Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Torie
I strongly dissent from the notion that those that think that one adult committed to another desiring to seal the bond in marriage, who are not within the strictures of cansanguinity, is "Orwellian." I strongly dissent from that.

It's Orwellian because it's redefining words for the purpose of social manipulation.

Orwell was all about the issue of killing off the human spirit for self realization in favor of some impersonal state goals, achieved by evil ends. The analogy is inapposite and tendentious.

I think you're splitting hairs here. States are made of people, and people controlling the state have certain goals. Orwell showed how whatever goals the ruling elite might desire can be achieved through the dishonest manipulation of language.

I also strongly dissent from the notion that this issue should be loaded in process for one side or the other. That is a recipe for toxicity in the public square, as we have seen over and over again.

Yep, bad things will probably come from this. Worse things will come from not doing it.

Give democracy a chance. I think Americans overall by and large make intelligent choices over time. I am generally amazed at their good judgment.

It's by democracy that a CMA would be submitted and ratified.


593 posted on 02/24/2004 8:39:09 PM PST by Sabertooth (Malcontent for Bush - 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 588 | View Replies ]


To: Sabertooth
It's by democracy that a CMA would be submitted and ratified

Yep. But you have succeeded in moving slightly in favor of opposing it, because I am so irritated. No doubt I will in time remove this exchange from the equation. I still find the term "Orwellian" offensive, and will continue to do so in any event. The term is not conducive to calm debate.

594 posted on 02/24/2004 8:43:12 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 593 | View Replies ]

To: Sabertooth
By the way, the manipulation of langauge charge also misses the mark. You are making the a priori assumption, that by definition, the term "marriage" cannot apply to gays, even though it is a legal term, and we are talking here only about legal terms, which are defined by law, and law is subject to change. The issue to me is what is the best way for the public square to hash that issue out, in a state of disagreement.

In the religious sphere, define it anyway you want. I don't care.

596 posted on 02/24/2004 8:47:17 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 593 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson