Friday, June 1, 2012

A Facebook Exchange

Ed Bonderenka:
Yesterday at 7:31pm ·
I was listening somewhat to Neil Patrick Harris prattle on about his upcoming "marriage" to his "fiance" David. 
Now really. 
Isn't marriage between a man and a wife?
Check out the definition of wife.
Get a "union" but leave marriage alone.

Don: So who put you in charge of deciding that? I don't recall being asked.

Ed: You're right. You weren't asked.
I said: "Check out the definition of wife."
Did you do that?

Don: You asked if a marriage was "between a man and a wife" but never waited for an answer. First off, since when is "wife" a gender? Second, let me ask again who put you in charge of defining marriage for all of society?

Ed:   Wow, you skipped the whole "man and wife" and went to redefine "wife" rather than challenge the definition of marriage as "man and wife". Then you say I didn't wait for an answer, 
I'm still waiting.
If you can re-define "wife", why can't I... keep the historical definition of "marriage". Who is anybody to re-define it?
Sample of many definitions:
a woman joined in marriage to a man; a woman considered in relation to her husband; spouse. 2. a woman (archaic or dial., except in idioms): old wives' tale. keep the historical definition of "marriage". Who is anybody to re-define it?

Charity:  I have the smartest dad in the whole world! :-)

Fred:  I believe you were pretty specific on what you wanted Ed and you get hit with emotion over facts... Gays can do whatever the he'll they want but it doesn't change the fact that they're the same sex as one another and there for it cannot be ...a real "marriage". It clearly means a man and woman and not any other way. Even those people who change their sex aren't really changing their sex, just cause they have or don't have a penis any more doesn't change their sex (there is actual scientific proof backing that up)If they believe in marriage and the oh holy "god" and all his/her/it's meaning then they would respect what marriage is and who its for and leave it alone.

Don: Way to keep avoiding my question Ed. You asked if a marriage is between "s man and s wife". Aside from the fact that you're referring to one party based on gender and the other by duties, where do you come off presuming to define what a marriage is for all of society? The bigger question is this: what business of it is yours who Neil Patrick Harris marries?

Don: Ed's talking about Civil law here, though, so religion has nothing to do with it. Ed simply refuses to mind his own business.

Ron: Yup..Ed you are right! The sanctity of marriage, ( Divorce rate in the 30% range), needs to be Protected. Knowing that Adding "Our Relationships" to the mix would Improve the Success Rate.. (The Good Lord knows you don"t need us to Challeng...e that "Sanctity"), you can have your "Definition of Marriage". Call it what you wish, I feel we waste too much time and resources on the semantics of the issue. Recognize the Union, award us the same respect and rights! We Don't want or need your Approval. Keep Your Definition of "The American Family" as well, it's as narrow and bigoted as the Religious Right that Champions it's causes....

Don: If you step back and look at it, the basic problem here is that "marriage" really consists of two parts: the traditional, ritual-bound union that pretty much every church sanctifies and the set of legal rights that are bestowed by the ritua...See More

Ed:   Don, I agree, and many conservatives do. 
It was pretty much my point. 
Why redefine terms that have been accepted for centuries? 
Ron, if civil unions gave you the same rights, but without society's "blessing", would that be enough? Or to you need to force our "approval"?

Don: All that said, I still don't get why Doogie Howser's marital status is your concern.

Ed: What concerns me is what we consider "marital" status. 
I understand that you don't care, but I would have to suppose that "any" definition of marriage (ie poly-anything) would not concern you.

Don: It doesn't. I'd like to, just once, hear a legitimate reason why same-sex should be illegal. Please bear in mind that a religious argument is not legitimate and never is when discussing civil law.

Ed:  Marriage is an explicit approval of a relationship bestowed by the state. It is not a right. 
A large majority of this country does not approve.  And doesn't want to be forced to approve. 
Civil unions are a recognition sans approval.

Ron: The perception is.. this is less about the "Sanctity of Marriage, and more about the Right's narrow definition of "The American Family", and the protection of it's beliefs and standards. This Lifestyle is Not a Sin, and recognizing these rights is Not a compromise with the devil. Judgement does not suit you Ed.

Don: No, Ed, it's about the fact that Christians refuse to accept that the supreme law of the land is the Constitution, not their private rule book. They're all for freedom as long as it's applied to anyone who agrees with them.


Ed:   ‎"The perception is.." that's your perception, Ron.
It's judgmental of you to call me judgmental.
I'll protect my "beliefs and standards".
Why is that bad?
"The lifestyle is not a sin". I didn't ring that up. I'm not out to offend you.
I like you. but I'm entitled to my beliefs, and not having others' forced on me..
and Don: Show me gay marriage in the Constitution. It is to laugh.

Don: You show me ANY mention of marriage in the Constitution.

Ed:   Then why did you bring up the Constitution?


  1. If it wasn't for Social Security, your exchange would have never happened.

  2. I'm sorry, Jess. I'm not getting that...

  3. A spouse has access to the Social Security benefits, but a homosexual partner does not. Other than Social Security, common law provides many methods to secure the assets of an individual and has no sexual preference. If marriage is redefined as any union between an individual, and the organism of their choice, the surviving organism of choice can collect the benefits.

    Personally, that's what I think this is all about.

  4. Wow. Why haven't I heard that before?

  5. There's one more aspect. Two guys are partners in crime. This system allows them to marry, and -- voila -- one does not have to testify against the other under the protections of the 5th Amendment.

    I am sure there are other aspects that will destroy this country, its society, and its individuals I haven't thought of yet -- but the miscreants behind assaults on our way of life sure as heck are ahead of me I have no doubt.

    In all comes down to "how many more ways can the Left destroy the moral underpinnings of this country?" It's all part of Critical Theory. The short version of it is simple to understand. Take any institution, in this instance marriage, and find a way to find fault with it as it stands. Keep repeating mantras about Rights that have no foundation when it requires OTHERS to acquiesce, and in no time you have built up tyranny where the prior institution had been built to keep tyranny away.

  6. Gee, I kind of like to think of WIFE as a GENDER :-) It was for more than 2000 years. Call me old fashioned! And so proud to be so.
    THe Social Sec. thing can be worked out just like all gay couples can work out hospital visitation and insurance bequests, etc., with a lawyer.
    Two Steves do not a "marriage" make.

  7. Good point Pasc. I wasn't sure that exchange was the place to bring that up, trying to stay focused on definitions, but you are 100% right.
    Z: yeah, kinda escapes him doesn't it? I say gender and he says "function".
    Libs will twist and turn and never stay focused. Arguing with them is like herding cats.

    1. I agree that the original exchange was not the place to bring it up. What prompted me to mention the legal apect was Jess' social security comment. I had hit reply under that one, but the reply didn't show underneath it. (I wonder if this one will become a sub-reply to your 10:26 or not? If it isn't, I tried.)

    2. Today it works! I'll repost the other underneath where it belongs if you think it will help the flow of the thread better. (/OCD)

  8. Liberals do not understand that tradition exists because it has been empirically proven to be the best method for a functioning society.