View Poll Results: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

Voters
430. You may not vote on this poll
  • No

    186 43.26%
  • Yes, explain

    244 56.74%
Page 67 of 192 FirstFirst ... 1757656667686977117167 ... LastLast
Results 661 to 670 of 1915

Thread: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

  1. #661
    User
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    05-31-10 @ 03:33 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    36

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    "What's in a name? That which we call a rose
    By any other name would smell as sweet."
    -William Shakespeare
    I apologize in advance for the length. But you asked for logic. And logic doesn't fit into a sound bite.

    A word has no intrinsic meaning. It's meaning is only that which has been applied to it by society. "Marriage" is, of course, no different. That specific word appears to date back to the 14th century. For over 700 years, it has meant the union, specifically, of a male and a female. Over that time, implications of exclusivity have shifted back and forth, but the requirement of opposite sexes has not.

    The societal meanings attached to the word "marriage" have thus been built up over the better part of a millennium. And those meanings were themselves built upon the existing meanings associated with the even older word that "marriage" replaced. Numerous traditions are based on those ancient societal meanings.

    Those traditions weren't built on the concept of homosexual relationships. As such, to describe two homosexuals as being "married" is not an issue of rights, but an issue of definition. It requires a different meaning to be applied to an existing word. When the definition changes, the associated traditions fade away.

    To the point, the stated objective of any attempt to redefine the word "marriage" to include homosexual relationships, is to gain for said relationships the sociopolitical status provided by all those centuries of tradition. But the traditions aren't based on the word. They're based on the societal meanings associated with it. By redefining the word, those societal meanings are also changed. And with different meanings come different traditions, and a different aura of sociopolitical status. As such, homosexual relationships will not achieve the same status as traditional marriage, but the new status associated with the newly redefined word.

    Thus, ultimately, the entire concept of redefinition is self defeating. Unless the actual objective is to remove from those who meet it's existing definition, the traditions associated with the word. Frankly, I don't think that is the objective of most people trying to redefine "marriage." But, as any new definition will not rest upon those centuries of tradition, it's the only logical outcome. The complete transference of the old cultural meanings to the new definition is simply not possible, as long as society recognizes any distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality. And, as a species entirely dependent on heterosexual reproduction, that loss of distinction is all but inconceivable.

    The likely outcome is that society at large will simply create a new word or phrase to replace the redefined word "marriage." "Traditional marriage" appears to the current front runner. That new word (or phrase) will acquire the traditions and meanings currently associated with the old word, while "marriage" will take on new ones. In the process, the forced alteration of vocabulary will instill some level of resentment among those who must find new words to express old meanings. That resentment is likely to trigger a backlash against those who forced the change. Such a backlash is likely to reach a level sufficient to reapply the current societal meanings of "homosexual relationship" to the newly redefined "marriage."

    As a case in point, a brief survey of American history will show repeated changes in the words used to describe black people. None of those word changes has in themselves, altered the sociopolitical status of black people, because the traditions stay with the meaning, not the word. The only way to remove those traditions would be to remove the distinction between black and white, a feat no one has yet achieved. But that elimination of distinction is, in theory, possible. Selective breeding could, again, in theory, completely destroy all bases for said distinction.

    But no theory exists for removing the basis of distinction between heterosexual and homosexual. Our species simply can't reproduce without that distinction. So the path to applying the current traditions of "marriage" to homosexual couples is considerably harder than the struggle black people have faced. As such, and in light of the complete failure of blacks and whites redefine away their distinctions, a different strategy seems necessary.

    To continue the metaphor, look to president Obama. Whether the societal meanings associated with the phrase "black man" are true or not, is irrelevant. Any honest person would concede that those connotations tend to be negative. Obama didn't win by claiming a newer, better, definition of being black. He won by convincing the majority of society that he didn't represent the negative traditions associated with the words. Having done that, he's permanently altering the set of meanings associated with the phrase "black man." Whether those meanings are positive, negative, or neutral, in comparison to those associated with the phrase "white man," is for our heirs to decide. But the phrase (or word) used, remains irrelevant.

    The same concept applies for whichever word is chosen to represent homosexual relationships. Whether that word is "marriage" or "clishnew," the societal meanings will be the same. But, as using the word "clishnew" will cause none of the resentment that would come from redefining the word "marriage," it seems like a more logical choice. The goal, then, becomes to instill the desired societal meanings into the new word. Unfortunately, as traditions are slow to accumulate, that process is likely to take many generations. But my personal feeling is that the process will be smoother if started from a clean slate, as opposed to the current attempt at altering an existing word.

    So, who's with me? I'll gladly march along side anyone to support clishnew rights and status, equal to those of marriage. When do we start?


    In the interest of full disclosure, I don't recognize any government's authority to sanction any marriage, regardless of it's meaning. As such, I see this argument as purely semantic, and having no place what so ever in legal discourse.

  2. #662
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Evenglischatiest View Post
    I apologize in advance for the length. But you asked for logic. And logic doesn't fit into a sound bite.
    Forum needs more long posts, if you ask me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evenglischatiest View Post
    For over 700 years, it has meant the union, specifically, of a male and a female. Over that time, implications of exclusivity have shifted back and forth, but the requirement of opposite sexes has not.
    Your objection to government's stake in marriage aside, does this mean that you are not as opposed to polygamy as you are to homosexual marriage? I ask because a common rhetorical tactic among those opposed to homosexual marriage is to compare it to polygamy, among other less reputable practices. Since polygamy has been accepted and even encouraged among many cultures throughout history, does that make it more acceptable than homosexual marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by Evenglischatiest View Post
    As such, to describe two homosexuals as being "married" is not an issue of rights, but an issue of definition. It requires a different meaning to be applied to an existing word. When the definition changes, the associated traditions fade away.
    I would argue that it is a different, but substantially very similar definition-- and one that would impose far less upon ancient tradition than the other changes that have occurred to marriage over the past fifty years. Radical individualism and wanton irresponsibility has all but destroyed traditional marriage, at a terrible cost to three generations of Americans. More than half of American children are raised out of wedlock or in broken homes.

    I agree with you that it is not an issue of rights, but an issue of traditions and institutions. However, I do not agree that admitting homosexual couples into this traditional institution will change its meaning or its purpose enough to cause any harm to it, or to the marriages of any heterosexual couples.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evenglischatiest View Post
    Unless the actual objective is to remove from those who meet it's existing definition, the traditions associated with the word. Frankly, I don't think that is the objective of most people trying to redefine "marriage."
    I consider people like yourself, fighting to remove government from marriage, to be a far greater threat to the institution of marriage than homosexual couples. Removing the legal recognition of marriage is removing the last barrier-- however flimsy-- to people marrying and divorcing on whims and effectively declaring cohabitation to be morally and legally the equivalent of marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evenglischatiest View Post
    The only way to remove those traditions would be to remove the distinction between black and white, a feat no one has yet achieved. But that elimination of distinction is, in theory, possible. Selective breeding could, again, in theory, completely destroy all bases for said distinction.
    A good analogy, but I would point out that the distinction between white and black is wholly arbitrary-- after all, mulattoes are considered to be black-- and could be eliminated by simply ignoring it hard enough. Humanity's natural breeding habits are already blurring the distinction without any special effort on anyone's part.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evenglischatiest View Post
    But no theory exists for removing the basis of distinction between heterosexual and homosexual. Our species simply can't reproduce without that distinction.
    All the homosexual sex in the world can not produce a single child, but there appears to be no shortage of children for homosexual parents to raise. There are many methods that this is accomplished, ranging from adoption to medical procedures to simply lying back and thinking of England. The fact that the latter is even possible suggests that the distinction between heterosexual and homosexual is neither as necessary nor as immutable as your argument implies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evenglischatiest View Post
    But, as using the word "clishnew" will cause none of the resentment that would come from redefining the word "marriage," it seems like a more logical choice. The goal, then, becomes to instill the desired societal meanings into the new word.
    As long as they are separate they will never be equal, as two things cannot be equal without being identical. The tradition of marriage can be broadened to include homosexuals without harming it; the tradition of clishnew will never be the equal of marriage, and as long as it is less than marriage it is not suitable for the purposes marriage serves.

