Solution to Gay Marriage issue

[foszoe]

Here would be one example... These can be found by researching any of the other "Churches" too.

Catholic marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, you're clearly being purposefully ignorant or just trying to irritate. Either way, come back when you're actually interested in a discussion.

I am definitely not trying to irritate and am interested in a discussion.

I don't deny that churches have refined a concept that we call marriage, but cross culturally among many different non christian religions, the prevalent view since prehistory is some sort of heterosexual relation capable of reproduction constituted a household. I am not an expert and there may be historical evidence of a society that had a civil or religious ceremony for homosexual relationships.

As such the concept itself predates Churches and was not formed by them under some sort of religious decree.

I believe a word has meaning. Let marriage mean man/woman. Let the gay community come up with a word or phrase of their choosing and let whatever group that wishes to perform a ceremony. Don't make one religious group accept it as valid if they do not wish to do so and get government out of it (my preference). Or apply all civil advantages of the hetero to the homo sexual relationships.

If for generations the sky has determined to be blue in color, its blue, not red.

If marriage has meant man/woman for the longest time, then call the man/man or woman/woman relationship by a different word.

 

[GBuck]

I believe a word has meaning. Let marriage mean man/woman. Let the gay community come up with a word or phrase of their choosing and let whatever group that wishes to perform a ceremony. Don't make one religious group accept it as valid if they do not wish to do so and get government out of it (my preference). Or apply all civil advantages of the hetero to the homo sexual relationships.

If for generations the sky has determined to be blue in color, its blue, not red.

If marriage has meant man/woman for the longest time, then call the man/man or woman/woman relationship by a different word.

Who says any religious group has to accept it? Why should it matter? Does two dudes getting hitched have any bearing on the relationship you have with your wife? A word is a word, and has no more or less power than we give it. If some dude wants to marry another it does not have any ill effects on the relationship that myself and MrsGBuck have, nor does it make me change the way I feel about her. If a simple word is what gives your relationship meaning, perhaps (i'm not saying there is) there is a bigger issue.

Also, the sky is blue in color. That is a fact. That is identifiable.

It is not a fact that a man/woman is not allowed to love another man/woman. That is called an opinion, and it is wrong. It is not wrong because of some science, or anything else. It is wrong because it does not effect you and is none of your business.

 

[foszoe]

Who says any religious group has to accept it?

If a religious group doesn't they are labeled as intolerant. Would you say they are intolerant?

Perhaps no one is saying they don't "have" to accept it, but in many posts, including yours, I see people drag churches into it as if they are the only ones who object and without the involvement of churches this would be a non issue.

Why should it matter? Does two dudes getting hitched have any bearing on the relationship you have with your wife?

No.

A word is a word, and has no more or less power than we give it.

That is precisely my point. I don't like the changing of the definition. When someone says "I am a Roman Catholic" I know what that means.

If someone says I am married, I know its man/woman or at least I used to.
If someone uses (insert choice of word here) I can know it's a homosexual relationship.

The media calls semi-automatic weapons automatic all the time. Should we just change the meaning to suit the new definition or should we push back and say there IS a difference?

If some dude wants to marry another it does not have any ill effects on the relationship that myself and MrsGBuck have, nor does it make me change the way I feel about her. If a simple word is what gives your relationship meaning, perhaps (i'm not saying there is) there is a bigger issue.

Just don't call it marriage, thats my point as simple as I can make it.

Also, the sky is blue in color. That is a fact. That is identifiable.

That is the point I am trying to make above. A word should have a precise identifiable meaning.

It is not a fact that a man/woman is not allowed to love another man/woman. That is called an opinion, and it is wrong. It is not wrong because of some science, or anything else. It is wrong because it does not effect you and is none of your business.

love is not a synonym for marriage, so the right or wrong judgements you make in the rest of the sentence do not apply.

 

[GBuck]

If it has no bearing on you and your relationship(s), and you aren't forced to do it, then why do you have to have a new word?

