Your stance on gay marriage

[The Halbetan Union]

So you don't know, and you're threatening violence if you don't get what you want? How are you any better than the bigots that passed the law in the first place?

To put things simply for you, the Supreme Court is under no obligation to rule DOMA unconstitutional due to precedence. It would be nice if they would, but I doubt; if it is brought to the floor, if the justices would do the right thing. Especially since challenges against DOMA have failed before.

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/blog/entr ... the-senate

The Supreme Court avenue on DOMA might be irrelevant.

It may have been irrelevant if the Senate had sought to repeal DOMA in 08-10, but now it's a pipe dream that can't realistically happen through congress until another Bush comes along to push the people of the US into reelecting the Democrats, and even then I'm inclined to assume the dems. wont grow a spine and do what's right. They'll just fight every battle except for the ones that are important to gay people, screw it up ; loose their majority, and still have the balls to demand we support them come election time.

[Ryadn]

I see a homosexual couple in public.
My reaction = Meh... it happens.
Everyone else's reaction = *stare at for about five seconds, then walk away like you didn't just gaze into their souls*
People who are homophobic = F***ING FAGS! GO AWAY!

Conclusion - No one is EVER gonna come to any conclusion about it. People are just to different for any conclusion to be drawn.

Er...okay. But luckily, the way the law works, everyone doesn't need to 'come to a conclusion' about anything. Every individual gets to keep their own feelings and same-sex couples still get to enjoy equal protection under the law.

[Grave_n_idle]

No, the problem is that you are failing to discern that your view of this is subjective and not objective. You don't have a monopoly on truth.

Which is irrelevant. Because I'm not discussing my opinion.

I'm talking about the objective reality, that marriage is not religious. That's not my opinion - that's the inherent nature of marriage.

You keep talking about how some people's SUBJECTIVE opinion alter that - but it's nonsense. Subjective opinions do not alter objective reality.

[Grave_n_idle]

You need the license for a "legal marriage," not for a marriage.

What is a non-legal marriage?

More to the point - if we assume there is such an institution - how would it have nay relevance to this debate about legal marriage?

[Norstal]

You need the license for a "legal marriage," not for a marriage.

What is a non-legal marriage?

More to the point - if we assume there is such an institution - how would it have nay relevance to this debate about legal marriage?

I pronounce you and Ryadn husband and Wife.

[Samuraikoku]

I pronounce you and Ryadn husband and Wife.

Under which powers, vested by which authority?

[Dyakovo]

I pronounce you and Ryadn husband and Wife.

Under which powers, vested by which authority?

None... That's why its an example of an illegal marriage.

[Grave_n_idle]

What is a non-legal marriage?

More to the point - if we assume there is such an institution - how would it have nay relevance to this debate about legal marriage?

I pronounce you and Ryadn husband and Wife.

Awesome. Ryadn is as wise as she is beautiful, and that's saying something.

Not sure my current wife would be too happy about it, of course.

Ah... hence the 'non-legal'. See, I can be taught.

[Norstal]

I pronounce you and Ryadn husband and Wife.

Under which powers, vested by which authority?

The almighty Bunghole.

[Orcoa]

Under which powers, vested by which authority?

None... That's why its an example of an illegal marriage.

Hmmm I can fix that..In the name of The God Emperor of mankind I pronounce you and Ryadn Husband and Wife.



Sorry I love making 40k jokes when I can

[Samuraikoku]

Under which powers, vested by which authority?

None... That's why its an example of an illegal marriage.

Well, I'm not sure I agree with the word "illegal". I don't see how it would be a crime. Let's remember that acts that do not follow the law don't necessarily contravene it, so it wouldn't be exactly illegal. Just non-existant and void of any effects.

Edit: Take for example commonlaw marriage. It's not an act following the law, yet it's not a crime ("illegal") either, is it?

[Ifreann]

I pronounce you and Ryadn husband and Wife.

Awesome. Ryadn is as wise as she is beautiful, and that's saying something.

Not sure my current wife would be too happy about it, of course.

Ah... hence the 'non-legal'. See, I can be taught.

There are advantages to having two wives.

[Samuraikoku]

Under which powers, vested by which authority?

The almighty Bunghole.

ARE YOU THREATENING ME!? YOU WILL GIVE ME TP... BUNGHOLIO!

