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.
OK, since so many people support marriage for gays, let's let gay people have marriage. We'll just let civil unions be reserved for heterosexuals. OK, makes no difference right, they're just words.
Well, you're wrong. It's not a religious term. Christians like to think they "own" the word marriage, but for some reason they don't have an issue with Muslims, Jews, or Atheists getting married and calling themselves married. They aren't pushing for "civil unions" for Atheists. Hell, if a man and a woman want to get married right now in a twisted Satanic ritual, pledging allegiance to the devil, they can do so, and it's a legal marriage. So why, when we talk about GAY marriage, do people all of a sudden want to scream that marriage in the United States today has ANYTHING to do with religion?
And today, we do NOT force Christian churches to marry anyone they don't want to. They are not, and have never been, forced to perform marriages for Muslims, Jews, etc. etc. Why on Earth would that change just because we now allow gay people to get married? Seriously, these arguments make no sense. They are all about people simply being afraid of change and people who are different from them, even though it does not affect them in the slightest.
Good post.
I love how people use that "but then they'll go after the churches!" argument, despite overwhelming and long-standing evidence to the contrary. My old Rabbi refused to perform inter-faith weddings, and did so without legal recourse for some 50-60 years. When my sister was planning to marry her non-Jewish husband, she didn't sue or complain - she just hired an outside (more liberal) Rabbi, and had the wedding at our father's home. So this is a clear fallacy, and I wish they'd stop using lies to justify their "cause." Besides, why would a gay couple WANT to be married by an anti-gay clergy? That makes no sense, especially when there are plenty of gay-friendly churches/temples where they could have a religious ceremony.
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.
Location: Currently I physically reside on the 3rd planet from the sun
2,220 posts, read 1,877,655 times
Reputation: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by TapperCheck
Why do you guys have such a problem with two people standing up and pledging their devotion to and love for each other and calling it marriage?
Gay Marriage means society at large will subsidize other people's sexual shenanigans.
You want to play with your buddys junk - knock yourself out - just don't expect for me to pay for it or subsidize children being raised in this environment that will only produce children by engaging in sexual relations outside your "union".
Gay Marriage means society at large will subsidize other people's sexual shenanigans.
You want to play with your buddys junk - knock yourself out - just don't expect for me to pay for it or subsidize children being raised in this environment that will only produce children by engaging in sexual relations outside your "union".
I subsidize your sexual shenanigans. And I also have children that did not involve sexual relations outside of my union.
You might want to look into the wonders of modern medicine. We can also adopt those children that your precious heterosexual sexual shenanigans produce, and then dump like garbage.
I subsidize your sexual shenanigans. And I also have children that did not involve sexual relations outside of my union.
You might want to look into the wonders of modern medicine. We can also adopt those children that your precious heterosexual sexual shenanigans produce, and then dump like garbage.
Gay Marriage means society at large will subsidize other people's sexual shenanigans.
You want to play with your buddys junk - knock yourself out - just don't expect for me to pay for it or subsidize children being raised in this environment that will only produce children by engaging in sexual relations outside your "union".
Gays pay taxes, too. And since they have fewer children than non-gays, they tend to pay more taxes (fewer tax deductions, more discretionary spending that is more likely to be spent on taxed items, etc.). The result is that gays up end subsidizing the children of us non-gays.
Aside from that, your petulant demand that you not be expected to subsidize the children of gays is a disgusting and shameless bit of spite directed at innocent children.
Gay Marriage means society at large will subsidize other people's sexual shenanigans.
You want to play with your buddys junk - knock yourself out - just don't expect for me to pay for it or subsidize children being raised in this environment that will only produce children by engaging in sexual relations outside your "union".
What a silly 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.
