posted
Newbies like this are reassuring that the gate's still open. I worry about Hatrack becoming Xanth sometimes.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
CStroman just needs love. If we all hug him, smother him in love, we can help him get over this block. Having a closed mind not open to any other arguement is, after all, tiresome after a while -- once you start being completely wrong, is one possibiltiy.
(((CStroman)))
"The power of Christ compels you." "The power of Christ compels you." "The power of Christ compels you."
posted
I had to google that phrase to figure out why I was hearing it in a squeaky toy voice in my head.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. Calling people ignorant because you don't like facts.
How liberal.
"Just because I don't like the truth, I am going to deny it and invent a falsehood and call it truth. Then I am going to sue and cry until I can get the falsehood instituted as truth."
The fact that your post called it the "Contract of Marriage" is not written in invisible ink.
It is the Contract of Marriage.
You wanna redefine it, get in line because there's a whole slew of people before you.
And PLEASE ignore my posts. Plug your ears and close your eyes and sing La la la la la.
Maybe if you think about it hard enough, the falsehoods will magically turn into truths. Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like Xanth? You mean with inconsistent history and physical laws and a preoocupation with bodily functions? Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If anybody had any doubts about this guy, calling Dagonee a liberal was the last straw in showing that he doesn't know what the heck he's talking about, and can't be bothered to find out before calling people names.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, that's the best policy when people think you're ignorant - call them names, don't provide evidence that you know what you're talking about.
quote:Technically being African American means that you are born in Africa but a citizen of America.
You know, it's possible that it should mean that, but I think you'd have a hard time showing that it actually does mean that.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's funny, people call ME ignorant (which OMG is name calling I think, but I could be wrong since we're redefining everything, ya'know.) and I have seen nothing replying to the POINTS but your name calling.
Swallow your own pill instead of trying to shove it down my throat.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't care what any of you think. Perhaps that's what hurts your egos so much. Perhaps that's what compels some to continue posting after they claim they are going to ignore me.
Have some self control and actually do what you claim you will.
Otherwise you're just lying which makes you look even worse.
I agree with everything OSC said in his article.
I think he hit the nail completely on the head, but he was very nice about it.
posted
I've posted a very clear and concise quotation as to why caling a marriage a contract is an incomplete description. There's a lot in it - the fact that the contractual aspect of marriage is simply the inception of the legal status, the fact that consent is the only significant point of similarity, the special status of the marital relationship, the state interest in every marriage, the fact that the entire body of commercial contract law is inapplicable to marriage, and the exemption of marriage from the contracts clause in the Constitution.
You've yet to respond to any of that point by point.
posted
"I really don't care what any of you think."
I find this fascinating. If you really feel that way, why are you talking to us?
-----
Just as a side note, BTW, it's worth noting that many dictionaries do not include "between a man and a woman" in their definition of marriage. And while you can insist that you believe it SHOULD be there, and say that you believe this to be the commonly accepted definition, there's actually a huge technical difference between an argument based on definitions and an argument based on facts. Which would you like to have?
quote: I've posted a very clear and concise quotation as to why caling a marriage a contract is an incomplete description. There's a lot in it - the fact that the contractual aspect of marriage is simply the inception of the legal status, the fact that consent is the only significant point of similarity, the special status of the marital relationship, the state interest in every marriage, the fact that the entire body of commercial contract law is inapplicable to marriage, and the exemption of marriage from the contracts clause in the Constitution.
You've yet to respond to any of that point by point.
I did, your response was to ignore everything minue "Parolees".
Not suprised.
But here goes.
quote: I've posted a very clear and concise quotation as to why caling a marriage a contract is an incomplete description.
Your quote did no such thing. Nowhere does it say that a "contract of marriage" is an incomplete description. It states that it is INDEED a contract, but of a different sort than others.
But a CONTRACT none the less.
quote: the fact that the contractual aspect of marriage is simply the inception of the legal status,
The Inception and CONTINUATION of that status. It is a contract that is not renewed every day, etc. It is entered into and AGREED by the two parties involved as the BEGINNING of a marriage process. No one that is married one day is not unmarried the next unless action is taken by the state, OR a DEATH occurs. (which again is NOT an action of the state, but does affect the Marriage Contract's Validity) You cannot continue to claim Married Status after one party has DIED. In fact it is AGAINST the law to do so.
