Solution to Gay Marriage issue

[jghelton]

some day , hmmmm ..... I believe we will all understand , that is all i am going to say at this time

 

[GBuck]

 

[IndyDave1776]

Are you facepalming the post saying that its author isn't going to say anything?

 

[IndyGal65]

Ironically, I remember a day when the word "gay" had another meaning.

I guess definitions can change.

 

[GBuck]

Are you facepalming the post saying that its author isn't going to say anything?

I'm facepalming this entire thread. You, me, everyone else.


The fact that grown adults are:

A) willing to let the government be involved in the first place
B) give a crap wtf other consenting adults do with their lives
C) care more about the lives of others than looking at their own problems
D) are so hung up on A WORD that they would deny someone else an opportunity at equality


is really more troubling than anything.

 

[GBuck]

Ironically, I remember a day when the word "gay" had another meaning.

I guess definitions can change.

No. NO THEY CANNOT. If they do, the world will explode and we will catch the gay. Words and our understanding of them are not fluid.

 

[hornadylnl]

Ironically, I remember a day when the word "gay" had another meaning.

I guess definitions can change.

I had a great uncle that was gay and my grandma (his sister) didn't know til after he died in the 90's. He was in the navy during ww2 and got sent home and all my grandma knew was that it wasn't for a good reason. Her older sister saw the discharge and saw the word homosexual and had to look the word up because she didn't know what it meant. All those years went by and none of the immediate family ever talked about it.

 

[IndyGal65]

No. NO THEY CANNOT. If they do, the world will explode and we will catch the gay. Words and our understanding of them are not fluid.

LOL! Catch the gay...I love it. A friend of mine at work teases me about that. But then again, maybe she's serious.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'm facepalming this entire thread. You, me, everyone else.


The fact that grown adults are:

A) willing to let the government be involved in the first place
B) give a crap wtf other consenting adults do with their lives
C) care more about the lives of others than looking at their own problems
D) are so hung up on A WORD that they would deny someone else an opportunity at equality


is really more troubling than anything.

The only reason I am fixated on defining a word (one in a technical not common usage) is that this is a perfect platform to introduce yet another .gov power grap that brings me great concern. My question is why can we not afford the same terms, call a new arrangement by a name uniquely reflecting that arrangement, and everyone move happily along their way. Although comandeering schoolchildren strikes me like a kick in the shins, or somewhat higher, that is a different issue for a different discussion. In the end, we did not make the centerpiece of the civil rights movement redefining all citizens as white regardless of their actual genetic heritage, so why acquiring the title 'marriage' become the crown jewel in the LGBT movement's fight? One wonders.

 

[IndyGal65]

I had a great uncle that was gay and my grandma (his sister) didn't know til after he died in the 90's. He was in the navy during ww2 and got sent home and all my grandma knew was that it wasn't for a good reason. Her older sister saw the discharge and saw the word homosexual and had to look the word up because she didn't know what it meant. All those years went by and none of the immediate family ever talked about it.

I can't even begin to imagine how folks dealt with that crap back then.

 

[GBuck]

The only reason I am fixated on defining a word (one in a technical not common usage) is that this is a perfect platform to introduce yet another .gov power grap that brings me great concern. My question is why can we not afford the same terms, call a new arrangement by a name uniquesly reflecting that arrangement, and everyone move happily along their way. Although comandeering schoolchildren strikes me like a kick in the shins, or somewhat higher, that is a different issue for a different discussion. In the end, we did not make the centerpiece of the civil rights movement redefining all citizens as white regardless of their actual genetic heritage, so why acquiring the title 'marriage' become the crown jewel in the LGBT movement's fight? One wonders.

NO, we didn't. We made it so they were recognized as MEN. Not white or black or purple. THAT is the exact point. Thank you, maybe you could delve deeper into that thought.

 

[IndyDave1776]

NO, we didn't. We made it so they were recognized as MEN. Not white or black or purple. THAT is the exact point. Thank you, maybe you could delve deeper into that thought.

OK, were appear to be getting somewhere. We recognized them as fully enfranchised citizens WITHOUT HAVING TO REDEFINE A DAMNED THING.

