Hawaii has legalized same sex marriage

[Shershah]

So, what you just provided as a source is irrelevant and redundant. Ty for not making me waste my time.

No, the source I provided is quite relevant. It helps to answer the question you should have asked.

But not the one i did. Hence redundant.

[Tekania]

I don't have a problem with the doing it at all if they want to. I don't, however expect to be forced to do it myself because they think it's "tradition", and I don't expect them to be able to stop someone from doing it to their ear simply because someone else things the lip is the traditional one.

But what you are proposing is that you want to pierce your lip and call it the same thing as putting a clay disk on it.

Yes... nothing wrong with that. We have an amendable legal system which is dynamic and capable of readily adapting to that for the purpose of codifying civil law and encompassing multiple things within a single paradigm. Our western word marriage is such a one, the word is etymologically descendent from a french nautical term "merrier" which was used to describe the process of interweaving two ropes so as to make a single rope. As such the term came to apply to the legal principals of the same with marriage where two people are combined into a single person in much of a legal sense. Whether these two people are a man and a woman ,two men, two women is ultimately immaterial to the imagery the etymological roots of the word portray.

Language is a very adaptable thing, and is capable of handling this just fine.

[Shershah]

But what you are proposing is that you want to pierce your lip and call it the same thing as putting a clay disk on it.

Yes... nothing wrong with that. We have an amendable legal system which is dynamic and capable of readily adapting to that for the purpose of codifying civil law and encompassing multiple things within a single paradigm. Our western word marriage is such a one, the word is etymologically descendent from a french nautical term "merrier" which was used to describe the process of interweaving two ropes so as to make a single rope. As such the term came to apply to the legal principals of the same with marriage where two people are combined into a single person in much of a legal sense. Whether these two people are a man and a woman ,two men, two women is ultimately immaterial to the imagery the etymological roots of the word portray.

Language is a very adaptable thing, and is capable of handling this just fine.

And nothing wrong with differentiating things for the sake of classification. We already do so based on sex, gender, race, nationality, age and alot of things.

[Othelos]

Yes... nothing wrong with that. We have an amendable legal system which is dynamic and capable of readily adapting to that for the purpose of codifying civil law and encompassing multiple things within a single paradigm. Our western word marriage is such a one, the word is etymologically descendent from a french nautical term "merrier" which was used to describe the process of interweaving two ropes so as to make a single rope. As such the term came to apply to the legal principals of the same with marriage where two people are combined into a single person in much of a legal sense. Whether these two people are a man and a woman ,two men, two women is ultimately immaterial to the imagery the etymological roots of the word portray.

Language is a very adaptable thing, and is capable of handling this just fine.

And nothing wrong with differentiating things for the sake of classification. We already do so based on sex, gender, race, nationality, age and alot of things.

I don't understand what your issue is with allowing same sex couples to marry.

So far you've argued tradition, relevancy, and "classification". Those things are all moot in the context of reality - that two consenting people who love each other should be allowed to participate in one of society's most fundamental institutions. Why does the sex of the two people matter to you so much?

[Shershah]

I don't understand what your issue is with allowing same sex couples to marry.

So far you've argued tradition, relevancy, and "classification". Those things are all moot in the context of reality - that two consenting people who love each other should be allowed to participate in one of society's most fundamental institutions. Why does the sex of the two people matter to you so much?

Are you implying that tradition, relevance and classifications are all somehow unrealistic ?

[Tekania]

Yes... nothing wrong with that. We have an amendable legal system which is dynamic and capable of readily adapting to that for the purpose of codifying civil law and encompassing multiple things within a single paradigm. Our western word marriage is such a one, the word is etymologically descendent from a french nautical term "merrier" which was used to describe the process of interweaving two ropes so as to make a single rope. As such the term came to apply to the legal principals of the same with marriage where two people are combined into a single person in much of a legal sense. Whether these two people are a man and a woman ,two men, two women is ultimately immaterial to the imagery the etymological roots of the word portray.

Language is a very adaptable thing, and is capable of handling this just fine.

And nothing wrong with differentiating things for the sake of classification. We already do so based on sex, gender, race, nationality, age and alot of things.

We're not talking about classification, we're talking about legal codification. Classification only requires the addition of a clarifying term, such as when someone says "same-sex marriage", that is a classification of a type of marriage..... no legal distinction is needed (nor should be there) delineating between the two, because the concept is to convey a particular set of rights through the operation of that said civil operation. For example, our idea is not to create some separate legal term "Same-sex marriage" to do the same thing as our existing marriage laws, but merely a minor terminology change in the legal usage of the word so it encompasses a larger scope than it does at present to include the classification of same-sex persons within its paradigm.

[Shershah]

We're not talking about classification, we're talking about legal codification. Classification only requires the addition of a clarifying term, such as when someone says "same-sex marriage", that is a classification of a type of marriage..... no legal distinction is needed (nor should be there) delineating between the two, because the concept is to convey a particular set of rights through the operation of that said civil operation.

And i disagree.

[Othelos]

I don't understand what your issue is with allowing same sex couples to marry.

So far you've argued tradition, relevancy, and "classification". Those things are all moot in the context of reality - that two consenting people who love each other should be allowed to participate in one of society's most fundamental institutions. Why does the sex of the two people matter to you so much?

Are you implying that tradition, relevance and classifications are all somehow unrealistic ?

Not unrealistic, just cliche arguments that dance around the issue that your and others' discomfort with the concept of two same sex people participating in marriage directly affects people's lives. Why should what they do with their lives be up to you? Who are you to decide what two consenting people can do with their relationship?

And you didn't answer my question: why does the sex of the two people matter to you so much?

[Shershah]

Not unrealistic, just cliche arguments that dance around the issue that your and others' discomfort with the concept of two same sex people participating in marriage directly affects people's lives. Why should what they do with their lives be up to you? Who are you to decide what two consenting people can do with their relationship?

And you didn't answer my question: why does the sex of the two people matter to you so much?

I have already answered all your question above in my posts. I am not trying to be rude or anything, I am just tired to repeat them again. That is all.

[Tekania]

We're not talking about classification, we're talking about legal codification. Classification only requires the addition of a clarifying term, such as when someone says "same-sex marriage", that is a classification of a type of marriage..... no legal distinction is needed (nor should be there) delineating between the two, because the concept is to convey a particular set of rights through the operation of that said civil operation.

And i disagree.

No, that's what our concept is alright.

[Othelos]

Not unrealistic, just cliche arguments that dance around the issue that your and others' discomfort with the concept of two same sex people participating in marriage directly affects people's lives. Why should what they do with their lives be up to you? Who are you to decide what two consenting people can do with their relationship?

And you didn't answer my question: why does the sex of the two people matter to you so much?

I have already answered all your question above in my posts. I am not trying to be rude or anything, I am just tired to repeat them again. That is all.

No, that's not what I mean. Why does the sex of the two people matter to you on a personal level? So far I think you've only argued from objective, impersonal standards.

[Shershah]

No, that's not what I mean. Why does the sex of the two people matter to you on a personal level? So far I think you've only argued from objective, impersonal standards.

On a personal level ? I consider marriage to be something sacred. I think that is all.

[Othelos]

No, that's not what I mean. Why does the sex of the two people matter to you on a personal level? So far I think you've only argued from objective, impersonal standards.

On a personal level ? I consider marriage to be something sacred. I think that is all.

You didn't answer my question. "Marriage is sacred" is from an objective standpoint.

Why does the sex of the two people matter to you? Are they harming you? Do you think you have the right to define other people's relationships?

[Frisivisia]

No, that's not what I mean. Why does the sex of the two people matter to you on a personal level? So far I think you've only argued from objective, impersonal standards.

On a personal level ? I consider marriage to be something sacred. I think that is all.

Marriage isn't sacred, it's legal, and the government recognizing equal rights for gay people doesn't undermine the sanctity of anything because you can take solace in the idea that your God doesn't acknowledge the government.

[Shaggai]

No, that's not what I mean. Why does the sex of the two people matter to you on a personal level? So far I think you've only argued from objective, impersonal standards.

On a personal level ? I consider marriage to be something sacred. I think that is all.

The US is a secular country. Religion has nothing to do with law.

[Shershah]

On a personal level ? I consider marriage to be something sacred. I think that is all.

You didn't answer my question. "Marriage is sacred" is from an objective standpoint.

How is that from an objective standpoint ?

[Tekania]

On a personal level ? I consider marriage to be something sacred. I think that is all.

Marriage isn't sacred, it's legal, and the government recognizing equal rights for gay people doesn't undermine the sanctity of anything because you can take solace in the idea that your God doesn't acknowledge the government.

That's likely a confusing concept to him, as he likely stems from a pre-enlightenment civilization.

[Othelos]

You didn't answer my question. "Marriage is sacred" is from an objective standpoint.

How is that from an objective standpoint ?

"Marriage is sacred" is from the point of view of marriage. Not from your view.

Whether or not marriage is sacred doesn't answer my questions. Why does the sex of the two people matter to you personally? Are the two people in a relationship harming you? Do you think you have the right to define other people's relationships?

[Shershah]

How is that from an objective standpoint ?

"Marriage is sacred" is from the point of view of marriage. Not from your view.

That is also my view.

[Othelos]

"Marriage is sacred" is from the point of view of marriage. Not from your view.

That is also my view.

Quit beating around the bush and answer my questions.

[Shershah]

That is also my view.

Quit beating around the bush and answer my questions.

I just did.

[Othelos]

Quit beating around the bush and answer my questions.

I just did.

You answered one. How about these?

Are two same-sex people in a relationship harming you? Do you think you have the right to define other people's relationships?

[Shershah]

I just did.

You answered one. How about these?

Are two same-sex people in a relationship harming you? Do you think you have the right to define other people's relationships?

Those will only get what you will define as objective ones. If those suffice then, might as well just go through my post history.

[Domenic and friends]

Meh

[Othelos]

You answered one. How about these?

Are two same-sex people in a relationship harming you? Do you think you have the right to define other people's relationships?

Those will only get what you will define as objective ones. If those suffice then, might as well just go through my post history.

Stop trying to evade the questions. Do you, or do you not, believe that you have the right to define other people's personal relationships?