Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » OK, Jordan -- How about making gayspeak a 2nd official language? (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: OK, Jordan -- How about making gayspeak a 2nd official language?
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
"one man, one woman, for life" to "one man, one woman, while convenient"

Sounds like a definitional change to me.

"For life" simply means it's not set to expire after a period of years. If you want to find a different term to signify that, then do so, and that's the universal definition of marriage. I've already explained what I meant, and there is significance in the term, even if it's not the significance that you pretend. Next?

[ August 23, 2006, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You can't prove a negative, that no one ever talked about the "definition" of marriage. You're arguing against a straw man, rewriting history to make it appear that we've already dealt with this issue. Your fictions aren't history. These historical issues were decided on different grounds than your fictional reconstructions.

Wow. You're getting pretty good at... whatever it is you're doing. Why should I care that you can't disprove it? I don't care, see? You don't have to share my certainty, Pete.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"For life" simply means it's not set to expire after a period of years."

I know you'd like it to mean that, but everyone I know who thinks of "til death do us part" (which is, after all, the strong cultural understanding of the meaning) believes this to mean marriage until someone dies.

You can argue the legalities, but this is the cultural reality that is being changed by McDivorce.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is there a drive-thru?
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By "For life," I simply meant it's not set to expire after a period of years. If you want to find a different term to signify that, then do so, and that's the universal definition of marriage as practiced in every postagricultural society until the unsafe human experiments of the 1990s began. I've already explained what I meant, and there is significance in the term, even if you would use different terms. Do stop wasting our time on this. You prefer a universal definition of "Union of man and woman that does not expire after a set number of years," then use that. But franky I think you insult your own legal education by acting as if you don't understand what a contract for life means. NEXT?

[ August 23, 2006, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Legal" vs "cultural" Pete. Next?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gee. Can just anypone insult one's legal education? Or do you have to go to school for it?
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If I understand KM's question, he's asking Could a person without a legal education insult his legal education? Ask Buddha. I think that goes nicely with the one hand clapping question.

[ August 23, 2006, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Or clown school or insult school or Monty Python's infamous argument clinic or...
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I do like the shrill whiny-ness of it, though. Kind of like screeches of futility, scathingly played upon the ears...
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't be obtuse, Kenmeer. You going to tell me you never grasped what I meant by "for life"?

When you buy an appliance with a guarantee for life, does that mean that you aren't allowed to return it, or that the company can't go out of business?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't be obtuse, Kenmeer. You going to tell me you never grasped what I meant by "for life"?

More projection. It's your job to clarify what 'for life' in marriage vows means in your understanding or interpretation of it. For most of us, even those of us who aren't sealed in marriage for all time and eternity, it's commonly understood that marriage 'until deatn do us part' is intended to mean just that. Anything less than that is called a failed marriage. It's null and void. Over. It's no longer a marriage no matter whose definition is applied.

My wife is not an appliance by the way.

But whatever.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, Pete, I understand what you want "for life" to mean in this specific context. However, many of your arguments on this subject are based on marriage as a cultural institution; how marriage is viewed by the populace, how the population's definition will be negatively changed by MFA. But this has very little to do with the law, and everything to do with people's beliefs.

If you want to pretend that "til death do us part" is limited to the legal definition of a contract that is not set to expire after a certain number of years (to the exclusion of what it used to mean culturally to those who took those words to heart) then knock yourself out. But don't try to make any more arguments about how changes to the legal definition will destroy the cultural institution.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is interesting that Pete appears to be in the position of diminishing one of marriage's most sacrosanct attirbutes: the bonding of a couple through thick and thin and they're old and decrepit, where love itself seems to have been distilled from the years of devotion they practiced.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My argument is about how changing the definition of marriage (which I describe through legal terminology since it's more suscinct) will affect the cultural behavior. The Goodridge court pretends that marriage was never about children, and that it's about cultural affirmation. If the culture buys this message, people will act like the fragging primates they are, rather than like the semi-responsible parents that our culture has taught us to be.

