- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
based on what facts?
oh thats right NONE
you are free to have that OPINION but thats all it will ever be
Hey look 2 guys playing dress up and pretending
Gay Marriage isn't real marriage. It's sham pretend marriage. The sexual behavior that happens between those 2 men is filthy and disgusting.
You normally spend a lot of time on your nonsense? The majority of this has no impact on what I said. I don't think anyone really cares about definitive propriety. Webster certainly doesn't.No, with regard to your first sentence, as there are mentally and emotionally intelligent people who are not biased but who recognize the word usage oxymoronic quick-fix error being attempted by political factions that would completely disrespect definitive propriety, definitive propriety that forms the foundation of our use of language to effectively communicate perceptions and concepts existing both today and in the past.
Definitive propriety requires that we honor the meaning of words and not try to purposely corrupt their meaning to make them mean other than what they truly mean.
For example, when differentiating between sex-gender, we do not call adult females "men", we call them "women", because if we corrupted the meaning of "men" to include females then the word "men" would no longer be of value as a descriptive word in both the past and present.
Both men and women have the same human rights, however, they are simply named differently.
In your example, yes, both a cat show and a dog show are a show, just like both men and women are people.
As you go on to say, we still call them shows, .. and each cat show and dog show can create the same contests and prizes and the like with descriptions appropriate to the cat/dog show (best purr, loudest bark, best cat in show, best dog in show, etc.). But, the dog show and the cat show are still kept separate and referenced with separate terms.
So when speaking of cat shows and dog shows they are always called "cat shows" and "dog shows" because the compound term is foundationally descriptive. They simply aren't called "shows" when being publically presented and referenced to avoid understandable confusion.
Likewise, we don't call adult females "men", even though the syllable "men" is found in both the word "men" and the word "women".
The word marriage has always been since its inception just before the agricultural revolution more than 12,000 years ago "between a man and a woman as husband and wife". That's what the word means. And comparatively microscopic numbers of occurrences of erroneous applications of the word throughout history from time to time in no way changes what marriage truly is any more than the similarly rare instance of calling a cat a dog justifies entering that cat in a dog show.
But are the committed romantic relationships of same-sex couples any less a domestic partnership civil union than the committed romantic relationships of opposite-sex couples?
Absolutely not, just like cat shows are every bit as ethically legitimate as dog shows.
OS and SS couples' relationships should both be recognized by government and private enterprise.
However, with respect to definitive propriety, the foundational test of words and their meaning, a test that comes first prior to ever speculating whether discrimination has occurred, an SS-couple's committed romantic domestic partnership civil union is simply not a "marriage" any more than a female adult is a "man".
A female adult is a "woman".
Both "woman" and "man" have the "man" syllable.
And thus I have suggested "homarriage" to be the word used to describe the committed romantic domestic partnership civil union of a SS-couple.
You have suggested "same-sex marriage".
It seems to me that the only task left is indeed to create a new word that has meaning here in this case and create domestic partnership civil union statutes in every state and recognized by the federal government so that on the 1040 form etc. there would be added a separate status box called "homarried" or whatever is decided.
When we respect definitive propriety we progress and become smarter.
When we ignore definitive propriety and thus disrespect it, we regress, and dumb ourselves down.
Your presentation is false, obviously.
Gay Marriage isn't real marriage. It's sham pretend marriage. The sexual behavior that happens between those 2 men is filthy and disgusting.
No it doesn't breakdown. when you stop looking at changing the definition of marriage with tunnel vision and start focusing on the "what if''s" with a little more peripheral vision you can see with greater vision what the results could be in redefining marriage.
Critical Thought, if you are a male, then it is common knowledge that males tend to see things using tunnel vision. That is of course until they are with their wives and this sweet thing walks pasts them that they desire a second look. Then they rely heavily on their peripheral vision because their head is locked in the straight forward position so not to give away to their wife that they are indeed enjoying the view. A little more peripheral vision Critical Thought in the results of redefining marriage. Incest for gays would be a slam dunk! After all at this point the moral compass has been flushed down the toilet!
Thank you for acknowledging there is such a thing as a slippery slope. In redefining marriage to include same sex partners automatically changes culture as we know it. Incestuous relationships are illegal because they can produce deformed children. It could be argued that the law is meaningless to homosexuals who do not have the ability to reproduce. Family Law is currently being re-written because the traditional family is no longer the standard.
Your point is erroneous, and obviously so, as is your statement that it is "arbitrary" that marriage "is between a man and a woman as husband and wife". :roll:"Cat" and "Dog" have inherent differences in meaning. Marriage does not. There's nothing intrinsic to marriage that requires the couple be of opposite sex. Your definition is arbitrary.
I've made it clear to you why mentally and emotionally intelligent society respects definitive propriety.Who cares? Why is the definition so critical to your cause? Why is it so important that we don't define marriage in a different way? Do you actually oppose same-sex marriage or is this literally arguing semantics over rights?
