Gay marriage: MPs debate and vote, The Ayes have it!

Objective-J said:

i know you think thats the point but its not, why?

I said Equal rights / civil rights.

THose dont exist calling it something else :shrug:

Click to expand...

The argument has centered over a demand to change the definition of the word marriage. It has not been about civil or equal rights.

If it were about civil/equal rights, this matter would have been put to bed long ago.

ocean515 said:

1.)The argument has centered over a demand to change the definition of the word marriage. 2.) It has not been about civil or equal rights.

If it were about civil/equal rights, this matter would have been put to bed long ago.

Click to expand...

1.) false, whos definition? whos is it based on?
2.) false
3.) false again, way in your OPINION do you think it would have been over

ocean515 said:

Of course it's a strawman. The issue has nothing to do with historic racism and bigotry. Getting back to the point of demanding a word be redefined, frankly, I've never understood the "cut off nose in spite of face" approach to issues.

It seems those seeking such a move become so emotional about it, they begin to assign motives to those who resist the move that don't exist.

I don't really care what it's called. Call it marriage. I have no problem with that.

The problem is that tens of millions do have a problem with it.

As a result, all that is being accomplished is meaningless recognition at some state levels. It's the Federal Government that needs to recognize the action, and that is not going to happen anytime soon given the way it's being approached.

Click to expand...

You couldn't be more wrong. The Federal Government will soon be recognizing gay marriage and it will be the law of the land in every state of this great country. There is no doubt in my mind that when the Supreme Court takes up this issue in a month that they are going to strike down the bans. Even ultra-conservative pundits are saying that it is unlikely, based on the previous weak arguments raised by anti-gay proponenents, that they are going to prevail in the Supreme Court.

Also...back to your initial post....either a word and a definition are sacred and can never be changed or they can. You can't play it both ways.

disneydude said:

You couldn't be more wrong. The Federal Government will soon be recognizing gay marriage and it will be the law of the land in every state of this great country. There is no doubt in my mind that when the Supreme Court takes up this issue in a month that they are going to strike down the bans. Even ultra-conservative pundits are saying that it is unlikely, based on the previous weak arguments raised by anti-gay proponenents, that they are going to prevail in the Supreme Court.

Also...back to your initial post....either a word and a definition are sacred and can never be changed or they can. You can't play it both ways.

Click to expand...

Has it occurred to you yet, that I support the right of gays who have said vows, signed documents, etc. to be viewed exactly the same way by the Federal Goverment that heterosexual couples are?

Have you seen in my words that I think this should have happened long ago?

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems to me you haven't.

ocean515 said:

Has it occurred to you yet, that I support the right of gays who have said vows, signed documents, etc. to be viewed exactly the same way by the Federal Goverment that heterosexual couples are?

Have you seen in my words that I think this should have happened long ago?

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems to me you haven't.

Click to expand...

No....I definitely caught that...but just because you are supportive doesn't change the fact that you are trying to argue both sides of the sacred definition issue.

ocean515 said:

LOL. Well, if you doubt the claim, prove it wrong...............

So let's see, "even if the institution you create has the exact same benefits and rights it still won't be equal" - because of a word.

People seem to be very adament about that word remaining defined the way it is. You're doing nothing but prove the point I have been making.

It's not about the benefits, it's about victory over a word.

Click to expand...

Look. If you make a claim you should be prepared to back it up. Otherwise youve got nothing. So until you show me the poll your talking about youve got nothing.

Yes if you create a separate institution with the same rights and benefits as another it still isnt equal. Separate is not equal. So this is about equality.

Omgitsme said:

Look. If you make a claim you should be prepared to back it up. Otherwise youve got nothing. So until you show me the poll your talking about youve got nothing.

Yes if you create a separate institution with the same rights and benefits as another it still isnt equal. Separate is not equal. So this is about equality.

Click to expand...

Be prepared to refute it, or leave it alone. You don't think polls exist, prove it.

Exactly what separate institution are you refering to?

The issue involves a word, not an institution.

ocean515 said:

Be prepared to refute it, or leave it alone. You don't think polls exist, prove it.

Exactly what separate institution are you refering to?

The issue involves a word, not an institution.

Click to expand...

How am I supposed to show if it exists or not if I dont even know what poll your exactly talking about? The burden of proof is on you here. You made the claim you present the poll or else you have nothing.

Marriage is a word yes but its a word that describes an institution. And your saying that same sex couples cannot take part in it. So the only way you could possibly extend the same rights and privileges to same sex couples is by creating a separate institution such as civil unions. And separate is not equal so those institutions would be unequal even if they had the exact same rights and privileges.

Omgitsme said:

How am I supposed to show if it exists or not if I dont even know what poll your exactly talking about? The burden of proof is on you here. You made the claim you present the poll or else you have nothing.

