freecounterpoint: Pepe, put the pink champagne on ice

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Pepe, put the pink champagne on ice

14 comments:

Pepe le Pew said...: Next thing you know they'll stop hanging people engaging in oral sex.; 5/15/2008 3:49 PM
Pepe le Pew said...: Seriously though, both sides of this issue are puzzling: why they want to get married and why some people worry that they might is a complete mystery. I say live & let live.; 5/15/2008 3:53 PM
Tecumseh said...: And some people are sticklers for definitions. The definition of marriage is patented in the Bible, can't change that, mon cher.; 5/15/2008 5:19 PM
Pepe le Pew said...: We can't change the bible definition but that doesn't mean we need to stick to whatever it is. Fortunately, we have evolved over the last few millenia.; 5/15/2008 9:18 PM
Mr roT said...: you've gone toward cro-magnon, Pepe. I's right in your surname.; 5/15/2008 9:55 PM
Tecumseh said...: Evolve or devolve? That is the question.; 5/15/2008 11:19 PM
Pepe le Pew said...: AI, there is no question there: a secular society doesn't need to adopt the biblical definition of marriage. That is what the talebans do with the coran.; 5/16/2008 5:22 PM
Tecumseh said...: Pepe, do you know the meaning of the word "patent"? A democratic society (secular or not, there is no a priori contradiction there) may adopt whatever laws it wants (provided it's done according to its own Constitution), for sure. But that doesn't mean one can redefine a concept that has existed as such for millenia (even before the Bible was written). I mean, if Congress redefines the Earth, and calls it the Moon, does it make sense? There are such things as common sense, precedent, tradition, logic, etc, you know? Even the French must have heard of such concepts at some point, haven't they?; 5/16/2008 6:26 PM
Pepe le Pew said...: Marriage is a societal construct and as such, it can readily be modified to fit societal needs, or its evolution. it's rather simple: you just need to change the law.
The earth, the laws of gravity are somewhat more immutable. You can't will them to be what you want them to be (even if it says in the bible that it is 12 weeks old).

But I am curious as to what the actual problem is. Surely it can't make a rat's ass difference to you whether or not the two guys across the street call their union marriage, or whether or not one gets to inherit the other's estate?

Is it the semantics or the benefits that bug you ?; 5/16/2008 7:01 PM
Tecumseh said...: Marriage is a societal construct and as such, it can readily be modified to fit societal needs. It may come as a surprise to you, Pepe, but a society needs to reproduce in order to survive -- it's one of those laws of Nature, ya know? So marriage recognizes that. Is this too deep for you to understand? I bet you a crooked dime that you understood this kind of stuff when growing up, without even thinking about it. Now, after marinating in a pinko, mushy haze for several decades, your brain must have trouble with such simple concepts. Too "simplistic" for the effete, "sophisticated", "liberated", liberal mind, eh?; 5/16/2008 7:22 PM
Pepe le Pew said...: a society needs to reproduce in order to survive -- it's one of those laws of Nature, ya know? So marriage recognizes that. Is this too deep for you to understand?
In your effort at escaping shallowness ai, could you enlighten me by explaining how the marriage between the two guys across the street prevents me and my (female) wife from reproducing?; 5/16/2008 7:31 PM
Tecumseh said...: The law is not supposed to trivialize things. Your "argument" is shallow, and devoid of merit -- and a red herring, to boot. Do you dimly remember Cartesian Logic through that pinko haze?; 5/16/2008 7:43 PM
Pepe le Pew said...: Sounds like you are out of logical arguments; 5/16/2008 7:51 PM
Tecumseh said...: I'm never out of logical arguments. I continued the discussion here.; 5/16/2008 7:57 PM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)