Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Only in post modern, post 1960's society could human minds delude themselves that something called "Gay Marriage" exists or is real. The insanity of minds is truly a sign we are near the end.
"In classical and traditional thought, the substance of Marriage has been that the participation and union of husbandness and wifeness — that is, of maleness and femaleness: the prospect of generation. Secular and religious history universally confirms this. The accidents of Marriage have been the pre-existing relationships, the manifest affection (or disaffection), the age-difference, or even resulting generation. Thus, ontologically, marriage — traditionally — is between a husband and a wife. To remove husbandness or wifeness from this equation makes the statement false.
7+5 = 12, says Kant. But seven-ness is not the essence of twelve; nor is five-ness. But the seven-plus-five-ness is.[1] Remove any part of the equation – the seven, five, plus or equal sign – and it not only becomes false, it becomes nonsense.
Thus in ontology, that “marriage is between a husband and wife” is an analytical truth — that is, nothing new on either side of the “is” is learned from the other.
A bachelor isan unmarried man: no accident is learned about the bachelor, or an unmarried man — only the substance.
A triangle is a three-sided, enclosed shape on a two-dimensional plane: Without sides, enclosure, or the proper plane, this equation becomes nonsense.
While states have taken great pains to define recognized marriage as being “between a man and a woman,” they would have done much better to define marriage as being between a husband and wife — for this is closer to a tautology and analytically true.
Not only does history universally confirm this, but it is confirmed in the etymology of the terms. “Marriage” derives, of course from “marry,” which derives from the Latin terms maritus (a husband) and marita (a wife). The English term “husband” comes from Old English meaning “a house (hus)-owning yeoman (buondi). Similarly, “wife” is derived ultimately from the Old English term “wif” meaning, simply, “woman.”
Cicero urged, ut et tu maritus sis quam optime [mulier] — “that thou be, as well, a husband to the best possible [woman,]” with [woman] being clearly implied by the context.[2] To be a husband requires there be a wife, and to be a wife requires there be a husband — just as to be a mother requires there be a child, and to be a daughter requires there be a parent.
Just as for there to be an effect requires there be a cause, for there to be a marriage requires there be both a husband and wife.
A husband without a wife is a contradiction — it is ontological nonsense.
A wife without a husband is impossible — an ontological absurdity.
A marriage without a husband or a wife is a contravention — an ontological irrationality.
A female husband or a male wife, likewise, falls into the category of the absurd. And we are left with the conclusion that the essence of marriage not only requires both husbandness and wifeness, but both of these terms require in ontology maleness and femaleness respectively.
“Same-sex marriage” therefore becomes a mathematical absurdity, an epistemological ridicule, a cipher, an ontological nothingness."
Congratulations on your use of polysyllables.
Nevertheless, SSM is legal, and people will continue to engage in it.
If you think that "marraige is between and man and a woman" is an analytic truth, then you either don't know what marriage is or what an analytic truth is (and the types who say that usually aren't too great with "man" and "woman," either, as we see whenever discussions of trans* issues come up).
Screeds like that are why we have the saying, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
So sad, seems that the supreme court doesn't agree with your vast constitutional knowledge. Maybe you should send them a letter offering to educate them.
What's the point? They no longer rely on the Constitution when ruling. At least the majority of them don't.
Do you think that a letter worked with regard to their ruling in the Dred Scott case?
Ignore the argument and go straight to ridicule. The sign of a true intellect.
You have no knowledge of who I am or what does and does not effect my life, so speak for yourself.
I have already gone over that argument in this and other threads. You bringing up false point over and over will not make it a valid point.
The only way the ruling would have any effect on your life is if you are gay and can now get married. Otherwise it has no effect on you. You can marry someone of the opposite sex just like you always could.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
