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.
It's simple. Redefinintion of words in the context of politics is a very bad idea. "Marriage" is an English word that has had a pretty clear definition for a long time. Now we've got a political interest group that wants to alter the definition.
The scary thing to me about the newspeak strategem is how effective it is. Consider the term "assault weapon," which was never used by firearms makers, but was coined by gun control advocates. Since it entered the lexicon, Americans have mostly supported banning them in polling, although doubtless few could define what it meant. Likewise with "partial birth abortion" on the right side of the aisle. It was a term never used by abortion providers, but coined by pro-life advocates. And likewise, poll data shows more often than not that Americans support a ban, even though most could not define it.
I am old enough to recall how the Nixon admin was famous for the use of newspeak. When caught in BS, they backtracked by terming said BS as "inoperative." The Obama admin is equally skilled at this game. Blowing billions of taxpayer dollars to line the pockets of cronies is termed "economic stimulus" and the MSM buys it hook, line, & sinker.
If lefties and gay activists wanted to call it "civil unions," I would be on board in a heartbeat, as I think would 99 percent of Americans, even evangelicals. But that's not enough; the left insists that they must have the power to redefine a word. That makes me nervous.
I agree with you that if it's about politics it's a waste of time, but I just find the whole obsession that this country has with political games to be a waste of time.
It's about equality, and that is not politicking. Calling it a "civil union" means it's a different thing than marriage.
Plus, partnerships in business and in the sports world are often time referred to as "Marriage" so let's not pretend that the word has some strict definition that can't be changed.
Marriage is to merge.
Going from Marriage: The merging of a man and a woman of consenting age.
To Marriage: The merging of two consenting adults.
Is not like you are trying to redefine the word "Loopy" to describe the act of murdering a cat. "Boy, John was loopy today, and anyway we buried Snuffles this afternoon"
It's not the same thing.
Taking a word that means "a man and a woman" supposedly, and "redefining" it as "two consenting adults" really isn't that big of a deal.
Agreed. And I know some had said that civil unions as defined dont give them all the same benefits. So either get the government out of the business entirely or the government needs to change it to add civil unions to all documents to allow them the same benefits and rights.
That is my main and pretty much only objection at this point.
Agreed. And I know some had said that civil unions as defined dont give them all the same benefits. So either get the government out of the business entirely or the government needs to change it to add civil unions to all documents to allow them the same benefits and rights.
That is my main and pretty much only objection at this point.
I agree with you that if it's about politics it's a waste of time, but I just find the whole obsession that this country has with political games to be a waste of time.
It's about equality, and that is not politicking. Calling it a "civil union" means it's a different thing than marriage.
Plus, partnerships in business and in the sports world are often time referred to as "Marriage" so let's not pretend that the word has some strict definition that can't be changed.
Marriage is to merge.
Going from Marriage: The merging of a man and a woman of consenting age.
To Marriage: The merging of two consenting adults.
Is not like you are trying to redefine the word "Loopy" to describe the act of murdering a cat. "Boy, John was loopy today, and anyway we buried Snuffles this afternoon"
It's not the same thing.
Taking a word that means "a man and a woman" supposedly, and "redefining" it as "two consenting adults" really isn't that big of a deal.
Heterosexuals have civil unions all the time. A civil union is performed by a judge at a courthouse.
No. It's about changing the definition of marriage, as well as redefining gender roles in society. It is highly political. And behind every political struggle for recognition is an agenda.
Agenda = a list of items open for discussion to facilitate a result.
I agree with you that if it's about politics it's a waste of time, but I just find the whole obsession that this country has with political games to be a waste of time.
It's about equality, and that is not politicking. Calling it a "civil union" means it's a different thing than marriage.
Plus, partnerships in business and in the sports world are often time referred to as "Marriage" so let's not pretend that the word has some strict definition that can't be changed.
Marriage is to merge.
Going from Marriage: The merging of a man and a woman of consenting age.
To Marriage: The merging of two consenting adults.
Is not like you are trying to redefine the word "Loopy" to describe the act of murdering a cat. "Boy, John was loopy today, and anyway we buried Snuffles this afternoon"
It's not the same thing.
Taking a word that means "a man and a woman" supposedly, and "redefining" it as "two consenting adults" really isn't that big of a deal.
Disagree. Changing from man and a woman to two adults is a pretty big deal and a big change. I dont know how else to put it, but same sex couples are indeed different than man and a woman. Im all for equal benefits and protections but I do not like the redefining of a word just to make some feel better.
Heterosexuals have civil unions all the time. A civil union is performed by a judge at a courthouse.
No. It's about changing the definition of marriage, as well as redefining gender roles in society. It is highly political. And behind every political struggle for recognition is an agenda.
Agenda = a list of items open for discussion to facilitate a result.
You're right. And it is my belief and fear that once they do this, it will not stop there. Once that word is redefined once, it can change again. And once they get to call themselves married, other things will follow such as some going after churches. Maybe they wont be successful, but I believe it will happen.
This all could have been avoided by either granting civil unions the same benefits or by just getting the government out of it entirely.
Agreed. And I know some had said that civil unions as defined dont give them all the same benefits. So either get the government out of the business entirely or the government needs to change it to add civil unions to all documents to allow them the same benefits and rights.
That is my main and pretty much only objection at this point.
And I would still call my marriage exactly what it is, a marriage.
But there has already been a ruling on separate but equal. Didn't work out too well.
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.
