned water into wine, but in this he was simply a wedding guest; he was blessing an existing practice, nor initiating something new.

Second, marriage was not identified as a sacrament by the Church until the 12th century. During the Protestant Reformation there was an effort to "purify" the Church of practices, doctrines, and rituals that were thought to be departures from the clear teachings and traditions of the Bible. The reformers believed that there was insufficient biblical authority for referring to marriage as a sacrament.
Note that this is not an argument about the importance of marriage, or any of the five rituals identified by Catholics as sacraments, but seen by Protestants to be sacred, holy, and even central to the community of faith, but not in the same class as Baptism and Communion.

Here are the words of one Protestant leader on the subject. In his "Institutes," John Calvin writes: "Lastly, there is matrimony, which all admit was instituted by God, though no one before the time of (Pope) Gregory regarded it as a sacrament. What man in his sober senses could so regard it? God's ordinance is good and holy; so also are agriculture, architecture, shoemaking, hair-cutting legitimate ordinances of God, but they are not sacraments."

It was partly as a result of the dispute with Protestants over the sacraments that the Catholic Church clarified its position on marriage at the Council of Trent (1545-1563). At Trent it was decreed: "If any one shall say that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the Seven Sacraments of the Evangelical Law, instituted by Christ our Lord, but was invented in the Church by men, and does not confer grace, let him be anathema."

From this point forward the Protestant denominations have been committed to counting only Baptism and Communion as sacraments while Orthodox and Catholic Christians identify seven.

Of course, positions hardened in the sixteenth century could become more flexible with the passing of time. In Protestant circles, it is common to refer to marriage as being "sacramental" in the sense that a good marriage is an outward sign of inner grace. And those who are involved in ecumenical dialogue and debate could find grounds for agreement about marriage, should more serious issues still dividing Protestants and Catholics be resolved.

http://www.godweb.org/marriageasacrament.htm

Isn't circumcision a sacrament?

You want to weigh in on that alloak?

Without revealing too much... I have a friend who was circumcised in the hospital... No incense, no blessings, no kind words...

Did that redefine the sacrament?

All I know is that I believe in marriage as defined in the Bible, and I am already trying to arrange a marriage for my son. Since I really want him to have a good wife I'm saving up all my sheep's and chickens now. I know the Bible says that he can just take a virgin from a village he raids as his wife, but I really don't think the police will care that the Bible says that it's acceptable.

We have a civil right to believe and follow what ever religion we want. We also have a Constitution for "all" the people.

You have the right to believe what you want. You don't have the right to discriminate against another based on that belief of hinder another persons civil rights based on your belief.

Since there are so many religions who's religious beliefs should be made into law? None of course because our laws are not based on religion as much as people would like to believe.

You have the civil right to follow any religion you want but your right to believe cannot step on another civil rights.

marriage in the US are only religious by choice...many people just go and have a "civil" ceremony and everyone has to get a "civil" marriage license. Your religious ceremony is separate from the laws of marriage as a civil right......something that is registered with the Govt....

Even if s church won't marry a gay couple they can still go down and be legally married in a civil ceremony...because "Legal" and "religious" are 2 very different things

Seems people have a problem seeing that very clear distinction

[Edited on 6/28/2015 by goldtop]

You refer to the definition of marriage. So you mean from a biblical / religious angle? There are those who live and breathe religion and the bible, and there are those who don't. Why do we need to co-mingle the bible, definitions, and laws of the land? Not everyone eats from the same plate just as everyone does not have their lives governed by scripture.

Let me ask you this alloak - Does the decision have an impact upon your marriage or future potential marriages one way or the other? Does it cause damage or harm to you in any way? You'd prefer that those who do not fit your narrow views should not be allowed to marry?

1. Of course I mean from a religious/biblical angle. Marriage is a SACRAMENT. Whether you "live and breathe religion" or live life "governed by scripture," that fact doesn't change. Thus, it should come as no surprise when it's viewed from a religious angle.

2. Generally, if it's not affecting me, I don't care what other people do. I have no problem with homosexuals, and feel they should get the same benefits that heterosexual couples get. Just call it something besides marriage. That term is already taken and has meant something to people for thousands of years, the union of one man and one woman. I don't think that's asking too much.

For something that you supposedly admit doesn't affect you, you're holding out on terminology? Why would a word upset you if you don't care what other people do? Something's not adding up. Are you truly that much of a quasi purist living in a time gone by?

I don't care about gay marriage. If you don't believe that, fine.

Just call it something else. The definition of marriage is already taken, and me saying so seems to upset YOU. Like you said, it's just words so why should you care one way or another?

You say, "The definition of marriage is already taken". Got it...so it's an ownership thing. Makes perfectly good nonsense.

No, pal. You and the majority of the declared 2016 GOP field are upset with the SC decision. There is contradiction plain & simple in you saying that you don't care about gay marriage but qualifying it by wanting to call it something else. Either one accepts marriage for all or one doesn't. It's not a situational thing. You want to pick & choose words...right.

What I say means nothing, but what the SC decision says does mean something & carries legal weight whether bigots & holdouts disagree on acceptance of the decision as well as the "dreaded" word that some can't come to accept. The SC merely righted a constitutional & societal wrong. You can call it whatever you want, but you will be in the wrong to not call it what it is. If that makes you happy, go for it.

How about this alloak? People like you can refer to marriage as that between a man and a woman. But if it's marriage between gays, you can qualify it & call it ___________ (as in fill in the blanks). Examples - 1) marriage but not really, 2) gay marriage, 3) homosexual marriage, 4) wrong marriage because some believe the Bible is interpreted that way, 5) marriage term of the day, etc., etc., etc.