Also, you are comparing Marriage to Commercial Contracts, which are two very different things and do NOT cover all contracts entered into and do NOT represent all CONTRACTS with a Legal Binding.
There are contracts in Religion (promises or covenants). You promise one thing, you fail to do so, you forfeit the benefits of that contract. You are ex-communicated.
Commerce has nothing to do with it.
There is the BINDING NON-Consensual contract between a citizen and the law. You disobey the law, you lose the priviledges it affords. Nothing written but very binding.
No commerce involved there either.
The Parolee who promises to make his appointments with his officer is a CONTRACT as well. Not commercial to say the least.
Perhaps we are debating what a contract is, which is an agreement entered into by two parties.
That covers marriage.
The fact that that contract goes through a legal process for it's dissolution reinforces the fact that it is indeed a CONTRACT.
There are many other governing factors regarding contracts that also cover marriage. But not every contract is the same.
Not every contract is legal. Not every contract is written and not every contract is agreed upon but is still binding.
Marriage is just ONE type of contract.
Is it a special contract? You bet. Well at lease it once was to most people. Does it differ from alot of other contracts? Yes, but nothing in which it differes DISQUALIFIES it from being a contract.
What the contract entails is what is at stake.
I think in reality we are on the same page, we both agree that Marriage is a contract. Just that it has some properties that distinguish it from other contracts.
Lots of contracts have such distinguishing properties.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Just as a side note, BTW, it's worth noting that many dictionaries do not include "between a man and a woman" in their definition of marriage. And while you can insist that you believe it SHOULD be there, and say that you believe this to be the commonly accepted definition, there's actually a huge technical difference between an argument based on definitions and an argument based on facts. Which would you like to have?
Really? There's a dictionary that DOESN'T have it? Well that makes it the law then.
How about the LAW and it's definition of it.
Oh Wait! Liberals want to CHANGE the laws to INCLUDE others other than man and wife.
I can't believe anyone would actually DENY or ARGUE that Marriage is NOT defined as the Union/agreement/contract/promise/etc. between a Man and a Woman.
But with liberals, CBS has proven they'll invent what they want and try to pass it off as truth.
I know this is a sci-fi based form, but lay off the fantasy a bit ok?
Anyone who argues that Marriage is NOT between a man and a woman just crack me up.
posted
So, to clarify, you're using a different definition of "contract" than Dagonee is. By his definition, it's not possible for marriage to be a contract; by yours, which is a more liberal definition, marriage is obviously a contract. The definition that Dagonee is using for "contract" is in fact the legal one, the one recognized by the laws of this country; the one you are using is listed in a few dictionaries, but is not binding.
posted
From my previous post: "[Marriage] is not a contract resembling others in any but the slightest degree, except as to the element of consent."
quote: The Inception and CONTINUATION of that status. It is a contract that is not renewed every day, etc. It is entered into and AGREED by the two parties involved as the BEGINNING of a marriage process. No one that is married one day is not unmarried the next unless action is taken by the state,
Exactly. Contracts can be terminated by consent of the parties. So either marriage is not just a contract, or the state is a party. Your definition is consistent with neither possibility.
quote:OR a DEATH occurs. (which again is NOT an action of the state, but does affect the Marriage Contract's Validity) You cannot continue to claim Married Status after one party has DIED. In fact it is AGAINST the law to do so.
Funny, most contracts extend past death. Yet another difference.
quote:Also, you are comparing Marriage to Commercial Contracts, which are two very different things and do NOT cover all contracts entered into and do NOT represent all CONTRACTS with a Legal Binding.
There are contracts in Religion (promises or covenants). You promise one thing, you fail to do so, you forfeit the benefits of that contract. You are ex-communicated.
Commerce has nothing to do with it.
You’re the one who restricted this discussion to marriage being a “civil contract,” so religious contracts are inapplicable.
quote:There is the BINDING NON-Consensual contract between a citizen and the law. You disobey the law, you lose the priviledges it affords. Nothing written but very binding.
No commerce involved there either.
