Why is fighting gay marriage such a big issue for many of you?

Well some of us hoped that some of you had real reasons for why gay marriage is such a big issue to you - besides your prejudices.

I have moved on. I am asking "why you have not moved on?"

Would you care to elucidate?

I never claimed that all changes to the past traditions were good - only the one I listed. So your claim that I believe all future changes would be good is a false claim and part of your lack to understand my comments. I was only pointing out that traditions change over time and you can't handle that.

Or do you believe that an allusion to the words of Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men should be sufficient, for lack of any more substantive argument on your part?

No, I was trying to talk down to your level.

Again, this is hardly tantamount to a reasoned rebuttal.

 

Your spinning head only makes a straight line appear as if it has circled

 

The federal government IS the issuer of all federal tax breaks and entitlements. Every single one of them enacted by legislators intending to extend those benefits to husbands and wives who have joined in marriage.
If DOMAs limitation of federal benefits to husbands and wives falls in the supreme court, I'm going to advocate for my state Texas to create a "federal marriage". Marriage for anyone over 18, not already married, other than a husband and wife who marries under current state law, treated the same as any regular marriage, MINUS any presumption of paternity or presumption of sexual relations. Entered into by both attesting on any federal document that you are so married. As a fan of limited government, I don't believe the government of Texas has any business promoting homosexuality with unconstitutional discrimination.

 

I am doing no such thing.

Perhaps you would have preferred it if I had placed asterisks around it (*religious*), as some people do, to draw attention to a modifier.

No, I certainly do not "own" the word.

But I do know what it means.

Dictionary.com, in definition 1a, defines marriage as "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."

Not at all.

But I find myself utterly nonplussed that you might imagine that the holy book of any established religion endorses same-sex marriage...

 

So you don't acknowledge as fact that non-religious people get married and don't attach any religious significance to marriage, then?

Not impressed. Dictionaries merely report on accepted usage, which is why they are regularly updated. You may not personally accept that non-religious people are married, or that same-sex couples are married, but you're just one person, and you've already lost the battle to retain control of the word as you wish to see it defined.

Behold, Merriam-Webster:

Or better yet, from your own source, Dictionary.com:

Strawman. I asserted no such thing; I merely acknowledge the reality that many people of same-sex orientation are themselves religious. I personally espouse no established or organized religion, and will not be controlled by people who do and are operating under the mistaken notion that their beliefs somehow grant them a superior right to tell me what I should do, think, or believe.

 

I "acknowledge" that it is a mistake for government to be in the marriage business in any way, shape, or form.

(Fortunately, marriage is, at least, not a part of the federal government's purview.)

I really cannot think of a better means of determining a word's meaning than its "accepted usage."

Most English words (with the exception of onomatopoeic words, such as growl, squeak, or honk), are entirely free of any inherent meaning; their meaning is determined by their intent in common usage.

I have no desire to "control" you.

And I certainly do not believe that my beliefs entitle me to "a superior right" as regarding...well, as regarding anything.

But neither do I believe that the secular-progressive beliefs of a minority of Americans should be made the default position, with all traditional beliefs relegated to a position at the margins of society, and with those who embrace traditional beliefs trerated as mere (retrograde) cranks...

 

Ahh, so it's a purely theocratic issue to you... as in... Marriage is before God.

What about the other religions accepting it? For two loving same-sex people to get hitched, does it mean they simply have to convert to another religion to be accespted before God?

Does it mean you think your denomiation has a monopoly on God, or will you admit you're in the denominaction reinforcong your prejudices?

In the mean time, the rest of the democratic nations around you are moving ahead.

What happened? Did you get corn-holed as a teen by a buddy, whereupon you were able to logically conclude you didn't like it, such that you felt a need to turn it into a principal of behavior?

 

Yes, you continue to show that your bigotry stops you from accepting gay marriage but now you want Texas to go against the US Constitution to satisfy your bigotry. When do you go to the threat of secession or armed rebellion?

 

Oh, my, you ignored 1b.

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

 

What do you see against the constitution?

 

Why might you suppose that?

Translation: Those nations dominated by secular-progressive thought (many of which are in Europe) are busily changing the basic definition of marriage...

I find it regrettable that you cannot be a party to a civil discussion.

(Oh, for the record: I could not imagine what you might mean by "a principal of behavior," since "principal" means main. Then, it occurred to me that you must really mean principle...

 

I did not "ignore" it at all.

The entire point of this discussion is whether the basic meaning of the word should be changed (as this new definition suggests).

So I believe what you are doing is known as constructing a circular argument...

 

Sorry, most of us live in the present time and accept new definitions. Old fogeys do have a hard time changing with the times.

 

If an unwillingness to give tacit approval to the corruption of the English language--indeed, to one of our country's most fundamental institutions--is your definition of being an "old fogey," then I would be most pleased to plead guilty to the charge...

