The Federalist Society debate on gay marriage

[Archaea]

I would respect gay advocates more if they didn't cloak their desire for "marriage" by stating, we want more money.

We want the convenience of the probate statutes and we want life insurance benefits and we want to "normalize" society within our sensibilities. If that were their thrust, I could respect an honest appeal for grabbing more of society's money, which is all most political movements are about. More money, more money.

The big picture issues have been mostly solved so now we look for little picture items and they just aren't as appealing because they're not as important.

[MikeWaters]

millenia is the plural of millenium. As in two or more "milleniums".

If you had 13 eggs, would you call that "dozens of eggs"?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

millenia is the plural of millenium. As in two or more "milleniums".

If you had 13 eggs, would you call that "dozens of eggs"?

You' re right. Excellent point. I can see why you were persuaded against theposition.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by creekster

You' re right. Excellent point. I can see why you were persuaded against theposition.

all I am saying is that if you want to play the semantics game, at least have a clue before you start.

I expect lawyers to be precise in their language if they want to play the semantics game.

[MikeWaters]

I would also point out that one of the differences between this Federalist argument and my argument with the church, is that they approach the subject from different angles.

This Federalist debate uses "is this good or bad for society".

The church news release uses "is this evil and wrong" essentially.

Of course, more bald-faced inaccuracies are likely to be used by Falwell types than academic professors.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

millenia is the plural of millenium. As in two or more "milleniums".

If you had 13 eggs, would you call that "dozens of eggs"?

I disagree.

If I say hundreds it can correctly describe 102.

You think it must only describe 200, but I disagree.

And technically we're almost upon the 2000 rounding up in one sense, but to be completely accurate, there were polygamous Christians during the first several centuries.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I disagree.

If I say hundreds it can correctly describe 102.

You think it must only describe 200, but I disagree.

And technically we're almost upon the 2000 rounding up in one sense, but to be completely accurate, there were polygamous Christians during the first several centuries.

I big-time disagree with that. Hundreds is 200 or more. 102 is not "hundreds."

this is an embarrassing example of a shortfall in your education, but not as bad as the lady who was 25 before she found out that unicorns aren't an endangered species in Africa.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I would also point out that one of the differences between this Federalist argument and my argument with the church, is that they approach the subject from different angles.

This Federalist debate uses "is this good or bad for society".

The church news release uses "is this evil and wrong" essentially.

Of course, more bald-faced inaccuracies are likely to be used by Falwell types than academic professors.

The academics use secular language where as religionists are more likely to appeal to language of their own domain. Is that surprising?

We're analyzing the religious language using secular standards. Is there any reason to be surprised why religious language, never precise, would fail the secular, empirical standard?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I big-time disagree with that. Hundreds is 200 or more. 102 is not "hundreds."

this is an embarrassing example of a shortfall in your education, but not as bad as the lady who was 25 before she found out that unicorns aren't an endangered species in Africa.

You can argue all you wish, and although I see your point I like my definition better and prefer it to yours. It's neater in your binary world.

Not a hundred, a hundred and hundreds.

Otherwise, it's not a hundred, a hundred, more than a hundred and hundreds. One can use that assumption which you are, but I purposefully choose not to use that delineation.

I choose less than a hundred, exactly a hundred and hundreds, meaning more than a hundred.

And more importantly I rounded up in this instance, given that we have more than 1600 hundred years of this experience.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

http://www.fed-soc.org/debates/dbtid.24/default.asp

I've just read the first bit of it. But already, the discourse is far, far above what the church put out.

That is no slam. I was a member in law school and that is a very sharp bunch that puts out good quality work. You may not always agree with it, but it is very well articulated.