moimeme Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 here's a definition you might not have come across; it can be found on the Merriam Webster online dictionary I'm guessing there won't even be an apostasy trial. Link to post Share on other sites
Bill Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 Originally posted by Phayze Since you appear to be so fond of dictionaries, here's a definition you might not have come across; it can be found on the Merriam Webster online dictionary. Notice the absence of the word sacred, holy, or any other religious connotation, I would refer you as well to notice the (2) definition. So I believe one might argue that the word you are so adamant in defending has indeed been modified. Main Entry: mar·riage Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij Function: noun Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities 3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross> Note that number one contradicts number two. Why? Because they have to put the term "same-sex" before the term marriage. The term marriage itself has not been modified, but has been preceeded by the words "same-sex". In the dictionary, they try not to place religious backing on words that may offend different religions. How many people here got married in a church? If it wasn't religious, it wouldn't have been consecrated inside the church. Link to post Share on other sites
Bill Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 Originally posted by moimeme To change a word that has sacred meaning is not right Um. And how did this, of the tens of thousands of words in the English language, manage to have a 'sacred meaning'? Plenty of English-speaking people don't believe in a God, and therefore 'sacred' could not possibly apply. Why doesn't 'love' have sacred meaning? What about 'trust'? How's about 'fidelity'? Why aren't you fighting the perpetrators of indignities upon these words? Natural behavior isn't a judgement What of those of us who don't get sick? Apparently, you believe that your behaviour is 'natural' and that of others is 'unnatural'. Please cite scientific research to back up your contention. but to try to change words where there is no concensus, that's wrong. Nope. Not in the least. Nothing immoral about it, and 'wrong' is a word belonging to morality, not to linguistics. Nobody has ever asked me to vote on Oxford's next additions or changes - how about you? I gotta tell you, Bill, that I used to take translation classes. You could spend an entire class arguing the meaning of a paragraph. When it comes to semantics, and how words are nuanced, 'consensus' is the last thing one can logically expect. Marriage is sacred. Oh no it is not. Every abused man or woman, every betrayed spouse, every forgotten birthday, every golf widow, every workaholic's partner, and all their fellows in similar situations will assure you there is nothing 'sacred' about marriage. I would absolutely love it if everybody who is so loudly proclaiming the 'sanctity' of marriage would spend their time demonstrating their belief in this concept by working very hard to become loving people so that they could honour this 'sanctity' in deed rather than in battles over semantics. I will not enter a religious debate. Natural, as man and woman reproducing. Homosexuality is unnatural. Do I believe homosexuality is wrong? Yes. Do I believe that they have a right to do whatever they want as consenting adults so long as it doesn't involve me? Yes. If you're gay, good for you, if you're not, good for you. Marriage is sacred. That is why most marriages are performed in a Church. As this will turn into a religious debate, I'm not going to mention or reply to anything religious in this thread anymore. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 Millions of people get married in places other than churches. Just because you're in a barn, it doesn't mean you're a horse. Homosexuality is unnatural Exactly how? It is found in other animals. How more 'natural' can anything be? Did you want to look 'natural' up in the dictionary? Here we go: nat·u·ral ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nchr-l, nchrl) adj. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl. dictionary.com Link to post Share on other sites
Bill Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 Originally posted by moimeme Millions of people get married in places other than churches. Just because you're in a barn, it doesn't mean you're a horse. Homosexuality is unnatural Exactly how? It is found in other animals. How more 'natural' can anything be? Did you want to look 'natural' up in the dictionary? Here we go: dictionary.com Main Entry: un·nat·u·ral Pronunciation: "&n-'na-ch&-r&l, -'nach-r&l Function: adjective 1 : not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events 2 a : not being in accordance with normal human feelings or behavior : PERVERSE b : lacking ease and naturalness : CONTRIVED <her manner was forced and unnatural> c : inconsistent with what is reasonable or expected <an unnatural alliance> synonym see IRREGULAR - un·nat·u·ral·ly /-'na-ch&-r&-lE, -'nach-r&-, -'na-ch&r-/ adverb - un·nat·u·ral·ness /-'na-ch&-r&l-n&s, -'nach-r&l-/ noun You should know that prefixes change the meanings of words. English 101 Just because a word 'un' as a prefix, doesn't mean it is exactly contrary to the meaning of the base word. Most of the time, the prefix 'un' can be taken as 'not'. This is why so many people do not know the meaning of the word invaluable. Using the word inconsistant, means not consistant. Using the word invaluable, still means valuable, just more so. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 OK. Let's play some more! Normal: Something normal; the standard: scored close to the normal. The usual or expected state, form, amount, or degree. dictionary.com Let's see. High intelligence is not 'normal'. Nor is altruism. Nor is artistic talent. Nor, in fact, are most of the best qualities in humans. So I guess we better ban them, too, huh? If 'not normal' is one's yardstick for determining what is acceptable and what not, then there's a lot of work to do to cull people so that we're left with the 'normal' ones. Link to post Share on other sites
Bill Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 Originally posted by moimeme OK. Let's play some more! quote: Normal: Something normal; the standard: scored close to the normal. The usual or expected state, form, amount, or degree. dictionary.com Let's see. High intelligence is not 'normal'. Nor is altruism. Nor is artistic talent. Nor, in fact, are most of the best qualities in humans. So I guess we better ban them, too, huh? If 'not normal' is one's yardstick for determining what is acceptable and what not, then there's a lot of work to do to cull people so that we're left with the 'normal' ones. High intelligence is not 'normal'. Yeah, I can see that. Your logic is flawed severely. Link to post Share on other sites
BlockHead Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 Bill I will not enter a religious debate.I think that is the root of the problem. Marriage is a religious rite, but it is also done legally. There are plenty of anti-Christian people who want to attack and destroy the religion because they don’t like it. I think the issue of marriage is one of many soft spots they like to poke at. This could be a form of social engineering by using law to impose social change. This is big government becoming more socialistic. More power to the people? NOT!!! moimeme If you want gay marriage so much, then organize your own religion. I recommend you use a gender-neutral monolith instead of a controversial cross. After all, you wouldn’t want to offend anybody. Money can be raised through the sale of marijuana and heroine. I hope pop religion goes out of style. Link to post Share on other sites
Phayze Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 Originally posted by Bill Note that number one contradicts number two. Why? Because they have to put the term "same-sex" before the term marriage. The term marriage itself has not been modified, but has been preceeded by the words "same-sex". In the dictionary, they try not to place religious backing on words that may offend different religions. How many people here got married in a church? If it wasn't religious, it wouldn't have been consecrated inside the church. When a definition in a dictionary contradicts another definition of the same word it is either an antonym, or is in fact the definition of another word. When you adhere to a dictionary as much as you and base your entire argument on it's definitions you must be knowledgeable as to it's use, however you have proven not to be. As for myself, I did not write that the term marriage had been modified but that the definition had, In the dictionary, religious connotation is indeed attributed to those words which possess it, however a marriage is (as seen in the Merriam Webster definitions) a state or institution because it is not a religious affair but a legal one. The place where people choose to have their wedding ceremonies is in fact a choice, if this were a religious or as you write "sacred" act there would be no validity to a wedding held at City Hall, for instance. The reason why weddings have become a legal/religious ceremony for some, is due to the fact that most religions preach of procreation and therefore wish to associate the parental union with a sacred status. Link to post Share on other sites
Bill Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 Originally posted by Phayze When a definition in a dictionary contradicts another definition of the same word it is either an antonym, or is in fact the definition of another word. No, when a word contradicts another, it IS the antonym of that word AND (not or) has a definition of its own. Originally posted by Phayze As for myself, I did not write that the term marriage had been modified but that the definition had, You lack understanding of definitions and of the English language. Some mistakes are ok, but don't base your whole post on a mistake. Do your research. "Same-sex" is used as an adjective with the word marriage. Originally posted by Blockhead I think that is the root of the problem. Marriage is a religious rite, but it is also done legally. Exactly Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 Since you are, by your own admission, the greater intellect and the superior logician, we poor fools, boobs, and incompetents who can't hope to match your skills clearly have no place in this discussion. Ta ta. Link to post Share on other sites