What we have here is a Federal government takeover of marriage, a sacrament that's meant one thing and one thing only for thousands of years.....I'm wondering if it's legal and/or constitutional for the Federal government to re-define a sacrament to achieve some political end. I can't believe they have this authority.

And let's prohibit the States right to make their own laws while we're at it.

Nine unelected individuals were able to pull this off.

They are not at all referring in this ruling to the RELIGIOUS CEREMONY of marriage, but the legal contract also referred to as marriage that the federal government absolutely has authority over. They're two distinct and mutually exclusive things and thus religious entities who wish to determine who they'll marry in their religious ceremonies can still do so.

It's predicated on the separation of Church and State. It's that simple.

[Edited on 6/28/2015 by Chain]

I don't know what he'd think of the whole same sex marriage thing, but I'm sure he and Philip K. Dick would be mighty impressed with this whole internet, cell-phone, urinalysis testing, surveillance cameras everywhere, NSA biz.

You refer to the definition of marriage. So you mean from a biblical / religious angle? There are those who live and breathe religion and the bible, and there are those who don't. Why do we need to co-mingle the bible, definitions, and laws of the land? Not everyone eats from the same plate just as everyone does not have their lives governed by scripture.

Let me ask you this alloak - Does the decision have an impact upon your marriage or future potential marriages one way or the other? Does it cause damage or harm to you in any way? You'd prefer that those who do not fit your narrow views should not be allowed to marry?

1. Of course I mean from a religious/biblical angle. Marriage is a SACRAMENT. Whether you "live and breathe religion" or live life "governed by scripture," that fact doesn't change. Thus, it should come as no surprise when it's viewed from a religious angle.

2. Generally, if it's not affecting me, I don't care what other people do. I have no problem with homosexuals, and feel they should get the same benefits that heterosexual couples get. Just call it something besides marriage. That term is already taken and has meant something to people for thousands of years, the union of one man and one woman. I don't think that's asking too much.

For something that you supposedly admit doesn't affect you, you're holding out on terminology? Why would a word upset you if you don't care what other people do? Something's not adding up. Are you truly that much of a quasi purist living in a time gone by?

I don't care about gay marriage. If you don't believe that, fine.

Just call it something else. The definition of marriage is already taken, and me saying so seems to upset YOU. Like you said, it's just words so why should you care one way or another?

You say, "The definition of marriage is already taken". Got it...so it's an ownership thing. Makes perfectly good nonsense.

No, pal. You and the majority of the declared 2016 GOP field are upset with the SC decision. There is contradiction plain & simple in you saying that you don't care about gay marriage but qualifying it by wanting to call it something else. Either one accepts marriage for all or one doesn't. It's not a situational thing. You want to pick & choose words...right.

What I say means nothing, but what the SC decision says does mean something & carries legal weight whether bigots & holdouts disagree on acceptance of the decision as well as the "dreaded" word that some can't come to accept. The SC merely righted a constitutional & societal wrong. You can call it whatever you want, but you will be in the wrong to not call it what it is. If that makes you happy, go for it.

How about this alloak? People like you can refer to marriage as that between a man and a woman. But if it's marriage between gays, you can qualify it & call it ___________ (as in fill in the blanks). Examples - 1) marriage but not really, 2) gay marriage, 3) homosexual marriage, 4) wrong marriage because some believe the Bible is interpreted that way, 5) marriage term of the day, etc., etc., etc.

Whatever. Just leave the f-ing English language alone. Where did the authority to re-define words to fit your own desires or belief system come from? Who grants that authority? Something about that just rubs me wrong. For starters, granting yourself that authority is arrogance beyond belief.

IMO

One person said "the cure for 1984 is 1776", meaning when the people in this country decide they can no longer overlook the policies being put in place, they have to revolt.

The prophecists say that God will destroy a nation that does not abide by his laws, and to every religion he forbid homosexuality. God's laws do not change, man's laws (secular laws) change to suit the culture. Whose world is it? Man's or God's?

If you look at anatomy, the body has specific functions for it's parts, and the recognized function of people's butts is waste elimination. Children are not born coming out of it. For any people to think it is was meant for anything else other than waste elimination shows a lack of knowledge or regard for their body. Nuff said on that.

So what should gay people do? Secular law can permit them to live together, give them rights to health and retirement benefits, why isn't that enough? Their relationships are recognized as civil unions, they decide to unite with a partner of their choice, it is a civil union but it is not a marriage.

It's reality, gay men use it for something else or they can get transgender surgery to create a more esthetic outlet.

It seems that people are only looking at 1 facet of a relationship and a marriage. Sex is only 1 part of a marriage it does not define it for those of us who have been married for along time. There is much more to love and loving someone other than what happens in the bedroom.

This is the root of what bothers people....they obsess about the act behind closed doors and don't want to see that there's way more to marriage and love that that 1 aspect

It seems that people are only looking at 1 facet of a relationship and a marriage. Sex is only 1 part of a marriage it does not define it for those of us who have been married for along time. There is much more to love and loving someone other than what happens in the bedroom.

This is the root of what bothers people....they obsess about the act behind closed doors and don't want to see that there's way more to marriage and love that that 1 aspect

There are 3 phases of sex in a lasting marriage; house sex, bedroom sex, and finally hall sex. Most of us here have been around long enough to have experienced hall sex. Why shouldn't gay people have the same opportunity?