Oh, you hide it behind smart-sounding words, but that's what you're doing. Whining about definitions instead of seeing the people.
Definitive propriety. That's a laugh. Ask an American for a fag. You'll get a weird look. Then ask a Brit the same. Let me know how they respond.
Guess what? I don't care that this supposed majority of Americans want gay couples to use a different word. (not actually true, as of late) We don't decide minority rights on the whims of the majority. You don't have the right to define a word. Marriage, on the other hand, is a right, and gender-based classifications undergo an intermediate level of constitutional scrutiny under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution. Banning same-sex marriage does not pass this test.
But continue arguing over a dictionary if you like. My argument is legal.
Last edited by Deuce; 09-11-13 at 07:58 PM.
One of you will end up here next!
If homosexuality is related to a birth defect then that will become apparent in time but claiming it is based on a proposed model and a political pundit's opinion is beyond ridiculous. It is nothing more than a blatant attempt to belittle gay people because they are different. Why claim gays must have a defect because some aspect of their biology differs from yours even though it does not cause them any impairment, dysfunction, or distress? The only reason a person would do so is to disparage them.
Last edited by CriticalThought; 09-11-13 at 08:08 PM.
Get there firstest with the mostest. Trust, but verify. When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.
Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville
procreation has nothing to do with legal marriage, nothing
hell procreation has nothing to do with any marriage the parties involved dont want it too
so like i said any argument based on procreation about legal marriage is a complete failure, theres no changing that fact
.. But that's clearly what you are doing.
Stop whining over the word "marriage" and simply choose a properly accurate different word.
It really is that simple.
If you can just corrupt the word "marriage", all your problems are solved.
Just see the new thread.
The word "marriage" is already defined, 12,000 years ago, and remains "between a man and a woman as husband and wife" to this day.
Your argument here is tantamount to saying its a rights violation against cat owners for not letting them call their shows "dog shows".
I don't need to play dictionary games because the meaning of the word "marriage" was really never in doubt.
When the election is over and we open our eyes, it will sadly be too late to wonder what the hell just happened.
Before marriage became a legal institution, it still existed. Who says that two men or two women living together in Greece, Rome, Asia, etc. were not married by their own local customs? Jumping the broom, hand fasting, tying the hands together were accepted "marriage" ceremonies of many societies... It was not until organized religion put fear into the hearts and minds of the populace, that it went underground--or into the closet...