[Dusk_Kittens]

No, the problem is that you are failing to discern that your view of this is subjective and not objective. You don't have a monopoly on truth.

Which is irrelevant. Because I'm not discussing my opinion.

I'm talking about the objective reality, that marriage is not religious. That's not my opinion - that's the inherent nature of marriage.

You keep talking about how some people's SUBJECTIVE opinion alter that - but it's nonsense. Subjective opinions do not alter objective reality.

I'm talking about worldview. Weltanschauung. Sitz-im-Leben. Perspective. Opinion does affect perception/apprehension of Objective "Reality," and it does so at a fundamental level. Worldviews may be cultural, social, national, regional, religious, atheistic, traditionalist, modernist, pragmatic, tribal, individualistic.

What is "Reality?" is a basic Philosophical Question. This is a question of Ontology and Metaphysics. Every worldview contains ontological and metaphysical ideas, sometimes quite elaborate and systematized, and sometimes less consciously and more chaotic and/or vague.

That you don't accept that other people have ontologically and metaphysically different perspectives which differ from your own is a cause for concern.

If we're talking about "marriage," that term is subjective because it is equivocal, not merely in that it is ordinarily utilized for both a "wedding" (ceremony, ritual, more or less formal/informal and not a necessary aspect of "marriage," nor even of "legal marriage") and the status/union/bond of "marriage," but also

because

the term is utilized in multiple worldviews and multiple disciplines and multiple Sprachspiele.

"Marriage" alone is a term which does not belong to anyone in the singular or plural, universally or exclusively or absolutely, and that also means it doesn't belong to government in those ways.

"For purposes of law, 'marriage' denotes a bond/union of a civil nature, between consenting adults, which confers certain legal, political, civil, and economic status, benefits, and responsibilities, once certain conditions are met to satisfy the government and its laws." Fine, whatever, sure, that's expressed correctly, albeit somewhat vaguely -- correctly because "For purposes of law," but vaguely because of " 'marriage'."

"For purposes of law, 'Legal Marriage' (which may be inaccurately and vaguely referred to as "marriage" or "Marriage") denotes a bond/union of a civil nature, between consenting adults, which confers certain legal, political, civil, and economic status, benefits, and responsibilities, once certain conditions are met to satisfy the government and its laws."

Better because "Legal Marriage" is more accurate and leaves no ambiguity.

Nothing was said about "Religious Marriage," or "Non-Religious Marriage." Nothing has to be said. Either way, "Legal Marriage" is not the same thing as "Religious Marriage" or "Non-Religious Marriage." It is simply "Legal Marriage," which is a term used in legal, political, civil, and economic considerations.

The term Sprachspiel comes from the later philosophical views of Ludwig Wittgenstein, and it is an important consideration in understanding what I am saying.

8. Certainty

Wittgenstein’s last writings were on the subject of certainty. He wrote in response to G.E. Moore’s attack on scepticism about the external world. Moore had held up one hand, said “Here is one hand,” then held up his other hand and said “and here is another.” His point was that things outside the mind really do exist, we know they do, and that no grounds for scepticism could be strong enough to undermine this commonsense knowledge.

Wittgenstein did not defend scepticism, but questioned Moore’s claim to know that he had two hands. Such ‘knowledge’ is not something that one is ever taught, or finds out, or proves. It is more like a background against which we come to know other things. Wittgenstein compares this background to the bed of a river. This river bed provides the support, the context, in which claims to know various things have meaning. The bed itself is not something we can know or doubt. In normal circumstances no sane person doubts how many hands he or she has. But unusual circumstances can occur and what was part of the river bed can shift and become part of the river. I might, for instance, wake up dazed after a terrible accident and wonder whether my hands, which I cannot feel, are still there or not. This is quite different, though, from Descartes’s pretended doubt as to whether he has a body at all. Such radical doubt is really not doubt at all, from Wittgenstein’s point of view. And so it cannot be dispelled by a proof that the body exists, as Moore tried to do.

Source

"4. The Later Wittgenstein and Ordinary-Language Philosophy" ... "b. The Later Wittgenstein" ... concluded that, far from being a truth-functional calculus, language has no universally correct structure—that is, there is no such thing as an ideal language. Instead, each language-system—be it a full-fledged language, a dialect, or a specialized technical language used by some body of experts—is like a game that functions according to its own rules.

