Dear Mary...

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...

Does Steve ever offer any support for arguments other than his own
declarations?


Yes, review the thread.

In article k.net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...

Does Steve ever offer any support for arguments other than his own
declarations?


Yes, review the thread.



I have reviewed it, and you never do anything except make flat
statements with no references.

Howard Berkowitz wrote in message ...
In article k.net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...

Does Steve ever offer any support for arguments other than his own
declarations?


Yes, review the thread.



I have reviewed it, and you never do anything except make flat
statements with no references.

It has been rather a pythonesque performance, hasn't it? To
paraphrase:

"An argument isn't just contradiction. An argument is a connected
series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Argument is
an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic
gainsaying of any statement the other person makes."

"No it isn't".

We still await Mr McNicoll's reasoning beyond his flat statement that
marriage is only possible within the rather narrow definition in which
he holds it.
Marriage is a human construct, no other primate other than Homo
sapiens indulges in it. And it is a rather modern human construct.
Furthermore that which passes for "marriage" in the USA is a very new
construct subscribed to by perhaps 20% of the world's peoples. To
assert that term "marriage" is immutable and that the English language
is rigid in its definition is hardly supported by events. In 1950 any
male would have proudly proclaimed himself to be "gay" as in "I'm a
gay bachelor". A few years later this was no longer the case. Words
are not sacrosanct, their meanings do change - in fact because
language is dynamic they change almost contantly, albeit slowly,
usually. Anyone with a weakness for Shakespeare and Chaucer will
attest to that!

Returning to the subject of marriage, for a long period in human
history this had reference to the "joining" of property and power
rather than what we consider today - love etc. Admittedly the joining
did mostly involve two persons of the opposite sex. Especially as one
of the avowed purposes was procreation and the creation of heirs. But
as marriage largely also involves the legal union of two properties
there is no reason whatsoever why its definition should be confined to
persons of the opposite sex.

Humans invented it, humans can change it. We have no carved tablets
of stone defining marriage ultimately.

Marriage is defined legally (even in religious systems), and the
ramifications are both extensive, complicated and vary from legal
system to legal system. And are subject to continuous change. It is
possible (though highly unlikely, of course) for a government to
forbid marriage between members of the opposite sex and only condone
it between members of the same sex. Strange things have happened in
law!

However Mr McNicolls' avid and vehement assertion to the effect that
"it is not possible" is clearly without universal status. It may be
true in a certain place, at a given time and within a known legal
system, but is not a universal truth.

On a personal note, and for reasons I will not go into here, I do find
same sex marriages a little self-defeating. But as has been pointed
out, there are legal benefits to be gained under many legal systems -
and while these are being extended to male-female unions it is
discriminatory to withhold them from equally valid same sex unions.

Marriage is after all just a contract between two parties.

Eugene Griessel

In article ,
(Eugene Griessel) wrote:

Howard Berkowitz wrote in message
...
In article k.net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...

Does Steve ever offer any support for arguments other than his own
declarations?


Yes, review the thread.



I have reviewed it, and you never do anything except make flat
statements with no references.

It has been rather a pythonesque performance, hasn't it? To
paraphrase:

"An argument isn't just contradiction. An argument is a connected
series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Argument is
an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic
gainsaying of any statement the other person makes."

"No it isn't".

We still await Mr McNicoll's reasoning beyond his flat statement that
marriage is only possible within the rather narrow definition in which
he holds it.

"'es not dead. 'es simply resting."

Perhaps the stress of pining for the fjords interferes with his argument?

Marriage is a human construct, no other primate other than Homo
sapiens indulges in it. And it is a rather modern human construct.
Furthermore that which passes for "marriage" in the USA is a very new
construct subscribed to by perhaps 20% of the world's peoples. To
assert that term "marriage" is immutable and that the English language
is rigid in its definition is hardly supported by events. In 1950 any
male would have proudly proclaimed himself to be "gay" as in "I'm a
gay bachelor". A few years later this was no longer the case. Words
are not sacrosanct, their meanings do change - in fact because
language is dynamic they change almost contantly, albeit slowly,
usually. Anyone with a weakness for Shakespeare and Chaucer will
attest to that!

I must share an experience from those times. My house was built just
after WWII, and the first occupants built, very badly, an extension not
long after.

When we were tearing down the extension to put in a larger, better built
one, we discovered that the prior builders had stuffed newspapers into
the framing, presumably as insulation. Some of the newspapers reported
MacArthur's firing from the Korean command. One headline was especially
memorable (might have been the New York Post):
"MAC RETURNS
New York Gives Gay Welcome"

Returning to the subject of marriage, for a long period in human
history this had reference to the "joining" of property and power
rather than what we consider today - love etc. Admittedly the joining
did mostly involve two persons of the opposite sex. Especially as one
of the avowed purposes was procreation and the creation of heirs. But
as marriage largely also involves the legal union of two properties
there is no reason whatsoever why its definition should be confined to
persons of the opposite sex.

Humans invented it, humans can change it. We have no carved tablets
of stone defining marriage ultimately.

Marriage is defined legally (even in religious systems), and the
ramifications are both extensive, complicated and vary from legal
system to legal system. And are subject to continuous change. It is
possible (though highly unlikely, of course) for a government to
forbid marriage between members of the opposite sex and only condone
it between members of the same sex. Strange things have happened in
law!

For me, a simplification is to declare marriage a religious rite that
has civil contractual implications that can be recorded by a government
agency. The core contractual obligations can also be performed by an
approved civil official, and recorded in the same way.

It is possible, although potentially unwise, that additional conditions
defined by the religious body performing a marriage could be recorded.
Of course, these can range from polygamy to marriage-for-life to
same-sex marriage (the last performed as a religious ceremony)

However Mr McNicolls' avid and vehement assertion to the effect that
"it is not possible" is clearly without universal status. It may be
true in a certain place, at a given time and within a known legal
system, but is not a universal truth.

On a personal note, and for reasons I will not go into here, I do find
same sex marriages a little self-defeating. But as has been pointed
out, there are legal benefits to be gained under many legal systems -
and while these are being extended to male-female unions it is
discriminatory to withhold them from equally valid same sex unions.

Marriage is after all just a contract between two parties.

Eugene Griessel

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...

I have reviewed it, and you never do anything except make flat
statements with no references.


Then you haven't reviewed all of it.