Maintaining the culture requires an ability to communicate through the public sphere.

It's idiotic to say that I'm diminishing the damage that quickie divorce has had on society by saying that historically it had been tried before, and was a catastrophe. And it's hypocritical to make that claim right after describing quicky divorce as progress and saying that it's too late to go back now.

Neutering marriage along goodridge lines will make it impossible to reverse the damage done by quickie divorce. Once we buy the goodridge crap that marriage is all about the state affirming our desires, and not about providing an environment for children, and basing that crap ruling on the constitution, then it would become "unconstitutional" to make divorce anything other than "no fault."

Naturally that will sail right over the heads of people who try so very hard not to think.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete: "The Goodridge court pretends that marriage was never about children..."

On the contrary, the Goodridge decision appears to be based largely on arguments regarding the welfare of children:

Hillary GOODRIDGE & others [FN1] vs. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & another. [FN2] SJC-08860
November 18, 2003

"The department has offered no evidence that forbidding marriage to people of the same sex will increase the number of couples choosing to enter into opposite-sex marriages in order to have and raise children. There is thus no rational relationship between the marriage statute and the Commonwealth's proffered goal of protecting the "optimal" child rearing unit. Moreover, the department readily concedes that people in same-sex couples may be "excellent" parents. These couples (including four of the plaintiff couples) have children for the reasons others do--to love them, to care for them, to nurture them. But the task of child rearing for same-sex couples is made infinitely harder by their status as outliers to the marriage laws. While establishing the parentage of children as soon as possible is crucial to the safety and welfare of children, see Culliton v. Beth Israel Deaconness Med. Ctr., 435 Mass. 285, 292 (2001), same-sex couples must undergo the sometimes lengthy and intrusive process of second-parent adoption to establish their joint parentage. While the enhanced income provided by marital benefits is an important source of security and stability for married couples and their children, those benefits are denied to families headed by same-sex couples. See, e.g., note 6, supra. While the laws of divorce provide clear and reasonably predictable guidelines for child support, child custody, and property division on dissolution of a marriage, same-sex couples who dissolve their relationships find themselves and their children in the highly unpredictable terrain of equity jurisdiction. See E.N.O. v. L.M.M., supra. Given the wide range of public benefits reserved only for married couples, we do not credit the department's contention that the absence of access to civil marriage amounts to little more than an inconvenience to same-sex couples and their children. Excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage will not make children of opposite-sex marriages more secure, but it does prevent children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of "a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized.""

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage will not make children of opposite-sex marriages more secure, but it does prevent children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of "a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized.

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I mean "marriage" as opposed to civil unions (or whatever you want to call them.) What does MA neutered "marriage" do that Vermont Civil Unions do not accomplish, with regard to children?

Read earlier in the decision where the court says that the "sina qua non" of marriage is love rather than children.

as if the state could adjudicate or enforce "love" [LOL]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So...you are arguing that people marry primarily for children, and not for love?
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete once again completely distorts what the goodridge decision says.

Here, Pete, let me help you out by quoting directly from goodridge.

" it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of civil marriage"

In fact, its one of the two criteria pete claims is the definition of marriage that the goodridge decision says is the sina qua non of marriage.

Too bad Pete really has no ability to read that decision objectively.

Just in case Pete is confused, the only two places the court uses the phrase "sina qua non" they are talking about exclusive lifelong commitment.

Not love.

[ August 24, 2006, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah, love. Hitched to a lifelong commitment, and made willing to suffer the outrageous slings and aroows of oneself and one's significant other, it can -- with a little bit of bloomin' luck -- become a life shared and a promise to look each other up, if possible, if there's a beyond.

It is, ironically, (given the secular/religious polarity of the SSM debate) for sacred, spiritual, metaphysical reasons that the word marriage is so preferred to civil union, although mere legal protection of said cherished union would probably suffice as a compromise.

Just as ancestor worship is the oldest religion, spouse devotion is the oldest yearning for afterlife. (I think the yearning for being sealed in a hereafter to one's offspring doesn't occur until they've moved out of the house for several years;) ).

