heterodoxical
Active Member
The change in the word happened over a decade ago (before 2001, when the first country legalized gay marriage). It doesn't matter that you don't like it, or don't feel it is linguistically valid, as the change has already occurred.
Sure I do. You would like that. I tell you what, you offered an A, B, then C argument. But you limited it to the gay couples, red herring of your conversation. So I applied the same position on that slippery slope you establish, and put the same reasoning you used, but in a less "liked" arena of relationships.
Isn't it funny, that what was acceptable for GLBT.... you are disgusted of with Nambla? If the principle is good for one, it's good for another. Since you don't like, the, (keyword here), CONSEQUENCES of the slippery slope you set in motion. Perhaps it's not a good idea.
Since you stuck to it, and presented it as good for glbt.... then it must be approved of for NAMBLA as they would be one of the groups to make a claim for it as well.
Did you ever have a logic class? Consequence is a very valid argument. As is slipper slope, etc...
I like how when the logic destroys your position, you resort to personal accusations.
WHEN you set the Precedent the glbt community can change the meaning of the word marriage, you put the term in conflict and any group can make the same case. Of course it would depend on their arguments, etc... but as you put it, "no one likes them anyway, so the little support would keep it out, is totally irrelevant and emotional. We can't bind YOUR thoughts as a reason to deny their claim on the precedent you would set.
I feel like I'm hitting a 3rd grader here.
Do you know what the word logical fallacy means? Which logical fallacy did I violate? Explain how it was a violation. Show me the part that was the violation. Or did you just mean, I don't like that argument, so I'm going to throw it back at you.
You should read about slippery slope and how unforseen consequences are opened up and legalized based on one court decision. They have a given right to challenge for your new law and have it applied to them. They argue it and move to change consent laws, etc.. It would be all one movement. You are counting on emotions of the country denying them, but that has little to do with legal issues in court. At best you could hope it would take a while for them to break through and your children would be adults and free of that threat.
Also, sociological, and anthropological comments in recent years on slowing down marriages and births, they suggest people stay single longer with no offspring to not be held back.
Also that since the world is overpopulated this is a natural progression that marriages are older, and children's births have slown down.
But who cares about those two things, I merely wanted to show you there are counter aruments, even if you ignore all the main stuff above.
"If all else fails, LIE?" Or did you really not read all the rest of what I put with the argument? And you have to admit you are ignoring all etymological history, and linguistic science. So, yeah..... bcoughscough.. I'm making a petulant argument. rofl. I'm on record as not caring what word they use at this point, and have jumped the "RIGHT" for causing the dilemma in the first place, so OBVIOUSLY I'm ignoring the issue and running on emotions of what I want. That comment of yours is ludicrous to anyone that has read the exchange.
Really, you offered a wiki article riddled with "NEEDS CITATION" in it, and posted the comments as if they were your arguments, and they dealt with homosexual relationships, more than the etymological history of the word Marriage. If you want to stand proud on plagiarism, and unsourced claims as your backing to support your comments, then I should refrain from talking until you realize that is bunk.
You made arguments that there were same sex couple relationships, NOT that they were considered what we'd make as a married couple with equal rights. I can see a potential conclusion of that assertion, but you have no sources from your source to show that even what they wrote, (which is obviously a one sided article)((but I don't care, still worth investigating)) is actually correct.
No one has argued there were not same sex couples. The topic at that point was on the etymological defintion of marriage. Your "wiki paper with no citations" resource, proved there were homosexual couples, not that they were marriages.
The "major changes" are fictional, not supported by any science or research in peer reviewed print. I've spent months searching for it. I couldn't find any. You looked in a wiki article.
You didn't not show ONE instance of a culture that had homosexual marriages except from a documented perfert, Nero. (AGAIN, I'm not calling homosexual's perverts, at least not anymore than heteros have perverts.)
1) do the words, etymological and linguistic science have no meaning to you?
2) if I have no reason, you never answered the call half the women men and the problem is fixed. NOR that with your "consistency" and position, to apply it to colors you could call red green. Do it for the colorblind, they are victims. blah blah blah. You denied to respond to the parts of that chat where you mentioned confusion is bad, above, and the examples you set precedent for cause much MORE confusion.
This is not an intellectually honest conversation. You ignore any potent point and are creating emotional appeals.
Sorry, Not many ever say I ignore anything, (see length of my respnoses)
I assure you it wasn't, but truly this is the first I've seen of it. The time frame of denmark and connecticut are events in the time frame of this debate. So after the hijacking began, finding people that used the words in this sense, is ummmm, expected, and is a circular argument. Those that want to change the word marriage, have already started using it, so therefore we should hijack the word and change it's 700 yr old meaning.