These rules are not of the sort found in grammar books—those are just attempts to describe rules already found in the practices of some linguistic community. Real linguistic rules, according to the later Wittgenstein, cannot be stated, but are rather shown in the complex intertwining of linguistic and non-linguistic practices that make up the “form of life” of any linguistic community. Language is, for the later Wittgenstein, an intrinsically social phenomenon, and its correct modes are as diverse as the many successful modes of corporate human life. Consequently, it cannot be studied in the abstract, apart from its many particular embodiments in human communities.

In contrast with his views in the Tractatus, the later Wittgenstein no longer believed that meaning is a picturing-relation grounded in the correspondence relationships between linguistic atoms and metaphysical atoms. Instead, language systems, or language games, are unanalyzable wholes whose parts (utterances sanctioned by the rules of the language) have meaning in virtue of having a role to play—a use—within the total form of life of a linguistic community. Thus it is often said that for the latter Wittgenstein meaning is use. On this view, the parts of a language need not refer or correspond to anything at all—they only have to play a role in a form of life.

It is important to note that even in his later thought, Wittgenstein retained the view that traditional philosophical problems arise from linguistic error, and that true philosophy is about analyzing language so as to grasp the limits of meaning and see that error for what it is—a headlong tumble into confusion or meaninglessness. However, his new understanding of language required a new understanding of analysis. No longer could it be the transformation of some ordinary language statement into the symbolic notation of formal logic purportedly showing its true form. Instead, it is a matter of looking at how language is ordinarily used and seeing that traditional philosophical problems arise only as we depart from that use.

“A philosophical problem,” says Wittgenstein, “has the form: ‘I don’t know my way about’” (Wittgenstein 1953, ¶123), that is, I don’t know how to speak properly about this, to ask a question about this, to give an answer to that question. If I were to transcend the rules of my language and say something anyhow, what I say would be meaningless nonsense. Such are the utterances of traditional, metaphysical philosophy. Consequently, philosophical problems are to be solved, or rather dissolved,

by looking into the workings of our language, and that in such a way as to make us recognize its workings: … The problems are solved, not by giving new information, but by arranging what we have always known. (Wittgenstein 1953, ¶ 109)

And “what we have always known” is the rules of our language. “The work of the philosopher,” he says, “consists in assembling reminders for a particular purpose” (Wittgenstein 1953, ¶ 127). These reminders take the form of examples of how the parts of language are ordinarily used in the language game out of which the philosoher has tried to step. Their purpose is to coax the philosopher away from the misuse of language essential to the pursuit of traditional philosophical questions. Thus the true philosophy becomes a kind of therapy aimed at curing a lingusitic disease that cripples one’s ability to fully engage in the form of life of one’s linguistic community. True philsophy, Wittgenstein says, “is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language” (Wittgenstein 1953, ¶ 109). The true philosopher’s weapon in this battle is “to bring words back from their metaphysical to their everyday use” (Wittgenstein 1953, ¶ 116), so that “the results of philosophy are the uncovering of one or another piece of plain nonsense and of bumps that the understanding has gotten by running its head up against the limits of language” (Wittgenstein 1953, ¶ 119).

Source

Wittgenstein used the term "language-game" (Sprachspiel) to designate forms of language simpler than the entirety of a language itself, "consisting of language and the actions into which it is woven" (PI 7), and connected by family resemblance. The concept was intended "to bring into prominence the fact that the speaking of language is part of an activity, or a form of life" (PI 23).

The term 'language game' is used to refer to:

* Fictional examples of language use that are simpler than our own everyday language. (e.g. PI 2)
* Simple uses of language with which children are first taught language (training in language).
* Specific regions of our language with their own grammars and relations to other language-games.
* All of a natural language seen as comprising a family of language-games.

These meanings are not separated from each other by sharp boundaries, but blend into one another (as suggested by the idea of family resemblance). The concept is based on the following analogy: The rules of language (grammar) are analogous to the rules of games; meaning something in language is thus analogous to making a move in a game. The analogy between a language and a game brings out the fact that only in the various and multiform activities of human life do words have meaning. (The concept is not meant to suggest that there is anything trivial about language, or that language is 'just a game', quite the contrary.)