WRONG! The one universal aspect of contracts is consent. There are no non-consensual contracts.
quote:The Parolee who promises to make his appointments with his officer is a CONTRACT as well. Not commercial to say the least.
There’s not a contract. That’s a condition of release. Again, no consent.
quote:Perhaps we are debating what a contract is, which is an agreement entered into by two parties.
"A contract is a promise or a set of promises for the breach of which the law gives a remedy, or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes as a duty." Restatement (Second) of Contracts.
A marriage has duty attached to it. It also has hundreds of other things attached to it.
quote:That covers marriage.
The fact that that contract goes through a legal process for it's dissolution reinforces the fact that it is indeed a CONTRACT.
No. Contracts can be dissolved by consent of the parties. Marriages can’t – it requires consent of the state.
quote:There are many other governing factors regarding contracts that also cover marriage. But not every contract is the same.
Not every contract is legal. Not every contract is written and not every contract is agreed upon but is still binding.
Again, you insisted it was a civil contract – this means you are claiming marriage is a legal contract.
quote:Marriage is just ONE type of contract.
Is it a special contract? You bet. Well at lease it once was to most people. Does it differ from alot of other contracts? Yes, but nothing in which it differes DISQUALIFIES it from being a contract.
What the contract entails is what is at stake.
I think in reality we are on the same page, we both agree that Marriage is a contract. Just that it has some properties that distinguish it from other contracts.
No, we don’t. Marriage is a complex institution which has one property (consent) in common with contracts. One element of a marriage is contract.
quote:Lots of contracts have such distinguishing properties.
True. And lots of legal entities have contracts and something else. Just like the sale of a house is not “a contract.” It involves the execution of a contract (usually more than one) and the giving and acceptance of a deed, at minimum.
posted
Regardless, as always, I feel the need to insert my logic in -- particulary, because I feel it is utterly perfect ^^. (Not really, but I am proud of this idea because it's simple and effective.)
By the way, you may quote me on this. However, make sure to attribute it to "Phanto." Thanks . (Waits for the coming deconstruction of my arguement.)
quote: Gods, you're all arguing in a vacum.
We're speaking about state policy. As state policy, the truth is that there shouldn't be any mention of marriage at all. Marriage is a religious ceremony. Let all denominations have their own little marriages.
And yes, if a gay club wants to have their own marriage club, it should be as valid as a Church's marriage. (Read: both should be meaningless in terms of law.)
The point is that both hetrosexual couples and gay couples should be given Civil Unions.
posted
Also, I like the Balboa quote about them killing "sodomites" which could be TRUE that they were practicing it or it could be FALSE and that that was used as an excuse for their genocide. Especially seeing as there's no other mention of it being blessed on a large scale ANYWHERE.
This is called the "grasping at straws" technique. Again, it's used by people who are pro-homosexual marriage (instead of Pro-Civil Union) to attempt to "ligitimize" their current lifestyle.
It's another form of "rewritting history to make me feel good about myself" technique.
It's used ALOT now days.
Also, it's fair to note they also practiced ritual human sacrifices as well as animal sacrifices.
So those should be re-instituted as well.
Sorry, but I'm a little too well educated to believe what he has written. Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think if we can activate his sense of humor and the realization that we are real people, he might be a good Hatracker.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Added: Course, it could have been directed at someone else in this brief conversation, in which case I'll just politely step out of the way.
That depends on how you look. If you are more pleasing to the eye than the view you obstructed, I have no qualms. Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I agree with everything OSC said in his article.
I think he hit the nail completely on the head, but he was very nice about it.
So you agree that we have:
quote:a generation of children with no trust in marriage who are mating in, at best, merely "marriage-like" patterns
Should they also be denied marriage? I mean, they're just going get divorced and if they do have kids, there's no way they'll be raised in a loving home.
Posts: 157 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What does his out of context quote have to do with Gays. He's talking about the destruction of Marriage on the whole in society.
He's talking about Brittney Spears, J.Lo, Pamela Anderson type hook ups. (Although I hear PA is now teaching Sunday School) Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
(((CStroman))) ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And while you can insist that you believe it SHOULD be there, and say that you believe this to be the commonly accepted definition, there's actually a huge technical difference between an argument based on definitions and an argument based on facts. Which would you like to have?![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
