| Senlis said: I believe that since marriage has been defined as a union between a man and woman, there is no gay marriage to ban. I think Thomas Sowell says it best: http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/11/05/affirmative_action_and_gay_marriage |
A man's wife used to be defined as a man's property. Just because a definition is used throughout history does not mean that the definition can't change.
Black people used to be defined as 3/5ths of a person.
Teenagers ued to be defined as adults.
Relying on a literal definition is a self-defeating purpose, because the definition you are using has probably been modified from some other definition in the first place, and countless other definitions have fundamentally changed as time has gone on, so why should we restrict ourselves to an older definition on a different social institution.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
