stephen_speicher Posted July 26, 2004 Report Share Posted July 26, 2004 Understood. I suspected that something like that was going on here, but thanks for clearing that up. You're welcome. Dave is usually very clear and precise, but he does tend to use a lot of hard to understand technical words, like "exactamundo." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed from OC Posted July 26, 2004 Report Share Posted July 26, 2004 Dave is usually very clear and precise, but he does tend to use a lot of hard to understand technical words, like "exactamundo." I believe the author of that particular term was "The Fonz." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted July 26, 2004 Report Share Posted July 26, 2004 I believe the author of that particular term was "The Fonz." Aaaayh, I think Fonzie used "correctamundo," so maybe The Dave made a modification. Heck, he's the linguist so he is allowed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halsey Posted August 29, 2004 Report Share Posted August 29, 2004 An amendment banning gay marriage would go against the very principles of every consitutional amendment. This is because every single consitutional amendment is aimed at limiting the power of the government and giving individuals specific rights. Adding an amendment that limits the rights of individuals and gives the government a specific right is the complete opposite of every other amendment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted August 29, 2004 Report Share Posted August 29, 2004 An amendment banning gay marriage would go against the very principles of every consitutional amendment. This is because every single consitutional amendment is aimed at limiting the power of the government and giving individuals specific rights. Adding an amendment that limits the rights of individuals and gives the government a specific right is the complete opposite of every other amendment. For example the 18th and 16th amendments. What individual rights are enshrined in the 25th. 22nd, 20th? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
source Posted August 29, 2004 Report Share Posted August 29, 2004 This is an email that i received, when I asked why the ARI hasn't said anything about the amendment, in op-eds, or editorials, or press releases. It actually bothers me a lot. This is an issue of individual rights alright, but a far deeper one than visible on the surface. What is marriage? A contract between two people, blessed by the state? Yes. What should marriage be? Whatever people want it to be. Who is to prevent "marriage" between homosexuals? Why not a marriage of 3 people or more? Just because a definition in some book that the law follows says so? I'm speaking this, knowing that in my country, marriage is completely regulated by law. I don't know what the case is in the USA, but I expect it's same or similar. I think that, if marriage is regulated in any way, then it is by means of contract that two (or more) people sign when getting married. Violation of this contract should be equally punished as a violation of any other contract, and it can be updated as any other contract, with the consent of all the parties involved. Sure, the government may offer "sample" or "default" marriage contracts, but not enforcing them as the only possible contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueWind Posted August 30, 2004 Report Share Posted August 30, 2004 After gay marriage is legalized, and then multiple-partner marriage comes along I think I'll get myself four wives. One to bring home to the money at a high paying job for the rest of us. One to service the kitchen. One to service the laundry. And one to service me when the others are busy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.