[ August 24, 2006, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by canadian:
So...you are arguing that people marry primarily for children, and not for love?

Looks like I forgot to start this thread (as I start all other ss'm' threads) by specifying that I'm talking about why the state recognizes marriage. Not why individuals marry. SSM is an argument about state policy. Not romance. Our courts and state offices do not administrate faerie tales.

quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
Here, Pete, let me help you out by quoting directly from goodridge.

" it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of civil marriage"

Funny. Weren't you, DonalD, and Kenmeer just attacking the "for Life" aspect of my formula? And yet you now say that Goodridge posits 'lifelong commitment' as the "sina qua non." According to what you've said on this thread and others, Goodridge is basing marriage on something that no longer exists since the event of fault-free divorce. IIRC fault-free divorce exists in MA, correct? Pensylvania doesn't have it, but MA does. Neh?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" Weren't you, DonalD, and Kenmeer just attacking the "for Life" aspect of my formula?"

I am not Marshall, Pete. We are allowed to have different arguments. One of my arguments is that culturally, marriage has not always been for life. I have not argued that legal marriage in the united states has always been a life long commitment. I have also not argued that it shouldn't be a life long commitment, either culturally or legally.

"According to what you've said on this thread and others, Goodridge is basing marriage on something that no longer exists since the event of fault-free divorce."

Nope. Legal marriage in the US has always been for life, I don't dispute that. It still is. The goodridge decision says this is the sina qua non of marriage.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Legal marriage in the US has always been for life, I don't dispute that.
Except when I say it is ... [Confused]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*bangs head*
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why would the state care about women and men making a lifelong commitment, if the ultimate interest was not about children they might have, or about children whose lives they might disrupt by breaking up other bonded couples?

"stablity of society" What does that mean exactly, if it's not about raising children within the society?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
*bangs head*

I sympathize. That's how I felt when y'all kept disputing the "for life" part of the definition, after I explained what I meant over and over.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, thats part of what I'm banging my head about.

The "for life" part of the definition has not always been a cultural part of the definition. That is, the expectation when one gets married has been, in certain cultures, that divorce or some equivalent would follow. You would go into marriage expecting it to not last until "Death do us part."

But you kept sticking to the fact that a contract without a term of expiration is "for life," which is a completely different kettle of fish.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Why would the state care about women and men making a lifelong commitment, if the ultimate interest was not about children they might have, or about children whose lives they might disrupt by breaking up other bonded couples?"

Is this the reason the State got into marriage?

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's the only function of state marriage that would explain why every state that recognizes the rule of law and many less developed states as well promotes and perpetuates unions of man and woman for life. (Careful look to see if Ev objects this time).

Some states give money to a woman that gives birth, but this practice is far from universal. I am not aware of any state that helps celebrate when a guy gets laid, or drunk. Generally states don't get involved with our personal lives unless their involvement has some specific social FUNCTION. States that waste resources on useless motions tend to lose the battle against evolution. When you see a common practice in ALL societies advanced beyond a certain level, you'd reasonably presume that there's a function. Well, what is the function that justifies government involvement in such a level? "stabilizing society" says the Goodridge court, whispering sweet nothings in our ear. Well, how precisely does marriage between a man and a woman "stabilize society"?

Obviously, by maximizing the number of children raised by a mother and father.

Does ssm do this?

No.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Well, how precisely does marriage between a man and a woman "stabilize society"?

Obviously, by maximizing the number of children raised by a mother and father"

Obvious to you. Not at all obvious to objective observers. Marriage for life does nothing to maximize the number of children raised by a mother and father, as compared to "marriage until your children leave the home."

Its also not apparent that having children raised by mothers and fathers is any better then having children raised by 2 adult family members.