Are you opposed to women wrestling in college? It used to be able to be said, "I am a wrestler," and you knew I was a man, that's not true anymore. What about doctors? Lawyers? Preachers?

 

[sepe]

If it has no bearing on you and your relationship(s), and you aren't forced to do it, then why do you have to have a new word?

Are you opposed to women wrestling in college? It used to be able to be said, "I am a wrestler," and you knew I was a man, that's not true anymore. What about doctors? Lawyers? Preachers?

Ugh, females in wrestling brings back horribly embarrassing memories. When I was first starting out (probably 4th grade) I got the chance to wrestle the coach's daughter. That experience almost made me take up basket weaving and knitting. In my defense, she was older and had much more experience being the coach's daughter and having 4 brothers heavily involved in the sport. In a rematch today, I'd still probably loose but I wouldn't hang my head about it. I could take her in the boxing ring though.

 

[foszoe]

If it has no bearing on you and your relationship(s), and you aren't forced to do it, then why do you have to have a new word?

It does have a bearing on me. I already said so above. Marriage is a word and words have meanings.

Are you opposed to women wrestling in college? It used to be able to be said, "I am a wrestler," and you knew I was a man, that's not true anymore. What about doctors? Lawyers? Preachers?

How about answering the same question I asked you above in the same line of reasoning before asking me any further questions.

A discussion means you answer my questions also.

 

[GBuck]

It does have a bearing on me. I already said so above. Marriage is a word and words have meanings.



How about answering the same question I asked you above in the same line of reasoning before asking me any further questions.

A discussion means you answer my questions also.

Sorry, It seemed as though your "assault weapons" word change question was rhetorical. You're saying to change that word based on incorrect information and a lack of education. There is no wrong information involved in the gay marriage debate. It's not that it's not an appropriate word because of the definition. It's not an appropriate word because you're uncomfortable with the definition.

 

[foszoe]

Sorry, It seemed as though your "assault weapons" word change question was rhetorical. You're saying to change that word based on incorrect information and a lack of education. There is no wrong information involved in the gay marriage debate. It's not that it's not an appropriate word because of the definition. It's not an appropriate word because you're uncomfortable with the definition.

Ugh the timer timed me out on my response.


Its an inappropriate use of the word marriage because of the definition.

It is not an inappropriate word because I am uncomfortable with the definition.

I am "uncomfortable" with fluidity in any word's definition.

 

[GBuck]

Ugh the timer timed me out on my response.


Its an inappropriate use of the word marriage because of the definition.

It is not an inappropriate word because I am uncomfortable with the definition.

I am "uncomfortable" with fluidity in any word's definition.

Dictionary.com defines marriage as:

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.

It seems that more than one of those definitions, which you hold so dear, would apply here, no?

 

[foszoe]

Dictionary.com defines marriage as:


It seems that more than one of those definitions, which you hold so dear, would apply here, no?

I would agree that a word's definition can be nuanced by context, but if the implication is that marriage has always meant what dictionary.com says, then I would disagree. Do you think the defintion item marked as "gay marriage" has always been there? If not when do you think it was added?

Even in the definition the website includes an adjective to distinguish it from the word marriage, would you agree?

 

[GBuck]

I would agree that a word's definition can be nuanced by context, but if the implication is that marriage has always meant what dictionary.com says, then I would disagree. Do you think the defintion item marked as "gay marriage" has always been there? If not when do you think it was added?

Even in the definition the website includes an adjective to distinguish it from the word marriage, would you agree?

Hey, I'm just going by what you are so staunchly supporting. The DEFINITION of the word. I would agree about the adjective, but you still can't deny that the other definitions grant merit to my argument. when do you think the "between a man and a woman" part was added? I would wager that it was around the time that homosexuality grew in prevalence and the antis wanted to downplay it.