zarathustra Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 I'm still waiting for one, just one, convincing, rational argument--one not grounded on natural law or that slippery slope-- against Gay civil marriages. Infidelity, abuse, boredom and unhappiness , not Gays, are what really plague straight marriages. Let them marry, they certainly can't screw up the institution more than straights. Link to post Share on other sites
Phayze Posted May 2, 2004 Share Posted May 2, 2004 Originally posted by Bill No, when a word contradicts another, it IS the antonym of that word AND (not or) has a definition of its own. Correct. So how do two definitions of the same word magically turn into antonyms according to you? Originally posted by Bill You lack understanding of definitions and of the English language. Some mistakes are ok, but don't base your whole post on a mistake. Do your research. "Same-sex" is used as an adjective with the word marriage. I am finally getting the picture here, you are not posing a real argument but instead wish to discuss semantics, I would advise you to re-read the topic of this forum and consider looking for one on linguistic elements possibly. Nobody cares if it is an adjective, verb or article; the point is that you argued a lack in definition of marriage which turns out to be present after all, if your pride does not allow you to admit a mistake that is your own problem but seriously either argue the point or don't but stop wasting our time. Link to post Share on other sites
Kat Posted May 2, 2004 Share Posted May 2, 2004 Originally posted by zarathustra Infidelity, abuse, boredom and unhappiness , not Gays, are what really plague straight marriages. Let them marry, they certainly can't screw up the institution more than straights. haha nicely said. So many people say that gay marriages make a mockary of the meaning and purpose of marriage. I think it is just the opposite. Gay people want to get married becauser it means something. I don't mean to generalise, but most gay people are quite happy to bed hop and not get married. It is only when they truely want to settle down that they go looking for ways to make their bond perminate. Marriage is not about 'making a family', if it was you wouldn't have kids born out of wedlock and infertile people wouldn't be getting married. If someone told you that you couldn't marry someone you loved and wanted to make a bond with for life (who wanted to as well) how would you feel? Link to post Share on other sites
Bill Posted May 2, 2004 Share Posted May 2, 2004 Originally posted by moimeme Since you are, by your own admission, the greater intellect and the superior logician, we poor fools, boobs, and incompetents who can't hope to match your skills clearly have no place in this discussion. Ta ta. I went too far in my quest to state my view. We both are entitled to our opinions. Good luck with yours. Link to post Share on other sites
BlockHead Posted May 2, 2004 Share Posted May 2, 2004 Kat If someone told you that you couldn't marry someone you loved and wanted to make a bond with for life (who wanted to as well) how would you feel?Marriage doesn’t equal love. The idea of marriage being about love is a relatively new concept. Kat Marriage is not about 'making a family', if it was you wouldn't have kids born out of wedlock and infertile people wouldn't be getting married.They don’t call it a honeymoon for nothing. It is a sufficiently long break to ensure that the bride gets pregnant with her husband’s child. I thought kids born out of wedlock were the socialist ideal. The great and glorious government would become the father figure for the bastard sons and daughters. Maybe not today, but I think scientists will be eventually solve the problem of infertility. Let’s take this issue into context. Christian churches are under attack by people who are blatantly anti-Christian. They are silencing church bells, driving Christians out of politics, etc. These people want to exorcise all references and traces of religion in our culture and government. The church is also under a lot heat because of the pedophile priests. Whether you agree or disagree with his politics, you shouldn’t mock George Bush’s faith. Link to post Share on other sites