Source

Each discipline in academia has its own Sprachspiel, which has a complex series of relationships with other Sprachspiele in academia and other Sprachpiele outside academia. Each worldview likewise has families of Sprachspiele.

Law as a profession, that is, Professional Law, has its Sprachspiel, which is related to the Sprachspiele of politics, economics, government, and civil affairs.

Law, Politics, Economics, Government, Civilization, Culture, Religion, Ontology, Metaphysics, Epistemology, Aesthetics, Ethics, Morality, Scruples, Folkways, Society, Psychology, Language Function, Language Use, Semantics, Etymology, Linguistic Analysis, and other particulars are also topics in the Sprachspiel used in Philosophy.

Part of the concern of Philosophy is, therefore, the rules of any given Sprachspiel, their consistent application, accuracy and precision of use in any given Sprachspiel.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm talking about worldview... Perspective. Opinion does affect perception/apprehension of Objective "Reality,"

I'm not tlaking about 'views' or perceptions. I don't care how people 'see' things.

Marriage is not religious, because marriage is not religious.

What your personal 'apprehension' of it may be doesn't matter, because your perspective is subjective. Water is still water even if you personally think it has a soup-like attribute. Your perspective doesn't change the nature of the thing.

[Homosexy]

Are we really still talking about this?

I still haven't gotten an argument against gay marriage that isn't based off religion. This isn't a religious issue. It's a governmental issue that religion should not be brought into. You don't want gays to get married or you think it's a sin? Fine. But don't take the American given rights away from other people because you feel like imposing your religious beliefs upon everyone else.

So I still don't see why this is a problem, and why the LGBT community should not be allowed to get married.

[The Alma Mater]

I still haven't gotten an argument against gay marriage that isn't based off religion.

Well, neonazis often oppose homosexual relationships because the partners in them will not massproduce babies for the Fatherland, as is their Duty.

Not sure if the devout believers are happy with said support though

[Grave_n_idle]

Are we really still talking about this?

I still haven't gotten an argument against gay marriage that isn't based off religion. This isn't a religious issue. It's a governmental issue that religion should not be brought into. You don't want gays to get married or you think it's a sin? Fine. But don't take the American given rights away from other people because you feel like imposing your religious beliefs upon everyone else.

So I still don't see why this is a problem, and why the LGBT community should not be allowed to get married.

There is one non-religious argument you see occasionally - the one that says homosexual marriage is wrong because it will let homosexuals have their homosex, which is icky.

I'm sure you can spot the immediate flaw in the logic.

[Homosexy]

Are we really still talking about this?

I still haven't gotten an argument against gay marriage that isn't based off religion. This isn't a religious issue. It's a governmental issue that religion should not be brought into. You don't want gays to get married or you think it's a sin? Fine. But don't take the American given rights away from other people because you feel like imposing your religious beliefs upon everyone else.

So I still don't see why this is a problem, and why the LGBT community should not be allowed to get married.

There is one non-religious argument you see occasionally - the one that says homosexual marriage is wrong because it will let homosexuals have their homosex, which is icky.

I'm sure you can spot the immediate flaw in the logic.

Yeah, like "it's none of your business what I do in bed, so get over it". Besides, straight couples are doing just as "naughty" and "icky" stuff as homosexual couples do. Porn shows that. >_<

[Homosexy]

I still haven't gotten an argument against gay marriage that isn't based off religion.

Well, neonazis often oppose homosexual relationships because the partners in them will not massproduce babies for the Fatherland, as is their Duty.

Not sure if the devout believers are happy with said support though

Yeah but that's the Fatherland, not America. There are tons of foster kids and kids in adoptions that would love loving parents for them (no matter what their sexualities). So why don't we focus less on "having children for the homeland" and instead worry about those issues.

[Grave_n_idle]

There is one non-religious argument you see occasionally - the one that says homosexual marriage is wrong because it will let homosexuals have their homosex, which is icky.

I'm sure you can spot the immediate flaw in the logic.

Yeah, like "it's none of your business what I do in bed, so get over it". Besides, straight couples are doing just as "naughty" and "icky" stuff as homosexual couples do. Porn shows that. >_<

Ah, no - the actual logical flaw is that (whether or not they think it is icky) marriage doesn't make sex any more likely. 'Homo-' or otherwise.