    If it does not serve the purposes of marriage, there is no reason to recognize and support it at all.

  3. #663
    User
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    05-31-10 @ 03:33 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    36

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Someone actually read all that? Wow.

    Your objection to government's stake in marriage aside, does this mean that you are not as opposed to polygamy as you are to homosexual marriage?
    I have no opposition to polygamy, polygany, or any other form of multiple partnerships. To be blunt, I certainly have less respect for people in such relationships. I have far more respect for monogamous couples, regardless of their orientation. But I see no pretense upon which to claim authority to prevent anyone from associating as they choose.

    My contention is simply that society functions more smoothly when the definitions of words are mostly immutable. Even more so in a society based on written laws, where the words commonly outlive their meanings. As such, by American tradition, I'd be opposed to incorporating polygamy into the definition of "marriage."

    I would argue that it is a different, but substantially very similar definition-- and one that would impose far less upon ancient tradition than the other changes that have occurred to marriage over the past fifty years. Radical individualism and wanton irresponsibility has all but destroyed traditional marriage, at a terrible cost to three generations of Americans. More than half of American children are raised out of wedlock or in broken homes.

    I agree with you that it is not an issue of rights, but an issue of traditions and institutions. However, I do not agree that admitting homosexual couples into this traditional institution will change its meaning or its purpose enough to cause any harm to it, or to the marriages of any heterosexual couples.
    I completely agree that incorporating homosexual relationships into the definition of marriage seems far less damaging to the institution than other recent changes. But those other changes are already in place. Accordingly, the perceived benefits and status of marriage have been greatly diminished over the last few generations, which is in large part the genesis of my opposition to altering word definitions.

    Whether adding homosexual relationships would further erode that status is debatable, but not the point of my argument. I only claim that said status would change.

    I consider people like yourself, fighting to remove government from marriage, to be a far greater threat to the institution of marriage than homosexual couples. Removing the legal recognition of marriage is removing the last barrier-- however flimsy-- to people marrying and divorcing on whims and effectively declaring cohabitation to be morally and legally the equivalent of marriage.
    In today's society, you're probably right. But throughout history, most cultures have considered marriage to be more of a personal and religious ceremony, than a governmental one. As marriages in the name of family and (insert deity of your choice) have historically been far more durable than those in the name of the state, my preference would be to restore those older traditions. But I see no way to get there while the state claims primacy. Because the concept of marriage was seen as necessary long before governments usurped it, I expect that, after a period of chaos, marriage would quickly revert to it's more time honored roots in family and church.

    All the homosexual sex in the world can not produce a single child, but there appears to be no shortage of children for homosexual parents to raise. There are many methods that this is accomplished, ranging from adoption to medical procedures to simply lying back and thinking of England. The fact that the latter is even possible suggests that the distinction between heterosexual and homosexual is neither as necessary nor as immutable as your argument implies.
    Homosexuals most certainly are able to raise children. But they can't, on their own, produce children. For a homosexual couple to actually birth a child requires additional changes in the definition of "marriage," as well as changes to the definition of "parent." But my claim is more fundamental than that. I can certainly envision a society in which everyone is fully bisexual. But even there, opposite sex couplings would carry the possibility of reproduction, while same sex couplings would not. That, in itself, is sufficient basis for a distinction, and therefore a difference.

    As long as they are separate they will never be equal, as two things cannot be equal without being identical. The tradition of marriage can be broadened to include homosexuals without harming it; the tradition of clishnew will never be the equal of marriage, and as long as it is less than marriage it is not suitable for the purposes marriage serves.