 

[GBuck]

OK, were appear to be getting somewhere. We recognized them as fully enfranchised citizens WITHOUT HAVING TO REDEFINE A DAMNED THING.

No, we had to redefine the thoughts of the people, which limited black men to second class citizens. Does that sound familiar? They're not black men, they're men. It's not a "gay marriage" it's a marriage. There is no redefinition.

 

[IndyDave1776]

No, we had to redefine the thoughts of the people, which limited black men to second class citizens. Does that sound familiar? They're not black men, they're men. It's not a "gay marriage" it's a marriage. There is no redefinition.

One of two things is going to happen. We are either going to stop here or keep going back and forth indefinitely. I assume we both have better things to do. We are clearly too far apart on the issue to gain anything as we are going.

 

[GBuck]

One of two things is going to happen. We are either going to stop here or keep going back and forth indefinitely. I assume we both have better things to do. We are clearly too far apart on the issue to gain anything as we are going.

Yes. You are correct. It's not my fault that you can't seem to agree with a dictionary.

mar·riage

   [mar-ij] Show IPA
noun 1. a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.

b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.



2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. Synonyms: matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness; separation.

3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment.

4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.

5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song. Synonyms: blend, merger, unity, oneness; alliance, confederation. Antonyms: separation, division, disunion, schism.

There are multiple definitions right there (even excluding 1. b., which I'm sure you will refute, even though it is included in the definition) which do not need any changing to apply to a homosexual marriage.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Yes. You are correct. It's not my fault that you can't seem to agree with a dictionary.



There are multiple definitions right there (even excluding 1. b., which I'm sure you will refute, even though it is included in the definition) which do not need any changing to apply to a homosexual marriage.

Just because a publisher pulled a new definition out from up his a** contrary to a very long established and accepted definition which incidentally is that still in technical usage in our law, no, I am not going to accept the new flavor just because it has appeared.

Back to the original point, since this isn't going anywhere, enought of this line of thought.

 

[GBuck]

Just because a publisher pulled a new definition out from up his a** contrary to a very long established and accepted definition which incidentally is that still in technical usage in our law, no, I am not going to accept the new flavor just because it has appeared.

Back to the original point, since this isn't going anywhere, enought of this line of thought.

Hahaha.... You did exactly what I said you would do, and then ignored the other points, just like I suspected. You're really making this too easy, now.

 

[Yup!]

Hahaha.... You did exactly what I said you would do, and then ignored the other points, just like I suspected. You're really making this too easy, now.

It's the same thing you have done! If you don't agree often you restate your case, and ignore anything contrary. Debating with you isn't a debate at all. So just because someone other than me has walked away, doesn't mean you've won, just so we're clear.

 

[GBuck]

It's the same thing you have done! If you don't agree often you restate your case, and ignore anything contrary. Debating with you isn't a debate at all. So just because someone other than me has walked away, doesn't mean you've won, just so we're clear.

If there were something new brought to the table I'd love to debate it. Did he not do exactly what I said he would do? Did he not?

ETA: I haven't once ignored something he has said in regards to this "issue", I have addressed them with my POV and things to back them up, LIKE A DICTIONARY. Just because I don't answer YOUR question that has nothing to do with the debate at hand does not mean I'm ignoring what he is saying.

It is impossible to debate on this issue for the simple fact that BOTH sides will just continue to say the same stuff. There is nothing new to bring to the table. History will ultimately be the judge of who is right, not you my friend.

 

[Yup!]

If there were something new brought to the table I'd love to debate it. Did he not do exactly what I said he would do? Did he not?

It is impossible to debate on this issue for the simple fact that BOTH sides will just continue to say the same stuff. There is nothing new to bring to the table. History will ultimately be the judge of who is right, not you my friend.

No, everytime something new was brought up, you dismissed it as "apples and oranges" of foolish, or something similar. You refuse to see the other side of the argument, and do nothing but continue to restate your case. Had you taken anything that was said on the opposing view, read it, tried to understand it, ask clarifying questions for understanding, then offered a rebuttal, this could have been a good debate.