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.
Changing the definition of a word isn't a big deal, it's just status quo. Language is fluid, people change words to suit new meanings all the time, and this isn't the first time that marriage has been redefined. So it's a non-issue.
what I love is how one of the biggest advocates for opposing gays marrying because of a "re-definition" was the Mormon church, when they sought to change the concept of marriage to include polygamy 150 years ago..which is in the bible mind u... seems like these religious people bust out the good book only when it suits their own desires..which is why it's worthless in context of public policy in a secular society..
Sodomy specifically refers to a man lying with a male as with a woman. That's because every man in Sodom was gay. So that's where the word comes from. Every man, both young and old, down to the last man was gay. Do you understand the implication of that? There's not one single person on this earth who can not be corrupted, whether you are born that way or not.
Also what you are bringing up regarding oral and anal sex between members of the opposite sex is equally unnatural and a perversion. There's not much difference.
I'm sorry, I don't look to your bible for the definition of words. I look in a dictionary.
I feel sorry for your spouse. Your sex life must be sooooooo exciting.
It follows if sodomy is a perversion of a natural act, then gay marriage is a perversion of marriage. If you let them, they will pervert everything, if they already haven't.
Most sodomy is committed by heterosexuals, you fool. Most anal sex (just because hetersexuals outnumber gays by about 30-1) and the vast, vast majority of oral sex (yeah, that's sodomy, too) is practiced by heterosexuals. Now, since you're fixated on anal sex and oral sex, we can apply your logic -- marriage should not be allowed by those inclined to sodomy (that's moronic, but I'm just addressing the idiocy you're spouting), therefore no one should be allowed to marry because straights and gays both belong to orientation groups amongst which sodomy is widely practiced.
Once again -- sodomy is legal. Arguing that a practice (same-sex marriage), which has no monopoly on sodomy, should be banned because all orientations commit sodomy but you don't like one of those orientations that do so, is stupefyingly idiotic. And that's putting it politely.
This has nothing to do with a political interest group. It has to do with real people wanting equal rights at no harm to anyone else. It just so happens that Dems want to give them equal rights while Repubs want to continue to treat them like 2nd class citizens. Marriage is just a word in the dictionary. Who the heck cares if they change the definition or not. And why would that make you nervous. You seem more concerned with a word than you do about your fellow man
Any political interest group is composed of "real people." Ironically you show the importance of words in politics by this statement. Call it "a political interest group" and many people automatically turn up their noses (though they shouldn't). Call it "real people wanting equal rights" and a positive, even heroic image is painted.
Words are of utmost importance in politics. I gave the examples of "assault weapon" and "partial birth abortion" to show this.
The term "assault rifle" came from military "assault tactics" also known as "infiltration tactics." These new tactics required a different kind of rifle, which wound up being called the "assault rifle." I guess if had been called an "infiltration rifle" the US gun-control debate decades later might have been quite different. Gun control advocates seized upon the negative connotations of "assault" to coin the term "assault weapon." Firearms makers had never used the term. On the strength of the scariness of this term, Democrats were able to gain popular support, and enact a sweeping ban.
"Partial birth abortion" had a similar story. Abortion providers had a procedure that was known as "intact dilation and extraction." Pro-life advocates came up with the term "partial birth abortion" instead. The MSM resisted this mightily. The NYT would not normally even print it without a disclaimer of some sort. Nonetheless, it entered the lexicon. It won pro-lifers popular support, and they were able to get a ban enacted during the Bush admin.
When people dismiss my qualms as "just semantics," they don't realize the importance of words in the context of politics.
BTW I happened to hear a guy from the Log Cabin Republicans interviewed today. The interviewer asked, why not just get the gov't out of the marriage business. Gov't could issue 'civil unions' to heteros and homos alike, and everyone would be equal. Marriage would be left to churches and Las Vegas.
He was dismissive of the idea, saying that while many people had suggested it, no one had proposed such a bill, and no one was going to do it. The interviewer didn't ask the obvious question of "why not." The log cabin guy (btw to which I have donated in the past) said that there were over 1100 references in federal law to marriage, so it goes far beyond the tax code.
I'm not a lawyer but I don't see why it would be so tough to change. A few years ago in my state the legislature went through all state laws and removed references to "Oriental," with the exception of "Oriental medicine." Practitioners of those arts liked the term and wanted to keep it, so the legislature exempted them.
Any political interest group is composed of "real people." Ironically you show the importance of words in politics by this statement. Call it "a political interest group" and many people automatically turn up their noses (though they shouldn't). Call it "real people wanting equal rights" and a positive, even heroic image is painted.
Words are of utmost importance in politics. I gave the examples of "assault weapon" and "partial birth abortion" to show this.
The term "assault rifle" came from military "assault tactics" also known as "infiltration tactics." These new tactics required a different kind of rifle, which wound up being called the "assault rifle." I guess if had been called an "infiltration rifle" the US gun-control debate decades later might have been quite different. Gun control advocates seized upon the negative connotations of "assault" to coin the term "assault weapon." Firearms makers had never used the term. On the strength of the scariness of this term, Democrats were able to gain popular support, and enact a sweeping ban.
"Partial birth abortion" had a similar story. Abortion providers had a procedure that was known as "intact dilation and extraction." Pro-life advocates came up with the term "partial birth abortion" instead. The MSM resisted this mightily. The NYT would not normally even print it without a disclaimer of some sort. Nonetheless, it entered the lexicon. It won pro-lifers popular support, and they were able to get a ban enacted during the Bush admin.
When people dismiss my qualms as "just semantics," they don't realize the importance of words in the context of politics.
Honestly, I don't care about the words I use or the words someone else uses. You consider gays a political interest group. Politics shouldn't even be part of the discussion. I just consider them as a group of people wanting equal rights.
Most sodomy is committed by heterosexuals, you fool. Most anal sex (just because hetersexuals outnumber gays by about 30-1) and the vast, vast majority of oral sex (yeah, that's sodomy, too) is practiced by heterosexuals. Now, since you're fixated on anal sex and oral sex, we can apply your logic -- marriage should not be allowed by those inclined to sodomy (that's moronic, but I'm just addressing the idiocy you're spouting), therefore no one should be allowed to marry because straights and gays both belong to orientation groups amongst which sodomy is widely practiced.
Once again -- sodomy is legal. Arguing that a practice (same-sex marriage), which has no monopoly on sodomy, should be banned because all orientations commit sodomy but you don't like one of those orientations that do so, is stupefyingly idiotic. And that's putting it politely.
We're talking about gay marriage right? As soon as you say gay you're bring sodomy into the discussion. I said sodomy is a perversion. I agree, it makes no sense to be talking about marriage and sodomy together but that is what we are doing. Gay marriage makes no sense.
The institution of marriage is this - he who made them in the beginning made them male and female. It is for this reason that a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder. The idea that God will join together two men or two women is a false. Gay marriage is a perversion. Remember God destroyed the men of Sodom because of their wickedness. Why go through the motions if God doesn't approve it?
Last edited by MarkT3; 03-30-2013 at 09:54 PM..
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.