Some might argue, indeed, that it makes it LESS likely.

The 'icky' factor is just why it's a dumb argument. The illogical attempt to connect marriage to sex is why it's an illogical one.

[Homosexy]

Yeah, like "it's none of your business what I do in bed, so get over it". Besides, straight couples are doing just as "naughty" and "icky" stuff as homosexual couples do. Porn shows that. >_<

Ah, no - the actual logical flaw is that (whether or not they think it is icky) marriage doesn't make sex any more likely. 'Homo-' or otherwise.

Some might argue, indeed, that it makes it LESS likely.

The 'icky' factor is just why it's a dumb argument. The illogical attempt to connect marriage to sex is why it's an illogical one.

Well yeah, that makes sense too. I was mainly focused on why people are saying it's gross. But yeah, people getting married isn't going to stop anyone from having sex.

[Dusk_Kittens]

I'm talking about worldview... Perspective. Opinion does affect perception/apprehension of Objective "Reality,"

I'm not tlaking about 'views' or perceptions. I don't care how people 'see' things.

Marriage is not religious, because marriage is not religious.

What your personal 'apprehension' of it may be doesn't matter, because your perspective is subjective. Water is still water even if you personally think it has a soup-like attribute. Your perspective doesn't change the nature of the thing.

You are, however, talking about law, which has more than one particular Sprachspiel, in that it is related to other Sprachspiele, including those which analyze language, and are concerned with accurate and precise terminology, as is Law itself.

"Religious" and "Not-Religious" are not terms which need to be used at all in a legal discussion of a legal status of union/bond between consenting adults, which is accurately and precisely named "Legal Marriage," and not "Marriage."

Law cannot define "Marriage" for all Sprachspiele. Law can arrive at a definition of "Legal Marriage" which is appropriate for Law concerned with the legal status of bond/union between consenting adults, in terms of legal, political, civil, and economic Sprachspiele. Law is not permitted, by the Constitution, to even so much as attempt, and Law is indeed prohibited, by the Constitution, from so much as even attempting, to produce a definition for "Marriage" in the terminology of religious Sprachspiele. That would crossing the line into the territory of Religion, and would therefore violate the First Amendment.

Law must also make plain that the term "Legal Marriage" refers specifically to the legal status of union/bond, and not any ceremony which might be connected with that status, apart from the satisfaction of the legal requirements. (Otherwise, the vagueness of the term "marriage" itself could lead to unfortunate consequences in which "wedding" as ceremony is assumed to be included under the term "Legal Marriage.")

The introduction of "Legal" as a modifier to the noun "Marriage" is intended, not to contrast "Legal Marriage" from "illegal marriage" (whatever that might be), but rather, to distinguish "Legal Marriage" from "Religious Marriage" and from "Marriage" as a general term.

The legal considerations only apply to legal, political, civil, and economic Sprachspiele, and need not even address the various assertions by some that "Marriage" is "Religious" or "Secular" or "Non-Religious." The Law must, in fact, avoid such pontification.

[Dusk_Kittens]

This isn't a religious issue. It's a governmental issue that religion should not be brought into.

Entirely correct.

You don't want gays to get married or you think it's a sin? Fine. But don't take the American given rights away from other people because you feel like imposing your religious beliefs upon everyone else.

What is "sin" to someone is really only of concern to themselves; if they think it's wrong, they don't have to do it, but they cannot expand their religious view of "sin" into Law. "Sin" is far from a universal concept, and is indeed rather culture-specific, predominant in cultures with a connection to Abrahamic religions. Some of us live other cultures, with worldviews which have no concept of "sin." If someone "S" believes that "x" is a "sin," then "S" is perfectly free from engaging in the practice of "x," but has no authority to tell any other someone "Z" that "Z" cannot engage in the practice of "x."

So I still don't see why this is a problem, and why the LGBT community should not be allowed to get married.

It's not a problem, and those who oppose it on supposedly "religious" principle must conclude that they cannot impose their religious beliefs on the whole via governmental authority. The First Amendment prohibits the exercise of government authority to establish any particular religion or religious view as well, and indeed limits government authority in the matter of religion, which is a good thing for religion and and a good thing for the people.

[Shadow25]

pro it is none of the government business