Marriage is a word yes but its a word that describes an institution. And your saying that same sex couples cannot take part in it. So the only way you could possibly extend the same rights and privileges to same sex couples is by creating a separate institution such as civil unions. And separate is not equal so those institutions would be unequal even if they had the exact same rights and privileges.

Click to expand...

How can you demand I prove something about a poll, when you don't even know what the poll is about? How about we just drop the point? You're admitted you have nothing, and I don't really care about the poll.

As to your second point about the word "Marriage". It would seem the majority of people believe the word "Marriage" describes an action taken between a man and a woman. The demand that this be thrown away is the reason this issue remains so contentious.

ocean515 said:

How can you demand I prove something about a poll, when you don't even know what the poll is about? How about we just drop the point? You're admitted you have nothing, and I don't really care about the poll.

As to your second point about the word "Marriage". It would seem the majority of people believe the word "Marriage" describes an action taken between a man and a woman. The demand that this be thrown away is the reason this issue remains so contentious.

Click to expand...

I never said I didnt know what the poll is about. You told me what the poll is about remember? I just dont know what poll your talking about. I have never admitted that I have nothing. You claimed that the poll showed that the pro SSM crowd is more interested in the word then equality and I just wanted you to prove it. But if you want to drop it then fine.

It doesnt matter what the majority of people think the word marriage means. That doesnt address my point at all.

Omgitsme said:

How am I supposed to show if it exists or not if I dont even know what poll your exactly talking about? The burden of proof is on you here. You made the claim you present the poll or else you have nothing.

Marriage is a word yes but its a word that describes an institution. And your saying that same sex couples cannot take part in it. So the only way you could possibly extend the same rights and privileges to same sex couples is by creating a separate institution such as civil unions. And separate is not equal so those institutions would be unequal even if they had the exact same rights and privileges.

Click to expand...

Correct. Under federal law, civil unions do not have the same privileges as marriages.

Somebody call the Word Police and have them change these words back to their original meaning:

".....Awful—Originally meant "inspiring wonder (or fear)". Used originally as a shortening for "full of awe", in contemporary usage the word usually has negative meaning.

Demagogue—Originally meant "a popular leader". It is from the Greek dēmagōgós "leader of the people", from dēmos "people" + agōgós "leading, guiding". Now the word has strong connotations of a politician who panders to emotions and prejudice.

Egregious—Originally described something that was remarkably good. The word is from the Latin egregius "illustrious, select", literally, "standing out from the flock", which is from ex—"out of" + greg—(grex) "flock". Now it means something that is remarkably bad or flagrant.

Guy—Guy Fawkes was the alleged leader of a plot to blow up the English Houses of Parliament on 5 Nov. 1605. The day was made a holiday, Guy Fawkes day, commemorated by parading and burning a ragged, grotesque effigy of Fawkes, known as a Guy. This led to the use of the word guy as a term for any "person of grotesque appearance" and then by the late 1800s—especially in America—for "any man", as in, e.g., "Some guy called for you." Over the 20th century, guy has replaced fellow in America, and, under the influence of American popular culture, has been gradually replacing fellow, bloke, chap and other such words throughout the rest of the English-speaking world. In the plural, it can refer to a mixture of genders (e.g., "Come on, you guys!" could be directed to a group of men and women).

Gay—Originally meant (13th c.) "lighthearted", "joyous" or (14th c.) "bright and showy", it also came to mean "happy"; it acquired connotations of immorality as early as 1637, either sexual e.g., gay woman "prostitute", gay man "womanizer", gay house "brothel", or otherwise, e.g., gay dog "over-indulgent man" and gay deceiver "deceitful and lecherous". In America by 1897 the expression gay cat referred to a hobo, especially a younger hobo in the company of an older one; by 1935, it was used in prison slang for a homosexual boy; and by 1951 and clipped to gay, referred to homosexuals....

Semantic change (also semantic shift or semantic progression) is the evolution of word usage — usually to the point that the modern meaning is radically different from the original usage. In diachronic (or historical) linguistics, semantic change is a change in one of the meanings of a word. Every word has a variety of senses and connotations, which can be added, removed, or altered over time, often to the extent that cognates across space and time have very different meanings....."
Wikipedia

"Artificial
This originally meant ‘full of artistic or technical skill’. Now its meaning has a very different slant.

Nice
This comes from the Latin ‘not to know’. Originally a ‘nice person’ was someone who was ignorant or unaware.....

Brave
This once was used to signify cowardice. Indeed, its old meaning lives on in the word ‘bravado’.

Manufacture
From the Latin meaning ‘to make by hand’ this originally signified things that were created by craftsmen. Now the opposite, made by machines, is its meaning..........."

Read more: Eight Words Which Have Completely Changed Their Meaning Over Time | Writinghood