It's strange how homophobes spend so much time thinking about male/male sex. Strange and telling.
By calling the logical reasonable presentation I provided you "nonsense" you reveal your pre-conceived ideology at work that prevents you from accepting the truth of what I present.You normally spend a lot of time on your nonsense? The majority of this has no impact on what I said. I don't think anyone really cares about definitive propriety. Webster certainly doesn't.
It's strange how homophobes spend so much time thinking about male/male sex. Strange and telling.
False, obviously.No, it's historically accurate. Not to mention the fact that your claim is a meaningless tautology "If it isn't between a man and a woman, it's not marriage". Conservatives tend to assert the conclusion rather than argue it, and hope nobody notices. But we did notice.
Hey look 2 guys playing dress up and pretending
Gay Marriage isn't real marriage. It's sham pretend marriage.
The sexual behavior that happens between those 2 men is filthy and disgusting.
Your point is erroneous, and obviously so, as is your statement that it is "arbitrary" that marriage "is between a man and a woman as husband and wife". :roll:
I've made it clear to you why mentally and emotionally intelligent society respects definitive propriety.
It is you and those who want a quick-fix solution to the problem of getting government and private enterprise recognition of same-sex committed romantic domestic partnership civil unions that are making a mountain out of a molehill and disrespecting definitive propriety with your oxymoronic word approach.
So, more appropriately directed, why do you care that SS-couples' relevant relationships not be called "homosexual marriage" or "homarriage"?
That is the proper descriptive term.
Why can't you just conform to definitive propriety like everyone else and stop agitating so much?
If it's because it will take too long to get every state and the IRS to recognize "homarriage" statutes, that's understandable, though not an excuse.
But if you have trouble with the proper definitive descriptive term, "homosexual marriage" or "homarriage", then my question is why does it bother you so?
Who defines what a real marriage is?
Therefore, you think that heterosexual marriages that engage in anal and oral are "sham pretend marriages?"
Let's see just how ridiculous you are.
well you are on your own there i could never support that type of hypocritical, hyperbolic partisan, Its part of the problem with politics today. You are making yourself look just like those you are describing.
you are factually wrong because many support gay rights and are not bible thumpers
Generally, the most vocally opposed to homosexuality are often closet homosexuals.
Generally, the most vocally opposed to homosexuality are often closet homosexuals.
False, obviously.
No matter how much you repeat your obviously false statements, they still remain simply that: false.
1.) sorry im not in the minority of this, you are wrong1.)Well your on your own beause they are in the minority!!! We all know that.
2.) Question are you denying the fact that Republicans have done this
The real question is "Who shouldn't" and my answer would be The Federal Government
Nope I sure don't.
There is a biological, social and economic purpose for heterosexual sex.
Heterosexuality isn't defined by deviant behavior like homosexuality is however. Sodomy is disgusting, filthy behavior regardless of gender.
"Since it's not a between a man and woman, it's not a real marriage".
I love homophobes and their tautologies. And I love how their invalid arguments elude them.
Your objection repeated remains meaningless without an explanation.I have made it quite clear to you in the past that I find the term "homarriage" offensive.
For one, because I don't trust that they are telling the truth here as it is clear they are more compelled to a political power-play agenda than in doing what's right.Why do you continue to use a term that others have told you they find disrespectful and demeaning?
This is both a projection and an attack upon a strawman.Do you have so little courtesy that you will continue to try to belittle people and their relationships to impose your point of view on them?
Now you've crossed the line into ad hominem territory.Is this indicative of your character? Can you find no other designation for legally recognized same sex relationships than "homarriage"?
Your accusation is, obviously, false, and falsely alluding to me as a "homophobe" is an unprovoked ad hominem that disrespects this site."Since it's not a between a man and woman, it's not a real marriage". I love homophobes and their tautologies. And I love how their invalid arguments elude them.
Your accusation is, obviously, false, and falsely alluding to me as a "homophobe" is an unprovoked ad hominem that disrespects this site.
Your objection repeated remains meaningless without an explanation.
Why do you find the term "homarriage" offensive?
Do adult females find the term "woman" offensive or complain about not being rightly with respect to definitive propriety to be able to call themselves a "man"?
The term "homosexual marriage" or "homarriage" is applicable, accurate, and sufficiently descriptive.
There's nothing inherently offensive about the term.
For one, because I don't trust that they are telling the truth here as it is clear they are more compelled to a political power-play agenda than in doing what's right.
For another because "homarriage" is accurate and descriptive and satisfies definitive propriety.
And, of course, lastly, because neither you or them are either my god or my own mind, and I won't be harassed into being silent on a matter that I know is correct.
This is both a projection and an attack upon a strawman.
Your attempt to use the word "marriage" to apply to SS-couples' relevant relationships is discourteous to definitive propriety respecting society in general.
You are attempting to belittle society's ability to solve the problem accurately, attempting to impose your point of view on society.
People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Now you've crossed the line into ad hominem territory.
Thus your statement here deserves no response.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?