Seriously, I don't think you listen to what you say. People called Civil Unions, which were legal, a marriage. When two states or countries join together in a common cause, IT TOO is called a marriage. That is one of the NATURALLY DEVELOPED uses of the word.
The serious issue is the legal terminology was civil union per your own words. Thus proving my point is viable. If we legalized marriage between same sexes in the states, and the alphabet community was together and accepted same/equal rights for a legal union, then their problem is gone. And it's still a marriage in the sense of the word of being together, but you avoid the issue with the word marriage and it's done.
You realize GWB suggested this in his second year in office, and the glbt...... community rejected it in their demonstrations. Had they not fought it, the whole issue would be mostly resolved. I know some of the RIGHT who claim my faith would still be making bigotted issues.
Is that a deliberate misrepresentation, or do you not know the history of the fight with the term marriage.
The glbt..... community are exactly the reason the word is changing. The movement started in the states, then europe, etc... Because the far right made so much noise anytime they went for equal rights, their plan shifted. Get ONE, just ONE state to legalize it. And, (I forget the name, but a legal respect where one state approves of other states, driver's licenses, marriage licenses, stuff like that.> Some sorta courtesy.) was the reason they went for legalized marriage. That's where it started. End of story. Go the library and look it up. This was occuring in the mid 90s in a serious sense. As you said, in the mid 2000s you see it occuring in Europe.
Which part of I'm indifferent is elluding you?
The fact they set it up in the netherlands to use the same word is irrelevant to what I said. To say otherwise would be like claiming, since Jim Bob sued a doctor and got a settlement I should to.
If you don't like that one, try this....The Netherlands set it up about 5-8 years after the glbt.... community started the chat on it in the states. We may not have been the first to start that chat, but we were the first to give it loud public attention.
To say after the organized hijacking was occuring someone made it legal by that name, does not defend your claim, "the word was already changing. Any changes that occur AFTER this dilemma went public, do not disprove the word is being hijacked.
It's not a matter of my like or dislike, it's the fact of the word, etymological history, linguistic science.
Let's march for the Color blind TOGETHER, and get to know each other, and change Green to Red so they aren't feeling awkward. K?
Sure I do. You would like that. I tell you what, you offered an A, B, then C argument. But you limited it to the gay couples, red herring of your conversation. So I applied the same position on that slippery slope you establish, and put the same reasoning you used, but in a less "liked" arena of relationships.
Isn't it funny, that what was acceptable for GLBT.... you are disgusted of with Nambla? If the principle is good for one, it's good for another. Since you don't like, the, (keyword here), CONSEQUENCES of the slippery slope you set in motion. Perhaps it's not a good idea.
Since you stuck to it, and presented it as good for glbt.... then it must be approved of for NAMBLA as they would be one of the groups to make a claim for it as well.
Did you ever have a logic class? Consequence is a very valid argument. As is slipper slope, etc...
I like how when the logic destroys your position, you resort to personal accusations.
Not until you refute the comments/arguments made against them. You don't get to self declare victory, sister.
Not much for studying law either. No clue about supreme court cases, appeals etc.. dictionary dot com and look up "PRECEDENT" I think you can get to Black's Law's Definitions there.
WHEN you set the Precedent the glbt community can change the meaning of the word marriage, you put the term in conflict and any group can make the same case. Of course it would depend on their arguments, etc... but as you put it, "no one likes them anyway, so the little support would keep it out, is totally irrelevant and emotional. We can't bind YOUR thoughts as a reason to deny their claim on the precedent you would set.
I feel like I'm hitting a 3rd grader here.
Do you know what the word logical fallacy means? Which logical fallacy did I violate? Explain how it was a violation. Show me the part that was the violation. Or did you just mean, I don't like that argument, so I'm going to throw it back at you.
You should read about slippery slope and how unforseen consequences are opened up and legalized based on one court decision. They have a given right to challenge for your new law and have it applied to them. They argue it and move to change consent laws, etc.. It would be all one movement. You are counting on emotions of the country denying them, but that has little to do with legal issues in court. At best you could hope it would take a while for them to break through and your children would be adults and free of that threat.
Also, sociological, and anthropological comments in recent years on slowing down marriages and births, they suggest people stay single longer with no offspring to not be held back.
Also that since the world is overpopulated this is a natural progression that marriages are older, and children's births have slown down.
But who cares about those two things, I merely wanted to show you there are counter aruments, even if you ignore all the main stuff above.