    If it does not serve the purposes of marriage, there is no reason to recognize and support it at all.
    Today 12:44 AM
    You're right. "Clishnew" will never be identical to marriage. That's because it describes a different concept. As you suggest, it's entirely possible to ignore away the differences between black and white. But there are fundamental, structural differences between men and women. What a man and a woman do is simply not the same as what two women do, or what two men do. While there's substantial overlap, there are things that can and can't be done, depending on the combination. And only one combination can produce children, which is why it's been recognized throughout history as the standard.

    Frankly, if "clishnew" were adopted, I'd expect it to quickly divide itself into yet another pair of words. One to represent a male couple, and one to represent a female couple. My admittedly limited experience is that those two relationships tend to be less similar to each other than either is to marriage.

    Separate but equal is, of course, never quite as it implies. But I contend that the disparity is usually rooted actual difference, as opposed to the choice of words used. If black people started calling themselves white, you still wouldn't see David Duke and Louis Farrakhan buying each other beers. Most likely, whites would just start calling themselves something different, because the distinction would still remain. And again, that distinction is far less basic to our concept of "self" than is sexual preference. A heterosexual white man, regardless of his racial tendencies, will almost invariably choose a black woman over a white man, as a sexual partner.

    Much of sociology has cause and effect reversed. Homosexuality is not seen as different from heterosexuality, merely because different words are used. Instead, the two different words were created because a difference exists. That difference doesn't go away by simply combining the words. Similarly, the distinction between homosexual and heterosexual relationships won't disappear, simply because the definition of the word "marriage" has been broadened to include both. The meanings will remain with the concept, while the definition will follow the word. As the two continue to diverge, the growing need for a word specific to the meanings will eventually cause the creation of a new word to express them. Already, most of us recognize the distinction between the phrase "traditional marriage," and the word "marriage." 100 years ago, the two were seen as so indistinct that only the word "marriage" was ever used.

    I guess the easiest way to put it is to compare colors. As men tend to, I usually describe the world in roughly the Microsoft standard 16 colors. At the moment, there are several objects on the bench in front of me. Two are similar in color. If asked about either individually, I'd call each one green. But right next to each other, they're clearly different. One is more of a forest green, and the other is more of a lime green. Simply calling both green doesn't address the obvious, and immutable difference. In the absence of the "forest" and "lime" distinctions, I'd have to invent a word or phrase to convey the meaning. The same problem exists for any two things or concepts that aren't 100% identical and interchangeable. The mere fact that we can discuss how to reduce the differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality, proves that those differences exist.

  4. #664
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Evenglischatiest View Post
    "What's in a name? That which we call a rose
    By any other name would smell as sweet."
    -William Shakespeare


    I apologize in advance for the length. But you asked for logic. And logic doesn't fit into a sound bite.
    Its a nice quote but doesnt apply here at all logically, William was talking about names BORN with, a name given since its creation, two people with last names that are supposed to be hated by each other but in this case are not. He wasnt talking about "changing" the names to suit a certain group of people which can easily be argued to be discrimination and I would agree with all who did.Also the same quote could be said to the people who are crying they want it changed, could it not?

    another example, extreme and for humor but an example none the less is call somebody a racial slur and see if its "just a name"

    Call a black guy the N word and when he gets mad tell him "whats in a name, its just another name for a black guy" LOL let me know how that goes

    Quote Originally Posted by Evenglischatiest View Post
    A word has no intrinsic meaning. It's meaning is only that which has been applied to it by society. "Marriage" is, of course, no different. That specific word appears to date back to the 14th century. For over 700 years, it has meant the union, specifically, of a male and a female. Over that time, implications of exclusivity have shifted back and forth, but the requirement of opposite sexes has not.
    100% WRONG
    the word is in fact older than the 14th century and most certainly has applied to same sex couples so this is a meaningless point. No I admit the very large vast majority have been opposite sex but the fact that they existed is none the less

    Quote Originally Posted by Evenglischatiest View Post
    The societal meanings attached to the word "marriage" have thus been built up over the better part of a millennium. And those meanings were themselves built upon the existing meanings associated with the even older word that "marriage" replaced. Numerous traditions are based on those ancient societal meanings.

    Those traditions weren't built on the concept of homosexual relationships. As such, to describe two homosexuals as being "married" is not an issue of rights, but an issue of definition. It requires a different meaning to be applied to an existing word. When the definition changes, the associated traditions fade away.

    To the point, the stated objective of any attempt to redefine the word "marriage" to include homosexual relationships, is to gain for said relationships the sociopolitical status provided by all those centuries of tradition. But the traditions aren't based on the word. They're based on the societal meanings associated with it. By redefining the word, those societal meanings are also changed. And with different meanings come different traditions, and a different aura of sociopolitical status. As such, homosexual relationships will not achieve the same status as traditional marriage, but the new status associated with the newly redefined word.

    Thus, ultimately, the entire concept of redefinition is self defeating. Unless the actual objective is to remove from those who meet it's existing definition, the traditions associated with the word. Frankly, I don't think that is the objective of most people trying to redefine "marriage." But, as any new definition will not rest upon those centuries of tradition, it's the only logical outcome. The complete transference of the old cultural meanings to the new definition is simply not possible, as long as society recognizes any distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality. And, as a species entirely dependent on heterosexual reproduction, that loss of distinction is all but inconceivable.

    The likely outcome is that society at large will simply create a new word or phrase to replace the redefined word "marriage." "Traditional marriage" appears to the current front runner. That new word (or phrase) will acquire the traditions and meanings currently associated with the old word, while "marriage" will take on new ones. In the process, the forced alteration of vocabulary will instill some level of resentment among those who must find new words to express old meanings. That resentment is likely to trigger a backlash against those who forced the change. Such a backlash is likely to reach a level sufficient to reapply the current societal meanings of "homosexual relationship" to the newly redefined "marriage."
    again since nobody in reality is redefining the word this is meaningless too. TO some people thats how THEY define the word but not all. The people that dont like it can call it whatever they want, just like now, religions and people are still free to judge, but under the law it will still be called marriage so there is no discrimination

    Quote Originally Posted by Evenglischatiest View Post
    As a case in point, a brief survey of American history will show repeated changes in the words used to describe black people. None of those word changes has in themselves, altered the sociopolitical status of black people, because the traditions stay with the meaning, not the word. The only way to remove those traditions would be to remove the distinction between black and white, a feat no one has yet achieved. But that elimination of distinction is, in theory, possible. Selective breeding could, again, in theory, completely destroy all bases for said distinction.
    again see what i said earlier, if its just a name, also calling a person something and DENYING them the name which others are free to be called is discrimination and NOT the same as your example by any stretch of the imagination

    Quote Originally Posted by Evenglischatiest View Post
    But no theory exists for removing the basis of distinction between heterosexual and homosexual. Our species simply can't reproduce without that distinction. So the path to applying the current traditions of "marriage" to homosexual couples is considerably harder than the struggle black people have faced. As such, and in light of the complete failure of blacks and whites redefine away their distinctions, a different strategy seems necessary.
    again no barring on the subject at hand since you are talking "perception" and no denying equal rights. LMAO A derogatory name someone uses for another has nothing to do with allowing people equal rights. Minorities and woman have equal rights now but YOU can still think and believe and call it what ever you want. The point is that the LAW or AMERICA views it equal no matter people "think" because that is just, right and fair

    Quote Originally Posted by Evenglischatiest View Post
    To continue the metaphor, look to president Obama. Whether the societal meanings associated with the phrase "black man" are true or not, is irrelevant. Any honest person would concede that those connotations tend to be negative. Obama didn't win by claiming a newer, better, definition of being black. He won by convincing the majority of society that he didn't represent the negative traditions associated with the words. Having done that, he's permanently altering the set of meanings associated with the phrase "black man." Whether those meanings are positive, negative, or neutral, in comparison to those associated with the phrase "white man," is for our heirs to decide. But the phrase (or word) used, remains irrelevant.
    again no line is drawn from this at all since its not about equal rights lol but ill play along, if Obama wasnt allowed to be called PRESIDENT then maybe your example would apply but thats not the case lol but let me ask you that, ill take your example and turn it against you. Do you think it would be ok if he wasnt allowed to be called president because he was black? thats basically your argument (if it can be called that) Mr obama you get the job but were not going to call you president were going to call you some other name but as soon as a white guy gets elected where going to start using the word president again. yeah I see the "logic" in that LMAO

    Quote Originally Posted by Evenglischatiest View Post
    The same concept applies for whichever word is chosen to represent homosexual relationships. Whether that word is "marriage" or "clishnew," the societal meanings will be the same. But, as using the word "clishnew" will cause none of the resentment that would come from redefining the word "marriage," it seems like a more logical choice. The goal, then, becomes to instill the desired societal meanings into the new word. Unfortunately, as traditions are slow to accumulate, that process is likely to take many generations. But my personal feeling is that the process will be smoother if started from a clean slate, as opposed to the current attempt at altering an existing word.
    again the logical choice is calling it the same thing because thats fair, right and just and will not be discriminating and still allows those who disagree to "view it, preach it, teach it and think" what they want with out discriminating a group of people

    Quote Originally Posted by Evenglischatiest View Post
    So, who's with me? I'll gladly march along side anyone to support clishnew rights and status, equal to those of marriage. When do we start?
    not me because theres no logic behind it and I dont want to discriminate


    Quote Originally Posted by Evenglischatiest View Post
    In the interest of full disclosure, I don't recognize any government's authority to sanction any marriage, regardless of it's meaning. As such, I see this argument as purely semantic, and having no place what so ever in legal discourse.
    interesting, you already dont see the government's definition of the word marriage so you admit that it has NO effect on your beliefs obviously but you think it shouldnt be changed???????? wow your whole post now seems HUGELY hypocritical to me, you prech its just a word and basically meaningless but you dont see the laws definition of it and dont want it change to cover same sex, even though you already dont see it and you feel its just a word????? hmmmmmmmm hahahahahahahahaha

    thanks for your post though, it seems you actually believe what you said and actually believe in america theres logic behind it too

    oh well thanks again for the post, didnt mind it was long

    we still stand at 0
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  5. #665
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,127

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Evenglischatiest View Post
    My contention is simply that society functions more smoothly when the definitions of words are mostly immutable.
    Why is the definition of a word more important than the what benefits the actual institution can provide for society? There are 8 to 10 million children of gay parents and same sex couples in this country and the latest 25 years of research have shown that gay parents can raise children to be just as well adjusted as a heterosexual couple can. Furthermore, the American Pediatric Association and the American Medical Association have made an excellent case for how gay marriage will help provide benefits for countless children.

    Most countries that have incorporated gay marriage have actually seen an increase in heterosexual marriage rates. Massachusetts, the first state to incorporate gay marriage, now has the lowest rate of divorce in the nation. Contrary to being a threat to "traditional marriage", gay marriage appears to have actually improved marriage for everyone.

    To me, when a person says they are opposed to gay marriage, they are saying they don't care about the children and families of gay people. They don't care about the institution itself and what it represents to millions of Americans. They don't care about using marriage to improve society for everyone. All they care about is a tradition, which they cannot provide a nonreligiously motivated rational to support.

    Marriage has never been and will never be a "cemented" term. It has always changed with the economics. When we were agrarian, marriage was aimed to support a large family structure that could support a farm. When we moved into the industrial era, marriage laws changed to support a smaller, nuclear family that could work in the factory. Coming into the information era, marriage is changing again to support all sorts of different family structures. To pretend that marriage has not been changing dramatically over the centuries is to profess to a sociological and historical ignorance.
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 05-12-10 at 06:18 PM.