 

...while ignoring that the very source you provided considers the application of the term marriage to the union of a same-sex couple to be an accepted usage. Now, I'm not saying accepted by everyone, or even necessarily enjoying broad acceptance. But clearly enjoying enough usage for that to be acknowledged. And that being so, how do you propose to end the acceptance by others of that meaning?

I don't believe you.

Also not credible.

What should be the 'default position'? Your position? Why? Merely because it's "traditional"?

In a diverse society that claims to value freedom, the default position should be the one that allows the most people to experience the most freedom while doing either no harm, or more realistically, doing the least harm to the fewest number of people. I'm by no means saying that's an easy balance to strike.

My position is that religious people and non-religious people alike should be free to marry, and I do not see how requiring people to be of opposite-sexes in order to marry preserves nor provides for anyone's experience of such a balance of freedom.

Hyperbole. I don't think any but the most extreme are arguing that people who hold traditional beliefs should be marginalized or mistreated. You act as if you're being victimized by people failing to adopt your beliefs.

 

The meaning of the word has already been expanded, which is why there is a "1b" definition provided in your source. At some point the "1b" meaning may merge with the "1a" meaning.

Which is why I have asked how you propose to stop that from happening? You cannot control how other people view marriage, and thus you will not be able to stop them from using the term marriage to describe opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples alike if they indeed regard both situations as marriage.

 

Okay, you are an old fogey.

 

Very well.

As I have stated previously, it is really not my hope to convert you to my way of thinking--that, I believe, would be altogether impossible--so I would suggest that we move along now.

You have gotten in your epithet...

 

You misjudge me. Quite badly, I fear.

I am really not so naive as to suppose that I might be able to "stop" the corruption of the English language, in service to some political-philosophy ideal.

But I am not required to accept this new usage, as if it were perfectly normal...

 

Indeed, no on can force you to accept reality. As for "perfectly normal", no one is arguing that it represents any sort of statistical norm, and this has nothing to do with determining meaning.

 

Your use of the noun, "reality," certainly suggests that you consider this recent transmutation of a fundamental institution a fait accompli...

How, exactly, might the adjective, "statistical," figure into this matter?

I am simply asserting that I find nothing at all "normal" about society's making of a word's definition infinitely flexible, based upon the political-philosophy passions of the moment...

 

You obviosuly have read no history, for if you had you'd know that the modern definition of marriage didn't come along until the middle ages, in particular around the Feudal part of the Middle Ages.

Prior to that, and I am talking about a period after the Roman Empire collapsing but before the rise of the Feudal age, polligamy and secret buggery were normal insolong as never discussed on order to not offend civil order by upsetting the shanks with the emotional spit cores of the salamanders, they being the ones figuring if there's no God, it gave them entitlement to be violent and killfull, for if they do not have a God guaranteing survival after death, what reason do they have to not go on wild neanderthal rages of lustfull killing?

How many of you figure the only reason to be nice is from threat of hell from your church?

What would you do with someone actually nice? Would he be treated out of place?

 

I don't consider it a "transmutation". I see it as an acknowledgment that same-sex couples form economic and social unions just as opposite-sex couples do. If you take off the religion-colored lenses, that's what marriage is - an economic and social union.

A fait accompli? Do you deny that people use the term marriage in reference to same-sex unions? Or are you that deep in your own echo chamber that you never encounter anyone who does?

As distinct from using 'normal' as a proxy for 'moral'.

Again, hyperbole, here coupled with a strawman. I haven't suggested that words are infinitely flexible. The expansion of meaning is generally tied in some way to a word's prior meaning, even in ironic expressions. So no, I don't think it's likely that we're going to spontaneously start using "eel" to mean "cottage cheese".

That point of contention out of the way, I do indeed find it normal (as in usual, typical) that people will adapt the meanings of words "based upon the political-philosophy passions of the moment". It's practically a staple of political rhetoric.

 

Hmm..., could it be because the Torah, Quran, and Christian Bibles all condemn the same sex marriage. Muslims are so strict about homosexuality that they consider it an offense deserving of the death penalty. Oh, I forgot in some tribal regions of the M.E. they've been known to castrate homosexuals rather than execution, then they use them as slaves.

 

How, exactly, might I "deny" the obvious?

But the fact that many now use the term in a sense that was never originally intended does not mean that I must acquiesce to that usage. (For instance, many people nowadays use the word, "aggravate," to mean annoy, when it really should mean exacerbate--and that, exclusively...)

I really am quite unsure as to what you might mean here.

I used "normal to mean normal--not to mean something else entirely...

Perhaps "infinitely" is a bit too strong of a modifier.

You believe, apparently, that words are enormously flexible...

Just as Stalin wanted science to act in service to the state, you appear to prefer that linguistics should serve a political-philosophy function...