Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Myself, I think people should stop taking offense to being called names. Thin-skinnedness is one of the downfalls of society in my opinion.
Jumping on a person for being techically correct while he's not actually trying to use the term to oppress anyone is counterproductive.
Just why is it technically correct?
I assume you don't belong to a minority because you'd know how it feels like to not have same rights or being treated unfairly because you are seem as not "normal".
I explained the reasoning. It is historically relevant, marriage does not mean same sex. Its definition means heterosexual union and it is historically supported as I explained.
A: Appeal to authority logical fallacy.
B: Definitions change over history. Language is not static.
Quote:
You don't get to make up the meanings of words as you like in legal realms.
Yes you do. That's why laws aren't writ in stone.
Quote:
Get a civil union, then call it whatever you like outside of the legal definition.
You'd have somewhat of a point if civil unions had all the same protections and privileges as marriage.
Quote:
Marriage is not a gay coupling.
According to one country, maybe. Many societies disagree with this sentiment, however.
Quote:
We are supposed to change a words meaning that has been historically significant and relevant as well as specific in its meaning since its conception to meet emotional demands of people who appear to be narcissistic and self centered that everyone should change to meet their unwillingness to accept intellectual discourse.
You keep on going on and on about "historical relevance" like it's not a logical fallacy and like it's the first time in history that homosexuals are being wed.
Just why is it technically correct?
I assume you don't belong to a minority because you'd know how it feels like to not have same rights or being treated unfairly because you are seem as not "normal".
I've already stated once that I'm bisexual. And I have before been discriminated against simply because of age. Under that wonderful guise of "credit history".
And it's "techically correct" in the guise that it's abnormal scientifically to be homosexual.
Not negative by any means, but just not "normal".
And yes, the position of "normality" changes over time. But as of now, it is "abnormal".
The problem is, procreation isn't a prerequisite of marriage anymore.
It wasn't before, it was the reason for it. It produced bloodlines, which in turn merged houses, family lines, etc... and the result was recognition of birthright, etc... to which led to the need eventually for society to legally recognize it due to its production.
Some may not have kids, but they still can, sometimes by accident. Definition still applies regardless of a persons specific action.
Homosexuals never produce, don't fit the definition and never will. That is, unless they change it. Then the word has no meaning as what do they call a union that can produce a bloodline?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Langlen
That's an outdated concept that isn't even a consideration for many people getting married.
That's why the procreation angle doesn't work, and is foolhardy at best.
Apparently not when a majority in a state disagrees and says it is still quite relevant today.
It isn't an angle, It is a simple fact, but hey... gays get to make all the rules and force their opinion on the masses, I mean, they are what? a whole 1-3% of the worlds population? Seems normal to me! /boggle
It wasn't before, it was the reason for it. It produced bloodlines, which in turn merged houses, family lines, etc... and the result was recognition of birthright, etc... to which led to the need eventually for society to legally recognize it due to its production.
Which isn't relevant as society is today.
Congrats.
You're still spouting outdated concepts as if they have some sort of relevance.
Quote:
Homosexuals never produce, don't fit the definition and never will.
Which is why homosexual marriage has happened before in history, correct?
Quote:
Apparently not when a majority in a state disagrees and says it is still quite relevant today.
The majority can still be wrong.
Such as the fact that majority cannot vote to oppress a minority.
Oddly enough, it seems that the people trying to change the definition of marriage would be the people with the anti-gay agenda. At least as exemplified by such legislative measures as Proposition 8, and other pushes to get laws CHANGED to reflect their definition.
Yes, you are right. It is simply "their" definition. Pay no attention to historical precedence. No need to look at the relevant definition of the word, its simply those people pushing "their" definition on another.
This wouldn't be a problem if people didn't change the meaning of words like they change their shoes. It wouldn't be a problem if people made the effort to educate themselves on the meaning of words.
I find your argument a bit disingenuous, almost somewhat Alinsky in style as you seem to be confusing who the ones here who are actually "changing" the meaning of something. history doesn't support the gay position on that, but hey, we can just change that to right?
I wonder if a liberal can even admit that a gay couple cannot procreate. That two people of the same sex cannot produce a child,an dif they use some kind of scientific intervention, the child will still only biologically be related to one of the couple, not both.
what about infertile men and barren women? huh? I guess they shouldn't be allowed to get married either.
Just face face it, your ilk, have absolutely no justification for denying gay marriage.
The constitution of the United States guarantees "rights". . . ."rights", are not subject to majority rule, and should never be voted on. The Constitution is there to protect minorities, not just majorities!
And to counter the inevitable argument that 'marriage is a privilege, not a right', the Constitution, via the 14th amendment, also guarantees equality in the dispersion of privileges. Any state (and the people of such state) that wishes to deny privileges to any person or group of people had better have a damned good argument showing a 'state interest' in that denial. In this case, the state and the people have failed in their argument.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