Of course, marriage also stabilizes society by minimizing competition for sex, creating a stable system of resource flow, and creating units that share resources efficiently. All of these purposes would be served by SSM. And I suggest these stablizing factors are far greater then the stablizing factor of having children raised by a mother and father.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Of course, marriage also stabilizes society by minimizing competition for sex, creating a stable system of resource flow, and creating units that share resources efficiently. All of these purposes would be served by SSM.
Then why in thousands of years, in homophylic societies as well as homophobic societies, has this model never been prevalent?

Some societies have mad a much higher prevalence of homosexual relationships than ours, but they never called them marriage. The greeks thought their homosexual relationships were superior to marriage. But they reserved a specific place for marriage.

quote:
And I suggest these stablizing factors are far greater then the stablizing factor of having children raised by a mother and father.
Do you have anything to back up that speculation? History backs up my observations.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Do you have anything to back up that speculation? History backs up my observations."

No it doesn't. For most history, children were raised by some combination of adult siblings, parents, aunts and uncles, grandparents, and sometimes other relatives or community members. Those societies were stable.

On the other hand, societies without stable resource flow and efficient resource sharing tend to go to war to fix those problems, or suffer violent upheavel that completely transforms or destroys those societies.

"Then why in thousands of years, in homophylic societies as well as homophobic societies, has this model never been prevalent?

Some societies have mad a much higher prevalence of homosexual relationships than ours, but they never called them marriage. The greeks thought their homosexual relationships were superior to marriage. But they reserved a specific place for marriage."

I'm not certain how many societies had any number of people who wanted to pair-bond for life with a member of the same sex, and not the opposite sex. Those would be the only societies we can draw any conclusions from.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"No it doesn't. For most history, children were raised by some combination of adult siblings, parents, aunts and uncles, grandparents, and sometimes other relatives or community members. Those societies were stable."

Because they knew what a father and mother was, and knew what was missing from the kid's life when one was gone. Just as lots of good same-sex parents do today. They realize the kid is MISSING an opposite sex parent, so they go out to find an appropriate godfather or godmother figure.

Neutering marriage would erase that cultural knowledge, and make our descendants too stupid to raise their own kids.

[ August 24, 2006, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Neutering marriage would erase that cultural knowledge, and make our descendants too stupid to raise their own kids."

No it wouldn't.
a) Cultural knowledge, as you put it, generally survives very nicely without official government recognition.
b) Again, there's no evidence that having a mother and a father is any better for a child then having two mothers or two fathers.


In order for your position to be true, cultural knowledge about needing a mother and father would have to be erased by allowing marriage to include two mothers or two fathers... so you need to demonstrate that, AND, children would need to have a mother and a father rather then two mothers or two fathers, which despite many efforts has yet to be demonstrated.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
") Cultural knowledge, as you put it, generally survives very nicely without official government recognition"

Straw man. Like I've said, the problem isn't lack of government recognition, NEWSPEAK AND CULTURAL GENOCIDE. Your plan uses the state to remove any discussion of what marriage currently means from the public sphere. Out of the school, out of the workplace.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You mean, of course, what marriage means to you.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To everyone that's not intimidated by this little mob thing y'all got going to shut up those who stand up for it.

Look at the opinion polls. Look at the elections results. Even if you bore me into submission, Can, your noise does not make you a majority, any more than a book-burning makes a library.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You mean, of course, what marriage means to you - canadian

To everyone that's not intimidated by this little mob thing y'all got going to shut up those who stand up for it. - Pete at Home

Well... dictionaries tend to be fairly conservative in when and how they update meanings, following rather than leading public usage. I've recently quoted a bunch of dictionaries that include same sex relationships in their definition of the word "marriage". It would seem that certainly a large number of people must be using a different meaning than you, Pete. [/substantive section]

[distractogram]Would that mean your attempt to erase people's understanding of the word marriage entails reverse-cultural-genocide? [Wink] [/distractogram]

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The little mob grows larger over time. It bodes to become mainstream majority, at which point, what it decides marriage is what marriage will be. It will be the cultural norm. Mainstream dictionaries a;ready reflect this trend. Soon, mainstream legal opinions will likewise.

[ August 25, 2006, 08:37 AM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1