  6. #666
    User
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    05-31-10 @ 03:33 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    36

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    CriticalThought-

    I don't disagree with your points, but they have no bearing on what I've written. My argument is with the basic, utilitarian facts of changing the definitions of words. If we choose to include green in the definition of blue, that doesn't make them the same color. It simply removes a level of precision from the language, and alters people's perceptions of the word blue. Green will never attain the status formerly held by blue, because that status was based on it's blueness, not on the word chosen to describe it. Eventually, the lack of precision will cause a new word to develop, to describe the low-yellow end of the blue spectrum. That new word will then take on all the meanings formerly associated with the original word, leaving "blue" with the meaning now held by "green."


    Centrist-
    Miriam Webster lists the word marriage as originating in the 14th century. Other sources list it's origin being as early as the late 13th century, but no earlier. All sources appear to agree on it's etymology as Middle English, derived from Old French, which would necessarily put it after the Norman invasion. So the absolute earliest would be 1066. But it seems unlikely that a language would change immediately upon the first arrival of Normans. Would you care to elaborate on your reasoning for an earlier date?

    As for the rest of your commentary, you plainly don't understand my argument. As such, I can see why you reject it as illogical. Personally, I suspect that your own feelings on the subject lead you to certain prejudices about anyone who disagrees with you. Those prejudices cause you to look for meanings in my words that simply aren't there, while missing those that are. In all honesty, I expect you think I suffer from exactly the same problem. So rational debate between us seems unlikely, on this subject.

  7. #667
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Evenglischatiest View Post
    CriticalThought-

    I don't disagree with your points, but they have no bearing on what I've written. My argument is with the basic, utilitarian facts of changing the definitions of words. If we choose to include green in the definition of blue, that doesn't make them the same color. It simply removes a level of precision from the language, and alters people's perceptions of the word blue. Green will never attain the status formerly held by blue, because that status was based on it's blueness, not on the word chosen to describe it. Eventually, the lack of precision will cause a new word to develop, to describe the low-yellow end of the blue spectrum. That new word will then take on all the meanings formerly associated with the original word, leaving "blue" with the meaning now held by "green."
    this isnt to me but i reply anyway "perception" is 100% MEANINGLESS because you could still have whatever perception YOU want, its an equal rights issue, its a LAW issue. Religious freedom and freedom of speech already give you the ability to perceive things how you want, nobody cares, what people do care about is EQUAL rights and what the LAW perceives


    Quote Originally Posted by Evenglischatiest View Post
    Centrist-
    Miriam Webster lists the word marriage as originating in the 14th century. Other sources list it's origin being as early as the late 13th century, but no earlier. All sources appear to agree on it's etymology as Middle English, derived from Old French, which would necessarily put it after the Norman invasion. So the absolute earliest would be 1066. But it seems unlikely that a language would change immediately upon the first arrival of Normans. Would you care to elaborate on your reasoning for an earlier date?
    I couldnt care less about Websters and im not doing the research for you at the moment but google marriage or same sex marriage or marriage origin and sorry to tell you you'll find it dates back to actually BC and even roman BC has records of it so again you are 100% wrong, trust me ive studied it and this and it was one of my reasons for the OP

    try to understand that websters is giving you the origin of the word based on the definition provided not the first time it was ever used LMAO

    As for the rest of your commentary, you plainly don't understand my argument. As such, I can see why you reject it as illogical. Personally, I suspect that your own feelings on the subject lead you to certain prejudices about anyone who disagrees with you. Those prejudices cause you to look for meanings in my words that simply aren't there, while missing those that are. In all honesty, I expect you think I suffer from exactly the same problem. So rational debate between us seems unlikely, on this subject.[/QUOTE]

    I think I understand it just fine, if not explain it to me. Explain how it wouldnt be discriminating and how your examples have real barring and logical parrell ties in reality, im all ears and all about rational. I have no prejudices against your view, if you read the OP, my op, youll clearly see I respect WHATEVER your views are I dont care what they are cause its your right to have those vies but anybody, not saying you, that wants to force those views on others is simply discriminating.
    I think you position lacks logic (if you apply it to denying marriage) because it is discriminative, thats probably why you didnt answer any questions because you have not answers that will make sense.

