Page 5 of 35 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 347

Thread: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    And marriage is a union between a man and woman. You can create another legal union with a different name for homosexuals. However, by definition the homosexual union does not fit the definition of marriage. And even homosexuals can get married to anyone of the opposite sex that consents. It is still reserved for everyone.
    The Constitution neglects to define marriage. Certainly a mere oversight in that they never imagined that fairies would demand equal liberties, right?

    That's all beside the point. The First Amendment says Congress is not allowed to force your religious prejudices on others.

    And that is the whole point.

  2. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    They have it is called same sex marriage.
    So, you're going to use adulterated dictionary entries to protest the adulteration of that exact same word?

    In the 1970's they printed dictionaries on this stuff called paper, and the problem with paper dictionaries is that the words printed on the page can't be changed.

    My dictionary says for marriage is:

    1) the state of being married; relation between husband and wife, married life wedlock, matrimony.
    2) the act of marrying; wedding
    3) the rite or form used in marrying
    4) any close or intimate union.
    5) in pinochle, the king and queen of one suit.
    (Webster's New Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged, 1976)

    I'll note that four does not make any mention of the sex of either party, and that number five specifically requires a queen.

    You're using a source that peculiarly specifies the distinction of the sexes. When was that work published? Also, why did you neglect to incude the third usage of the word in your own reference?

    ": an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>", which, btw, still has a deliberately misleadng example.

    Furthermore, explain why the freedom of individuals should be held hostage to your desire to maintain your version of a particular dictionary entry.

  3. #43
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    So, you're going to use adulterated dictionary entries to protest the adulteration of that exact same word?

    In the 1970's they printed dictionaries on this stuff called paper, and the problem with paper dictionaries is that the words printed on the page can't be changed.

    My dictionary says for marriage is:

    1) the state of being married; relation between husband and wife, married life wedlock, matrimony.
    2) the act of marrying; wedding
    3) the rite or form used in marrying
    4) any close or intimate union.
    5) in pinochle, the king and queen of one suit.
    (Webster's New Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged, 1976)

    I'll note that four does not make any mention of the sex of either party, and that number five specifically requires a queen.

    You're using a source that peculiarly specifies the distinction of the sexes. When was that work published? Also, why did you neglect to incude the third usage of the word in your own reference?

    ": an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry J. T. Shawcross>", which, btw, still has a deliberately misleadng example.

    Furthermore, explain why the freedom of individuals should be held hostage to your desire to maintain your version of a particular dictionary entry.
    Over time the meaning of words change and lexicographers understand this. Heck at one time gay use to just mean happy.

  4. #44
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    Over time the meaning of words change and lexicographers understand this. Heck at one time gay use to just mean happy.
    Imagine that the framers wanted everyone to celebrate on the 4th of July, so they included a clause in the constitution demanding that everyone "get together and be gay." Would that mean that the constitution requires every guy to play hide the salami each year?
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    Over time the meaning of words change and lexicographers understand this. Heck at one time gay use to just mean happy.
    Yes.

    The meanings of words change.

    Which makes it even more pointless to deny basic human freedoms in defense of a stupid word.

    The novel "Finley Wren", by Philip Wylie, 1932 (or 1933, my copy is an original, old and fragile, and I'm not digging it out just to check the copyright date) uses the word "gay" to directly describe homosexuals as the word to imply they were in fact homosexuals.

    That was almost 80 years ago, and clearly the word's usage in that context was common even then.

    So, precisely when did the word "gay" not mean "queer"?

  6. #46
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Imagine that the framers wanted everyone to celebrate on the 4th of July, so they included a clause in the constitution demanding that everyone "get together and be gay." Would that mean that the constitution requires every guy to play hide the salami each year?
    I guess one would have to be educated enough to understand etymology to some extent. That still does not change the meaning of the word "gay" in contemporary society.

  7. #47
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Yes.

    The meanings of words change.

    Which makes it even more pointless to deny basic human freedoms in defense of a stupid word.

    The novel "Finley Wren", by Philip Wylie, 1932 (or 1933, my copy is an original, old and fragile, and I'm not digging it out just to check the copyright date) uses the word "gay" to directly describe homosexuals as the word to imply they were in fact homosexuals.

    That was almost 80 years ago, and clearly the word's usage in that context was common even then.

    So, precisely when did the word "gay" not mean "queer"?
    I would say gay and queer are synonymous now. Although queer might have a bit more derogatory connotation now.

    FYI I fully support gay marriage.

  8. #48
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    I guess one would have to be educated enough to understand etymology to some extent. That still does not change the meaning of the word "gay" in contemporary society.
    I don't think anyone's arguing about what "gay" or "marriage" mean in contemporary society. My understanding of this whole line of argument is that it focuses on what those words mean in the past.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  9. #49
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I don't think anyone's arguing about what "gay" or "marriage" mean in contemporary society. My understanding of this whole line of argument is that it focuses on what those words mean in the past.
    And I thought it was about how marriage is changing.

    To take it a step further I was thinking nothing is cast in stone like the anti gay marriage people want marriage set in. So I brought up the denotation of marriage as it is now in MW.

  10. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Imagine that the framers wanted everyone to celebrate on the 4th of July, so they included a clause in the constitution demanding that everyone "get together and be gay." Would that mean that the constitution requires every guy to play hide the salami each year?
    Nice, homophobic remark.

Page 5 of 35 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •