Belgian_Draft 0 #126 March 16, 2011 Quote>Jakee asked what I thought marriage was like throught the ages and i told him. Fair enough. Do you think that it has changed at all from how you explained it? Yes.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #127 March 16, 2011 >>Fair enough. Do you think that it has changed at all from how you explained it? >Yes. I agree, and would add that I think it's a good thing that it has changed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #128 March 16, 2011 QuoteQuoteWhy does it bother you so terribly that I am bothered a teensy little bit about the use of a word? Bother me? No, it just tends to pique my interest when someone gets so evasive, defensive and angry about being asked anything at all about an opinion they have offered in public. Makes me wonder what it is about their thinking that they're so ashamed of. Ashamed of? Nope, sorry. I am not ashamed of my opinions. Evasive? If you call offering your opinion and the reasons you hold that opinion evasive, then guilty as charged. Defensive? Yep. I usually do defend myself when attacked. It's that damned self preservation instinct. Angry? Again, yep. It goes with the defensive thing. If you kick a skunk because he smells a little, guess what happens?HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #129 March 16, 2011 Quote>>Fair enough. Do you think that it has changed at all from how you explained it? >Yes. I agree, and would add that I think it's a good thing that it has changed. Agreed. And someday the general public will wonder why our generation had a hard time accepting gay unions as marriages.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #130 March 17, 2011 Quote Perhaps we disagree on what "higher income" means. Per the 1997 CBO figures, of the 49% of those that saw a penalty those with incomes under 20K say a penalty of 7.6% of AGI. Those with incomes over 100K saw a penalty of 1.4%. I'm not sure we're talking apples to apples anymore. My plot was based on 2009 tax brackets not 1997, but I don't think even then that you could go from single filing individually to married filing jointly and pay MORE when you made anywhere near as low as 20K. Maybe they are talking about the penalty for married filing individually? (not why you'd do this) Quote As you stated, the law favors income disparity between the spouses. I'm not going to bother looking for numbers to support this wild theory, but I'm willing to bet that there is more income disparity in "higher income" households. Seems to me that there would be a tax benefit if one took the traditional view of marriage where the little lady stayed at home and took care of the kids while the man of the house worked to support the family. ...or I could be completely off base, but I could really care less....I not married and getting pounded by the IRS like married and single folk alike.Great graph. Forced me to look a little deeper at the matter...thanks...I think. lol I strongly doubt income disparity is monotonically increasing with combined income. My guess is you'd see a lot of disparity where one person makes 50K or less and the other makes very little and a lot of disparity where one person makes 250K+ and the other person doesn't work. But in between I'd expect there are a lot of couples each having a similar salary between 75K and 150K. This happens to be right in the range where the marriage penalty is likely to hit you the worst. Quote ...For example, my partner is on my medical insurance. Since we are not married... Ah yes, this is another thing I forgot to mention in post #96. When I was in this situation I actually paid more in taxes on the imputed income, over five times as much in fact, than I did for my share of the coverage in the first place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #131 March 17, 2011 QuoteQuote>>Fair enough. Do you think that it has changed at all from how you explained it? >Yes. I agree, and would add that I think it's a good thing that it has changed. Agreed. And someday the general public will wonder why our generation had a hard time accepting gay unions as marriages. You've done a good job explaining your viewpoint, I understand it, and I'm not going to come at you over it, but this comment brings up a question. If the definition of marriage has evolved, and you feel it may again eventually, then what is your stance on amending constitutions (state or federal) to "lock down" the definition to being hetero-only when it appeared to be undergoing said evolution (i.e. after gay people started getting married)? As an aside, I can appreciate getting put in a defensive stance. I got "yelled at" for something I didn't even write. (see post #60) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #132 March 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote>>Fair enough. Do you think that it has changed at all from how you explained it? >Yes. I agree, and would add that I think it's a good thing that it has changed. Agreed. And someday the general public will wonder why our generation had a hard time accepting gay unions as marriages. You've done a good job explaining your viewpoint, I understand it, and I'm not going to come at you over it, but this comment brings up a question. If the definition of marriage has evolved, and you feel it may again eventually, then what is your stance on amending constitutions (state or federal) to "lock down" the definition to being hetero-only when it appeared to be undergoing said evolution (i.e. after gay people started getting married)? As an aside, I can appreciate getting put in a defensive stance. I got "yelled at" for something I didn't even write. (see post #60) Oh, no doubt I would be againt ANY Constitutional ammendment of that nature. As you know I don't like gay couples using the word "marriage" but it's not something I would actively try to prevent. It's is going to happen (socially accepted change in the definition) and i believe Merriam-Webster already includes same-sex couples in their definition of "marriage".HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #133 March 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteFinally Wendy asked why same-sex marriage is wrong in her OP, he said there was nothing wrong with it and he just didn't like it having the same name. That is contradictory. If there is nothing wrong with it, then what is the problem with it being called marriage, which is what it is? And he called it "disgusting," which doesn't come across as "nothing wrong with it" to me. I like cats and dogs, but calling a dog "cat" doesn't make it one. And calling an opposite-sex marriage a same-sex marriage doesn't make it one. But it's still a marriage. Well, that seems to be the issue, doesn't it? It IS a redefinition from accepted usage for centuries. Why not re-define homo to be the same as hetero while you're about it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #134 March 17, 2011 QuoteNo it isn't, because in general it reduce the number of people which are living on this planet. (kids) I'm baffled by this statement. Is it a joke?Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mdrejhon 8 #135 March 17, 2011 Quote Quote No it isn't, because in general it reduce the number of people which are living on this planet. (kids) I'm baffled by this statement. Is it a joke? I think the statement viewed the "numbers game" perspective: if everyone was strictly gay, nobody would do natural procreation, and civilization would stop. Obviously. However, I think there's a certain neglect to consider the whole picture. For example a certain percentage (say, 1%, 10%, or whatever) of something actually can help contribute/moderate/balance civilization. We're actually very productive members of society, even way back to antiquity. It happens naturally, in nature too. It doesn't just apply to gayness, either. If there were not enough or too many queen bees in the same hive, there's lots of problems too. If there were not enough fertilizer or too much fertilizer in a soil, there's lots of problems too. Etc. And, yes, it varies from species to species. (For example, lots more bisexuality among bonobo apes than among humans). Clearly, there appears to be an evolutionary reason why gayness hasn't been 100% "evolved-out". Lots of debate why and lots of disagreements (genes? population control? lack of women; to spare remaining women to survive with other men? alternate method of release of sexual tension that's different and less fight-risk versus cheating (survival of fittest by avoiding fighting with other men over few women)? Or combination of all of the above? And/or other reason? etc. etc. etc. etc.) BUT, clearly, the gayness *has not* been evolved out of existence. And clearly, not even ALL of the world's religions are against it either (to the dismay of some). Short form: Our civilization continually disagrees why gayness exists, but it exists. Accept it! The point is, we should all live with it as a natural thing! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #136 March 17, 2011 QuoteWhy not re-define homo to be the same as hetero while you're about it. You could contact Merriam-Webster and the other dictionary publishers to see if they'll re-define that for you. As for "marriage," most modern dictionaries already include same-sex marriage as part of the definition. Words change, although same-sex marriage is not a new thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #137 March 18, 2011 QuoteQuoteWhy not re-define homo to be the same as hetero while you're about it. You could contact Merriam-Webster and the other dictionary publishers to see if they'll re-define that for you. As for "marriage," most modern dictionaries already include same-sex marriage as part of the definition. Words change, although same-sex marriage is not a new thing. I fear, that the jumbling of those good and plausible words in the professors head,.might a little jargogle his thoughts. Being an educator he should deliciate and kench as the language does evolve. To brabble on about a language that is ever changing and his continual scriptitation on the subject is yemeles of those changes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #138 March 19, 2011 Quote Quote Quote No it isn't, because in general it reduce the number of people which are living on this planet. (kids) I'm baffled by this statement. Is it a joke? I think the statement viewed the "numbers game" perspective: if everyone was strictly gay, nobody would do natural procreation, and civilization would stop. Obviously. However, I think there's a certain neglect to consider the whole picture. For example a certain percentage (say, 1%, 10%, or whatever) of something actually can help contribute/moderate/balance civilization. We're actually very productive members of society, even way back to antiquity. It happens naturally, in nature too. It doesn't just apply to gayness, either. If there were not enough or too many queen bees in the same hive, there's lots of problems too. If there were not enough fertilizer or too much fertilizer in a soil, there's lots of problems too. Etc. And, yes, it varies from species to species. (For example, lots more bisexuality among bonobo apes than among humans). Clearly, there appears to be an evolutionary reason why gayness hasn't been 100% "evolved-out". Lots of debate why and lots of disagreements (genes? population control? lack of women; to spare remaining women to survive with other men? alternate method of release of sexual tension that's different and less fight-risk versus cheating (survival of fittest by avoiding fighting with other men over few women)? Or combination of all of the above? And/or other reason? etc. etc. etc. etc.) BUT, clearly, the gayness *has not* been evolved out of existence. And clearly, not even ALL of the world's religions are against it either (to the dismay of some). Short form: Our civilization continually disagrees why gayness exists, but it exists. Accept it! The point is, we should all live with it as a natural thing! I agree wholeheartedly. It is neither right nor wrong. It simply is. Those who judge are wrong; yet those who attempt to legitimize/mainstream are ALSO wrong. Inasmuch as I do not force my value system on others, I therefore resent the hell out of it when others attempt to impose their (different) value system(s) upon me. I do not think it is something to celebrate or cheer about, yet neither is it something to be condemned. It simply is what it is. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #139 March 20, 2011 QuoteWhy does someone else's marriage impact people? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Because marriage, by its very definition, is a union between a man & a woman. If marriage can be politically redefined to include same-sex couples, it can be redefined to include anything, thus rendering the word (and the institution) meaningless. Marriage is the foundation of the family, which is the foundation of a civilized society. "Same sex" marriage is like "underwater aviation." A complete contradiction in terminology. It cannot exist no matter how many left-wing judges declare it so. Everyone has the "right" to marry. Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. Granted, there is little point in getting married, given the various emotional screwups that led to their being queer in the first place, but they are free to marry if they really really want to. If there is a legitimate argument in favor of "gay marriage" it will be possible to articulate such argument without calling people bigots. Cheers, Jon S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Belgian_Draft 0 #140 March 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteWhy does someone else's marriage impact people? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Because marriage, by its very definition, is a union between a man & a woman. If marriage can be politically redefined to include same-sex couples, it can be redefined to include anything, thus rendering the word (and the institution) meaningless. Marriage is the foundation of the family, which is the foundation of a civilized society. "Same sex" marriage is like "underwater aviation." A complete contradiction in terminology. It cannot exist no matter how many left-wing judges declare it so. Everyone has the "right" to marry. Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. Granted, there is little point in getting married, given the various emotional screwups that led to their being queer in the first place, but they are free to marry if they really really want to. If there is a legitimate argument in favor of "gay marriage" it will be possible to articulate such argument without calling people bigots. Cheers, Jon S. Wait...before anybody replies let me get some popcorn.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Belgian_Draft 0 #141 March 20, 2011 OK, I have my popcorn and beer. Flame on! HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnnyMarko 1 #142 March 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteWhy does someone else's marriage impact people? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Because marriage, by its very definition, is a union between a man & a woman. If marriage can be politically redefined to include same-sex couples, it can be redefined to include anything, thus rendering the word (and the institution) meaningless. Marriage is the foundation of the family, which is the foundation of a civilized society. "Same sex" marriage is like "underwater aviation." A complete contradiction in terminology. It cannot exist no matter how many left-wing judges declare it so. Everyone has the "right" to marry. Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. Granted, there is little point in getting married, given the various emotional screwups that led to their being queer in the first place, but they are free to marry if they really really want to. If there is a legitimate argument in favor of "gay marriage" it will be possible to articulate such argument without calling people bigots. Cheers, Jon S. Yes, because if we redefine it to include same sex couples, then it becomes possible to change it to anything. Hell, I'd like to change it so I can marry my boyfriend and my dog. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #143 March 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteWhy not re-define homo to be the same as hetero while you're about it. You could contact Merriam-Webster and the other dictionary publishers to see if they'll re-define that for you. As for "marriage," most modern dictionaries already include same-sex marriage as part of the definition. Words change, although same-sex marriage is not a new thing. Language does indeed evolve ("cool" is a good example of a word whose meaning changed over a period of a decade or so without being forced or legislated) but the change in the meaning of "gay" and "marriage" isn't evolution, it is linguistic engineering by a special interest group which, in the case of "marriage", is trying to enforce it by legislation. "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg"; Abraham Lincoln.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Airman1270 0 #144 March 20, 2011 Quote OK, I have my popcorn and beer. Flame on! _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (Tee hee. I replied to the original question without having read the other responses. Kinda wonder what was just said that hadn't already been mentioned.) Carry on guys! Cheers, Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Guest #145 March 20, 2011 Quote Language does indeed evolve ("cool" is a good example of a word whose meaning changed over a period of a decade or so without being forced or legislated) but the change in the meaning of "gay" and "marriage" isn't evolution, it is linguistic engineering by a special interest group which, in the case of "marriage", is trying to enforce it by legislation. "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg"; Abraham Lincoln. Love it! Such common sense isn't so common anymore, unfortunately. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #146 March 20, 2011 Quote . . . a special interest group which, in the case of "marriage", is trying to enforce it by legislation. I'm pretty sure Prop 8 (here in CA) was started by the "other" side wanting to enforce the definition by legislation. And again, whether legally recognized or not, the dictionaries have already changed. But I won't try to talk you out of being pissed off about it, since it seems rather important to you. So, are you also pissed off that Charlie Sheen managed to single-handedly change the definition of "winning" in less than a week? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #147 March 20, 2011 Quote Quote So, are you also pissed off that Charlie Sheen managed to single-handedly change the definition of "winning" in less than a week? To the best of my knowledge, he's not trying to force any new word definition on anybody. However, I don't read "People" magazine or watch TV, so I don't really know what he's up to.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #148 March 20, 2011 QuoteI don't read "People" magazine or watch TV Neither do I. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Belgian_Draft 0 #149 March 21, 2011 Quote Quote Quote So, are you also pissed off that Charlie Sheen managed to single-handedly change the definition of "winning" in less than a week? To the best of my knowledge, he's not trying to force any new word definition on anybody. However, I don't read "People" magazine or watch TV, so I don't really know what he's up to. Eh, he's up to a couple fifths and one really ignorant comment per day about now. But those are just his averages. Actual daily figures vary considerably.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #150 March 21, 2011 >If marriage can be politically redefined to include same-sex couples, it can >be redefined to include anything, thus rendering the word (and the >institution) meaningless. Quite literally true. It has been redefined before (see the above discussion with BelgianDraft) without ill effects, and has been further redefined to include interracial marriage. I am sure you would agree that these changes, overall, were good things - and that they did not render the term meaningless. >"Same sex" marriage is like "underwater aviation." Indeed! http://machinedesign.com/article/flying-underwater-0424 Does the above technology make flying meaningless? Or is it an expansion of our understanding of it? >Everyone has the "right" to marry. Homosexuals have the same rights as >everyone else. Agreed 100%. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 6 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Belgian_Draft 0 #140 March 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteWhy does someone else's marriage impact people? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Because marriage, by its very definition, is a union between a man & a woman. If marriage can be politically redefined to include same-sex couples, it can be redefined to include anything, thus rendering the word (and the institution) meaningless. Marriage is the foundation of the family, which is the foundation of a civilized society. "Same sex" marriage is like "underwater aviation." A complete contradiction in terminology. It cannot exist no matter how many left-wing judges declare it so. Everyone has the "right" to marry. Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. Granted, there is little point in getting married, given the various emotional screwups that led to their being queer in the first place, but they are free to marry if they really really want to. If there is a legitimate argument in favor of "gay marriage" it will be possible to articulate such argument without calling people bigots. Cheers, Jon S. Wait...before anybody replies let me get some popcorn.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Belgian_Draft 0 #141 March 20, 2011 OK, I have my popcorn and beer. Flame on! HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnnyMarko 1 #142 March 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteWhy does someone else's marriage impact people? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Because marriage, by its very definition, is a union between a man & a woman. If marriage can be politically redefined to include same-sex couples, it can be redefined to include anything, thus rendering the word (and the institution) meaningless. Marriage is the foundation of the family, which is the foundation of a civilized society. "Same sex" marriage is like "underwater aviation." A complete contradiction in terminology. It cannot exist no matter how many left-wing judges declare it so. Everyone has the "right" to marry. Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. Granted, there is little point in getting married, given the various emotional screwups that led to their being queer in the first place, but they are free to marry if they really really want to. If there is a legitimate argument in favor of "gay marriage" it will be possible to articulate such argument without calling people bigots. Cheers, Jon S. Yes, because if we redefine it to include same sex couples, then it becomes possible to change it to anything. Hell, I'd like to change it so I can marry my boyfriend and my dog. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #143 March 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteWhy not re-define homo to be the same as hetero while you're about it. You could contact Merriam-Webster and the other dictionary publishers to see if they'll re-define that for you. As for "marriage," most modern dictionaries already include same-sex marriage as part of the definition. Words change, although same-sex marriage is not a new thing. Language does indeed evolve ("cool" is a good example of a word whose meaning changed over a period of a decade or so without being forced or legislated) but the change in the meaning of "gay" and "marriage" isn't evolution, it is linguistic engineering by a special interest group which, in the case of "marriage", is trying to enforce it by legislation. "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg"; Abraham Lincoln.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Airman1270 0 #144 March 20, 2011 Quote OK, I have my popcorn and beer. Flame on! _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (Tee hee. I replied to the original question without having read the other responses. Kinda wonder what was just said that hadn't already been mentioned.) Carry on guys! Cheers, Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Guest #145 March 20, 2011 Quote Language does indeed evolve ("cool" is a good example of a word whose meaning changed over a period of a decade or so without being forced or legislated) but the change in the meaning of "gay" and "marriage" isn't evolution, it is linguistic engineering by a special interest group which, in the case of "marriage", is trying to enforce it by legislation. "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg"; Abraham Lincoln. Love it! Such common sense isn't so common anymore, unfortunately. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #146 March 20, 2011 Quote . . . a special interest group which, in the case of "marriage", is trying to enforce it by legislation. I'm pretty sure Prop 8 (here in CA) was started by the "other" side wanting to enforce the definition by legislation. And again, whether legally recognized or not, the dictionaries have already changed. But I won't try to talk you out of being pissed off about it, since it seems rather important to you. So, are you also pissed off that Charlie Sheen managed to single-handedly change the definition of "winning" in less than a week? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #147 March 20, 2011 Quote Quote So, are you also pissed off that Charlie Sheen managed to single-handedly change the definition of "winning" in less than a week? To the best of my knowledge, he's not trying to force any new word definition on anybody. However, I don't read "People" magazine or watch TV, so I don't really know what he's up to.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #148 March 20, 2011 QuoteI don't read "People" magazine or watch TV Neither do I. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Belgian_Draft 0 #149 March 21, 2011 Quote Quote Quote So, are you also pissed off that Charlie Sheen managed to single-handedly change the definition of "winning" in less than a week? To the best of my knowledge, he's not trying to force any new word definition on anybody. However, I don't read "People" magazine or watch TV, so I don't really know what he's up to. Eh, he's up to a couple fifths and one really ignorant comment per day about now. But those are just his averages. Actual daily figures vary considerably.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #150 March 21, 2011 >If marriage can be politically redefined to include same-sex couples, it can >be redefined to include anything, thus rendering the word (and the >institution) meaningless. Quite literally true. It has been redefined before (see the above discussion with BelgianDraft) without ill effects, and has been further redefined to include interracial marriage. I am sure you would agree that these changes, overall, were good things - and that they did not render the term meaningless. >"Same sex" marriage is like "underwater aviation." Indeed! http://machinedesign.com/article/flying-underwater-0424 Does the above technology make flying meaningless? Or is it an expansion of our understanding of it? >Everyone has the "right" to marry. Homosexuals have the same rights as >everyone else. Agreed 100%. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 6 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Belgian_Draft 0 #141 March 20, 2011 OK, I have my popcorn and beer. Flame on! HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyMarko 1 #142 March 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteWhy does someone else's marriage impact people? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Because marriage, by its very definition, is a union between a man & a woman. If marriage can be politically redefined to include same-sex couples, it can be redefined to include anything, thus rendering the word (and the institution) meaningless. Marriage is the foundation of the family, which is the foundation of a civilized society. "Same sex" marriage is like "underwater aviation." A complete contradiction in terminology. It cannot exist no matter how many left-wing judges declare it so. Everyone has the "right" to marry. Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. Granted, there is little point in getting married, given the various emotional screwups that led to their being queer in the first place, but they are free to marry if they really really want to. If there is a legitimate argument in favor of "gay marriage" it will be possible to articulate such argument without calling people bigots. Cheers, Jon S. Yes, because if we redefine it to include same sex couples, then it becomes possible to change it to anything. Hell, I'd like to change it so I can marry my boyfriend and my dog. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #143 March 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteWhy not re-define homo to be the same as hetero while you're about it. You could contact Merriam-Webster and the other dictionary publishers to see if they'll re-define that for you. As for "marriage," most modern dictionaries already include same-sex marriage as part of the definition. Words change, although same-sex marriage is not a new thing. Language does indeed evolve ("cool" is a good example of a word whose meaning changed over a period of a decade or so without being forced or legislated) but the change in the meaning of "gay" and "marriage" isn't evolution, it is linguistic engineering by a special interest group which, in the case of "marriage", is trying to enforce it by legislation. "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg"; Abraham Lincoln.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Airman1270 0 #144 March 20, 2011 Quote OK, I have my popcorn and beer. Flame on! _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (Tee hee. I replied to the original question without having read the other responses. Kinda wonder what was just said that hadn't already been mentioned.) Carry on guys! Cheers, Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Guest #145 March 20, 2011 Quote Language does indeed evolve ("cool" is a good example of a word whose meaning changed over a period of a decade or so without being forced or legislated) but the change in the meaning of "gay" and "marriage" isn't evolution, it is linguistic engineering by a special interest group which, in the case of "marriage", is trying to enforce it by legislation. "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg"; Abraham Lincoln. Love it! Such common sense isn't so common anymore, unfortunately. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #146 March 20, 2011 Quote . . . a special interest group which, in the case of "marriage", is trying to enforce it by legislation. I'm pretty sure Prop 8 (here in CA) was started by the "other" side wanting to enforce the definition by legislation. And again, whether legally recognized or not, the dictionaries have already changed. But I won't try to talk you out of being pissed off about it, since it seems rather important to you. So, are you also pissed off that Charlie Sheen managed to single-handedly change the definition of "winning" in less than a week? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #147 March 20, 2011 Quote Quote So, are you also pissed off that Charlie Sheen managed to single-handedly change the definition of "winning" in less than a week? To the best of my knowledge, he's not trying to force any new word definition on anybody. However, I don't read "People" magazine or watch TV, so I don't really know what he's up to.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #148 March 20, 2011 QuoteI don't read "People" magazine or watch TV Neither do I. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Belgian_Draft 0 #149 March 21, 2011 Quote Quote Quote So, are you also pissed off that Charlie Sheen managed to single-handedly change the definition of "winning" in less than a week? To the best of my knowledge, he's not trying to force any new word definition on anybody. However, I don't read "People" magazine or watch TV, so I don't really know what he's up to. Eh, he's up to a couple fifths and one really ignorant comment per day about now. But those are just his averages. Actual daily figures vary considerably.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #150 March 21, 2011 >If marriage can be politically redefined to include same-sex couples, it can >be redefined to include anything, thus rendering the word (and the >institution) meaningless. Quite literally true. It has been redefined before (see the above discussion with BelgianDraft) without ill effects, and has been further redefined to include interracial marriage. I am sure you would agree that these changes, overall, were good things - and that they did not render the term meaningless. >"Same sex" marriage is like "underwater aviation." Indeed! http://machinedesign.com/article/flying-underwater-0424 Does the above technology make flying meaningless? Or is it an expansion of our understanding of it? >Everyone has the "right" to marry. Homosexuals have the same rights as >everyone else. Agreed 100%. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 6 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kallend 1,623 #143 March 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteWhy not re-define homo to be the same as hetero while you're about it. You could contact Merriam-Webster and the other dictionary publishers to see if they'll re-define that for you. As for "marriage," most modern dictionaries already include same-sex marriage as part of the definition. Words change, although same-sex marriage is not a new thing. Language does indeed evolve ("cool" is a good example of a word whose meaning changed over a period of a decade or so without being forced or legislated) but the change in the meaning of "gay" and "marriage" isn't evolution, it is linguistic engineering by a special interest group which, in the case of "marriage", is trying to enforce it by legislation. "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg"; Abraham Lincoln.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #144 March 20, 2011 Quote OK, I have my popcorn and beer. Flame on! _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (Tee hee. I replied to the original question without having read the other responses. Kinda wonder what was just said that hadn't already been mentioned.) Carry on guys! Cheers, Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #145 March 20, 2011 Quote Language does indeed evolve ("cool" is a good example of a word whose meaning changed over a period of a decade or so without being forced or legislated) but the change in the meaning of "gay" and "marriage" isn't evolution, it is linguistic engineering by a special interest group which, in the case of "marriage", is trying to enforce it by legislation. "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg"; Abraham Lincoln. Love it! Such common sense isn't so common anymore, unfortunately. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #146 March 20, 2011 Quote . . . a special interest group which, in the case of "marriage", is trying to enforce it by legislation. I'm pretty sure Prop 8 (here in CA) was started by the "other" side wanting to enforce the definition by legislation. And again, whether legally recognized or not, the dictionaries have already changed. But I won't try to talk you out of being pissed off about it, since it seems rather important to you. So, are you also pissed off that Charlie Sheen managed to single-handedly change the definition of "winning" in less than a week? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #147 March 20, 2011 Quote Quote So, are you also pissed off that Charlie Sheen managed to single-handedly change the definition of "winning" in less than a week? To the best of my knowledge, he's not trying to force any new word definition on anybody. However, I don't read "People" magazine or watch TV, so I don't really know what he's up to.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #148 March 20, 2011 QuoteI don't read "People" magazine or watch TV Neither do I. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #149 March 21, 2011 Quote Quote Quote So, are you also pissed off that Charlie Sheen managed to single-handedly change the definition of "winning" in less than a week? To the best of my knowledge, he's not trying to force any new word definition on anybody. However, I don't read "People" magazine or watch TV, so I don't really know what he's up to. Eh, he's up to a couple fifths and one really ignorant comment per day about now. But those are just his averages. Actual daily figures vary considerably.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #150 March 21, 2011 >If marriage can be politically redefined to include same-sex couples, it can >be redefined to include anything, thus rendering the word (and the >institution) meaningless. Quite literally true. It has been redefined before (see the above discussion with BelgianDraft) without ill effects, and has been further redefined to include interracial marriage. I am sure you would agree that these changes, overall, were good things - and that they did not render the term meaningless. >"Same sex" marriage is like "underwater aviation." Indeed! http://machinedesign.com/article/flying-underwater-0424 Does the above technology make flying meaningless? Or is it an expansion of our understanding of it? >Everyone has the "right" to marry. Homosexuals have the same rights as >everyone else. Agreed 100%. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