    just so we are clear I bolded the part above so you understand that "if" you believe, think, teach etc etc that gay marriage is wrong that is fine, I can not judge that logic has it is your own based on your own beliefs BUT once anyone tries to force those views on their neighbor or america then the logic goes right out the window
    because its discrimination.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  8. #668
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Evenglischatiest View Post
    CriticalThought-

    I don't disagree with your points, but they have no bearing on what I've written. My argument is with the basic, utilitarian facts of changing the definitions of words. If we choose to include green in the definition of blue, that doesn't make them the same color. It simply removes a level of precision from the language, and alters people's perceptions of the word blue. Green will never attain the status formerly held by blue, because that status was based on it's blueness, not on the word chosen to describe it. Eventually, the lack of precision will cause a new word to develop, to describe the low-yellow end of the blue spectrum. That new word will then take on all the meanings formerly associated with the original word, leaving "blue" with the meaning now held by "green."


    Centrist-
    Miriam Webster lists the word marriage as originating in the 14th century. Other sources list it's origin being as early as the late 13th century, but no earlier. All sources appear to agree on it's etymology as Middle English, derived from Old French, which would necessarily put it after the Norman invasion. So the absolute earliest would be 1066. But it seems unlikely that a language would change immediately upon the first arrival of Normans. Would you care to elaborate on your reasoning for an earlier date?

    As for the rest of your commentary, you plainly don't understand my argument. As such, I can see why you reject it as illogical. Personally, I suspect that your own feelings on the subject lead you to certain prejudices about anyone who disagrees with you. Those prejudices cause you to look for meanings in my words that simply aren't there, while missing those that are. In all honesty, I expect you think I suffer from exactly the same problem. So rational debate between us seems unlikely, on this subject.
    There is a "quote" button located at the bottom right hand corner of every post for your convenience

    Using the "wrap" button at the top right of the edit box allows you to highlight and "quote" selected text so that you don't have to respond to the entire post all at once. You have the ability to pars someone's post and draft your response to select sections as you see fit.

    I point these features out because I suspect an improved presentation will help make your arguments clearer.
    Last edited by Jerry; 05-12-10 at 11:10 PM.

  9. #669
    User
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    05-31-10 @ 03:33 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    36

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    I couldnt care less about Websters and im not doing the research for you at the moment but google marriage or same sex marriage or marriage origin and sorry to tell you you'll find it dates back to actually BC and even roman BC has records of it so again you are 100% wrong, trust me ive studied it and this and it was one of my reasons for the OP
    That statement reinforces my contention that the meaning of words is, in fact, important. I not only haven't claimed that the concept of marriage originated in the 14th century, I explicitly stated that it didn't. It's the word that originated roughly 700 years ago. And back then, that bright, shiny new word took on all the traditions of the word it replaced, because it had the same meaning. If the meaning is different, the traditions will be different. See the exchange between myself and Rat for a few examples specifically pertaining to marriage.

    On that subject, you'll note that Rat and I had a perfectly friendly exchange. That's because he addressed what I wrote, as opposed to what he assumed I meant. I hope I was as fair to him. I've not responded to most of your comments because they appear to be based presumptions, and largely unrelated to what I've written. I see no need to defend or expand upon arguments I've never made. As such, we have no basis upon which to continue this particular discussion. In light of that, I'll not respond to you again, on this subject.

  10. #670
    User
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    05-31-10 @ 03:33 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    36

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    There is a "quote" button located at the bottom right hand corner of every post for your convenience

    Using the "wrap" button at the top right of the edit box allows you to highlight and "quote" selected text so that you don't have to respond to the entire post all at once. You have the ability to pars someone's post and draft your response to select sections as you see fit.

    I point these features out because I suspect an improved presentation will help make your arguments clearer.
    Thanks.

    As I'm sure you've noticed,
    But I have to admit, I'm still missing something. Do I need to cut and paste the (bracket sign)quote= etc. for each one, or is there a way to do that automatically? I get the quote part, but I'm doing something wrong on the attribution section of it.

Posting Permissions

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