wideawake Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 Originally posted by zarathustra I'm still waiting for one, just one, convincing, rational argument--one not grounded on natural law or that slippery slope-- against Gay civil marriages. Word. And as far as religion, can we just take it out of the discussion...Please? Nobody is stating that they think religions should open their doors to gay marriage. They are private institutions and can do as they please. We just want the state governments to recognize gay marriage and equate the same rights to those unions as they do to hetro marriages...k? It's about the legal view of ownership and distribution of private property. Same damn things we fight for in the revolutionary war. Jeez.... If gays want to set up their own church after the fact, kudos to them, I could care less. I just want all Americans to have the same rights (or Canadians for my brothers and sisters in arms!) Oh, and Bill... In regard to your inquiry to my sexual preference...send me some pics if you want and I'll let you know if you've got what it takes. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 I'm guessing the sorts of folks who actually believe that Osama's terrorist acts are properly dealt with by invading Iraq are the sorts of folks who equate gay folks who want to be married with a non-existent anti-Christian movement And I guess the people who sponsor violence on TV are the same people who run golf courses, right? Those who think there are too many feminists must be bowling champs. My point, BH, in case it isn't crystal clear is that there is NO 'anti-Christian movement' and gays wanting to be married is an issue on its own without any sort of conspiracy-type business beneath it. You are creating a straw man and then making completely illogical correlations to it. There is NO agenda other than that they want to marry. Link to post Share on other sites
BlockHead Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 wideawake We just want the state governments to recognize gay marriage and equate the same rights to those unions as they do to hetro marriages...k?I wouldn’t have a problem if they called it civil union. By calling it a civil union, they avoid all of the religious connotations that come with the term “gay marriage.” Give civil unions the same legal status as marriage, and everybody will be happy. wideawake If gays want to set up their own church after the fact, kudos to them, I could care less. I just want all Americans to have the same rights (or Canadians for my brothers and sisters in arms!)Wake up and smell the java. Some Americans are more equal than others. http:// http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Introductionmoimeme I'm guessing the sorts of folks who actually believe that Osama's terrorist acts are properly dealt with by invading Iraq are the sorts of folks who equate gay folks who want to be married with a non-existent anti-Christian movement Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). “This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself.” moimeme And I guess the people who sponsor violence on TV are the same people who run golf courses, right? Those who think there are too many feminists must be bowling champs.Red herring. “This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand.” moimeme My point, BH, in case it isn't crystal clear is that there is NO 'anti-Christian movement' and gays wanting to be married is an issue on its own without any sort of conspiracy-type business beneath it. You are creating a straw man and then making completely illogical correlations to it. There is NO agenda other than that they want to marry.And which country are you from? I’m talking about the US, not Canada. There is only a spark of religious fervor left in Canada. I wanted to add some context to the discussion. For example, some people think the church is against science and innovation, and they can cite Galileo. I’m sure the church would have accepted his ideas in a quieter time, but he chose to openly challenge the church while they were being challenged by Protestants. If you want to run on a battlefield, don’t cry foul if you get shot. I believe there is a culture war, and gay marriage is one of those fronts. There is also a war between civilization and fanaticism. If you didn’t notice, gay marriage is politicized just like the war in Iraq. Link to post Share on other sites
wideawake Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 Originally posted by BlockHead I wouldn’t have a problem if they called it civil union. By calling it a civil union, they avoid all of the religious connotations that come with the term “gay marriage.” Give civil unions the same legal status as marriage, and everybody will be happy. Dude, you and I are finally on the same page. Give gay couples the same opportunity for legal protection of private property as traditional marriage does now and they can call it whatever they want as far as I'm concerned. Wake up and smell the java. Some Americans are more equal than others. http:// http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Introduction Link doesn't work bro, repost and I'll check it out as I'm curious to what you were getting at. Link to post Share on other sites
Bill Posted May 4, 2004 Share Posted May 4, 2004 Originally posted by wideawake Oh, and Bill... In regard to your inquiry to my sexual preference...send me some pics if you want and I'll let you know if you've got what it takes. Notta, I don't swing that way. Maybe your fight for you and your boyfriend will work out. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts