U.S. Supreme Court Considers Gay Marriage

Slartibartfast wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: ^Everyone else who has come here has respectfully stated their opinion.  You're the first to try and demonize your opponents.  Please do not continue to do so. By the way, people have been using the language of war as a metaphor for serious non-violent conflict for hundreds of years.  I find it a little amusing that calling people out who demonize their opponents constitutes demonizing one's opponents.  If you make a really good argument against someone's silly stated position, that constitutes demonizing, bqhatevwr. BTW, I don't  consider you people more than misguided, I hope you people mean well.

That's not what you did, though.  You made an accusation of militarism based upon one statement by a particular talk show host who wasn't advocating the idea of militarism at all, just using the language of war as a metaphor.  That's not a serious argument; it's simply twisting someone's words to make them (and the rest of the people who agree with them) look bad.

For the record, I (as I've already posted in the thread) am not in favor of banning gay marriage; I just want government out of marriage, period.  I believe that gay marriage is sinful but that it's none of my or the government's business telling people who they can marry.  So I'm not just an angry social conservative offended by your characterization of me.  I think its unfair to falsely accuse people on either side of the debate and will point it out when it happens.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Dean wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: By the way, people have been using the language of war as a metaphor for serious non-violent conflict for hundreds of years.  Is now a good time to start using the language of peace instead? I stuggle to see how war can ever be a valid metaphor for non-violent conflict - the language of war is the language of incitement and of rabble-rousing, it is the language of the mob and mob-rule and of vigilanties and lynchings. It's not, though.  Obviously, those who actually want to do violence to others use the language of war in it's literal sense, but people have been using it as a metaphor almost as long as literature has been around.  Examples: "Onward, Christian Soldiers," "The War on Poverty," "We've won the battle, but lost the war" and on ad infinitum.  It's a common figure of speech and it's usually pretty easy to tell when it's being used literally and when metaphorically (obviously, there are exceptions to that).  In the statement that Brian quoted, the radio host was using military terminology but didn't even mention any kind of offensive conflict; the metaphor may have been a bit stretched but the point was easy to determine.

It is though, obviously. Use of a metaphor as a figure of speech is a direct association, unlike a simile, allegory or parable.

Of course it should be allowed. The thought of wanting it disallowed appalls me.

Edited by DisgruntledPorcupine - March 30 2013 at 13:09

if two people want to get married.....gay or straight.....then its up to them.....not a bunch of people who read this book which is thousands of years old and rubbish anyways have the right to decide.....then again i dont believe in god so as a result i guess i don't believe in marriage..... 

Dean wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Dean wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: By the way, people have been using the language of war as a metaphor for serious non-violent conflict for hundreds of years.  Is now a good time to start using the language of peace instead? I stuggle to see how war can ever be a valid metaphor for non-violent conflict - the language of war is the language of incitement and of rabble-rousing, it is the language of the mob and mob-rule and of vigilanties and lynchings. It's not, though.  Obviously, those who actually want to do violence to others use the language of war in it's literal sense, but people have been using it as a metaphor almost as long as literature has been around.  Examples: "Onward, Christian Soldiers," "The War on Poverty," "We've won the battle, but lost the war" and on ad infinitum.  It's a common figure of speech and it's usually pretty easy to tell when it's being used literally and when metaphorically (obviously, there are exceptions to that).  In the statement that Brian quoted, the radio host was using military terminology but didn't even mention any kind of offensive conflict; the metaphor may have been a bit stretched but the point was easy to determine. It is though, obviously. Use of a metaphor as a figure of speech is a direct association, unlike a simile, allegory or parable.   In the context of Brian's quote the radio host used not one but two pieces of military terminology in the same sentence, any interpretation that his intention was to incite offensive conflict would not be be stretching either metaphor.

The fact that a metaphor is a direct association does not change the fact that it is a metaphor; the person using it does not mean it literally.  It is a big stretch of any metaphor to say that it literally means what it says.  Then it wouldn't be a metaphor any more, which this statement obviously was.  Here it is in context:

Steve Deace wrote: If you're running for president in 2016 and you don't want to have to talk about these issues, you're certainly going to hope that the Supreme Court doesn't overextend its jurisdiction.  Because if it does, you're going to see an entire presidential primary defined by this issue. This idea that some people have that the court is going to settle the issue in the Republican Party — it's going to do the exact opposite.  It's going to raise the issue to Orange Threat Level, it'll be DEFCON 6…It will become the defining litmus test. All these pro-family groups, all of these people have invested decades in this fight, they've invested lots of human resources and human capital, they are not all going to throw up their hands.  They're going to double down, it's going to be even nastier, it will be an even more defined issue.

Firstly, he's not even advocating or threatening a conflict, he's predicting one.  Secondly, the context of his statement quite clearly shows that he is predicting a purely political conflict, not a physical one.  And yet liberal news outlets are portraying this as some kind of threat. 

If all states pass gay marriage which will happen, then polygamy, bestiality, and everything else is for grabs. That debate will come in too, I wonder what popular opinion will say to that...

Edited by AlexDOM - April 02 2013 at 14:32

As far as I am concerned, Polygamy is fine if they are all consenting adults...not so much if they are 14 year-old girls who have no choice in the matter, which unfortunately seems to be the case in societies that practice it.

AlexDOM wrote: If all states pass gay marriage which will happen, then polygamy, bestiality, and everything else is for grabs. That debate will come in too, I wonder what popular opinion will say to that...

"Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria!"

Many states banned interracial marriages for years, and not just in the South (California did away with their law in 1948). It wasn't until 1967 that the U.S. Supreme Court overturned state bans on interracial marriage as a  violation of the 14th Amendment.

Surprisingly, the earth did not stop rotating on its axis, nor did the sun sink from the heavens.

What Chief Justice Earl Warren said about racial discrimination in marriage could just as easily be paraphrased about homosexual marriage:

 "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy...

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

What if a human (let's call him Mr. Blackie Lawless) fugs like an animal? Is it bestiality?

I am pretty certain that Vompatti is quite approving of Bestiality.