"If all else fails, LIE?" Or did you really not read all the rest of what I put with the argument? And you have to admit you are ignoring all etymological history, and linguistic science. So, yeah..... bcoughscough.. I'm making a petulant argument. rofl. I'm on record as not caring what word they use at this point, and have jumped the "RIGHT" for causing the dilemma in the first place, so OBVIOUSLY I'm ignoring the issue and running on emotions of what I want.
That comment of yours is ludicrous to anyone that has read the exchange. Really, you offered a wiki article riddled with "NEEDS CITATION" in it, and posted the comments as if they were your arguments, and they dealt with homosexual relationships, more than the etymological history of the word Marriage. If you want to stand proud on plagiarism, and unsourced claims as your backing to support your comments, then I should refrain from talking until you realize that is bunk.
HEY, knock knock knock, hello, MCFLY?
You made arguments that there were same sex couple relationships, NOT that they were considered what we'd make as a married couple with equal rights. I can see a potential conclusion of that assertion, but you have no sources from your source to show that even what they wrote, (which is obviously a one sided article)((but I don't care, still worth investigating)) is actually correct.
No one has argued there were not same sex couples. The topic at that point was on the etymological defintion of marriage. Your "wiki paper with no citations" resource, proved there were homosexual couples, not that they were marriages.
The "major changes" are fictional, not supported by any science or research in peer reviewed print. I've spent months searching for it. I couldn't find any. You looked in a wiki article.
You didn't not show ONE instance of a culture that had homosexual marriages except from a documented perfert, Nero. (AGAIN, I'm not calling homosexual's perverts, at least not anymore than heteros have perverts.)
1) do the words, etymological and linguistic science have no meaning to you?
2) if I have no reason, you never answered the call half the women men and the problem is fixed. NOR that with your "consistency" and position, to apply it to colors you could call red green. Do it for the colorblind, they are victims. blah blah blah. You denied to respond to the parts of that chat where you mentioned confusion is bad, above, and the examples you set precedent for cause much MORE confusion.
This is not an intellectually honest conversation. You ignore any potent point and are creating emotional appeals.
Sorry, Not many ever say I ignore anything, (see length of my respnoses)
I assure you it wasn't, but truly this is the first I've seen of it. The time frame of denmark and connecticut are events in the time frame of this debate. So after the hijacking began, finding people that used the words in this sense, is ummmm, expected, and is a circular argument. Those that want to change the word marriage, have already started using it, so therefore we should hijack the word and change it's 700 yr old meaning.
Seriously, I don't think you listen to what you say. People called Civil Unions, which were legal, a marriage. When two states or countries join together in a common cause, IT TOO is called a marriage. That is one of the NATURALLY DEVELOPED uses of the word.
The serious issue is the legal terminology was civil union per your own words. Thus proving my point is viable. If we legalized marriage between same sexes in the states, and the alphabet community was together and accepted same/equal rights for a legal union, then their problem is gone. And it's still a marriage in the sense of the word of being together, but you avoid the issue with the word marriage and it's done.
You realize GWB suggested this in his second year in office, and the glbt...... community rejected it in their demonstrations. Had they not fought it, the whole issue would be mostly resolved. I know some of the RIGHT who claim my faith would still be making bigotted issues.
Is that a deliberate misrepresentation, or do you not know the history of the fight with the term marriage.
The glbt..... community are exactly the reason the word is changing. The movement started in the states, then europe, etc... Because the far right made so much noise anytime they went for equal rights, their plan shifted. Get ONE, just ONE state to legalize it. And, (I forget the name, but a legal respect where one state approves of other states, driver's licenses, marriage licenses, stuff like that.> Some sorta courtesy.) was the reason they went for legalized marriage. That's where it started. End of story. Go the library and look it up. This was occuring in the mid 90s in a serious sense. As you said, in the mid 2000s you see it occuring in Europe.
Which part of I'm indifferent is elluding you?
The fact they set it up in the netherlands to use the same word is irrelevant to what I said. To say otherwise would be like claiming, since Jim Bob sued a doctor and got a settlement I should to.
If you don't like that one, try this....The Netherlands set it up about 5-8 years after the glbt.... community started the chat on it in the states. We may not have been the first to start that chat, but we were the first to give it loud public attention.
To say after the organized hijacking was occuring someone made it legal by that name, does not defend your claim, "the word was already changing. Any changes that occur AFTER this dilemma went public, do not disprove the word is being hijacked.
It's not a matter of my like or dislike, it's the fact of the word, etymological history, linguistic science.
Let's march for the Color blind TOGETHER, and get to know each other, and change Green to Red so they aren't feeling awkward. K?
Upvote
0