 

[foszoe]

Hey, I'm just going by what you are so staunchly supporting. The DEFINITION of the word. I would agree about the adjective, but you still can't deny that the other definitions grant merit to my argument. when do you think the "between a man and a woman" part was added? I would wager that it was around the time that homosexuality grew in prevalence and the antis wanted to downplay it.

I am not sure that homosexuality has grown in prevalence, are you?

In the 90s at the height of the assault weapons ban, the NRA and thus most gun folks said they were misusing the term assault weapon or assault rifle because those terms applied to fully automatic capable weapons, earlier you alluded to incorrect information and lack of education. Now the Dictionary.com website says:

assault rifle

noun 1. a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.

2. a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.

assault weapon
 
noun any of various automatic and semiautomatic military firearms utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge, designed for individual use. Compare assault rifle.

Does this mean if I now hear gun advocates saying its not so, I should point them to dictionary.com because they are wrong?

 

[GBuck]

I am not sure that homosexuality has grown in prevalence, are you?

In the 90s at the height of the assault weapons ban, the NRA and thus most gun folks said they were misusing the term assault weapon or assault rifle because those terms applied to fully automatic capable weapons, earlier you alluded to incorrect information and lack of education. Now the Dictionary.com website says:

assault rifle

noun 1. a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.

2. a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.

assault weapon
 
noun any of various automatic and semiautomatic military firearms utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge, designed for individual use. Compare assault rifle.

Does this mean if I now hear gun advocates saying its not so, I should point them to dictionary.com because they are wrong?

Negative. IIRC, your point was that they were confusing semi-auto and full-auto. NOt that they were calling them assault rifles. The definition in your post does nothing to remedy or encourage the mix-up.

 

[foszoe]

Negative. IIRC, your point was that they were confusing semi-auto and full-auto. NOt that they were calling them assault rifles. The definition in your post does nothing to remedy or encourage the mix-up.

Ok. Lets say I am refining my point to say that all three are used interchangeably in the media: semi-auto, full-auto, and assault weapons.

Premise 1: In the 90s Gun advocates argued against the definition of a semi-auto only weapon as an assault weapon.

Would you agree or disagree with that statement?

Premise 2: I was a Gun advocate

Would you agree or disagree with that statement?

Conclusion: An assault weapon is not a semi automatic only weapon.

(Regardless of what dictionary.com says)

Same argument with marriage for me except the year might have been 1970 instead of 1995.

 

[GBuck]

Ok. Lets say I am refining my point to say that all three are used interchangeably in the media: semi-auto, full-auto, and assault weapons.

Premise 1: In the 90s Gun advocates argued against the definition of a semi-auto only weapon as an assault weapon.

Would you agree or disagree with that statement?

Premise 2: I was a Gun advocate

Would you agree or disagree with that statement?

Conclusion: An assault weapon is not a semi automatic only weapon.

(Regardless of what dictionary.com says)

Same argument with marriage for me except the year might have been 1970 instead of 1995.

I guess the whole point is that I'm strong minded enough to not care what someone else calls it. Rather, I am able to focus on what it is to me. You're not.

I don't care what someone calls an M4, Ak, M14 or 1022. I really don't.

 

[foszoe]

I guess the whole point is that I'm strong minded enough to not care what someone else calls it. Rather, I am able to focus on what it is to me. You're not.

I don't care what someone calls an M4, Ak, M14 or 1022. I really don't.

I will agree that you don't care what someone else calls X and I do.

You equate being strong minded with not caring, I don't agree.

You believe yourself to be more strong minded than me. Well that is up to you rather than me. I don't know enough to make a judgement call on that.

If you really don't care, then I can't understand why it seems to matter that I do.

 

[GBuck]

I will agree that you don't care what someone else calls X and I do.

You equate being strong minded with not caring, I don't agree.

You believe yourself to be more strong minded than me. Well that is up to you rather than me. I don't know enough to make a judgement call on that.

If you really don't care, then I can't understand why it seems to matter that I do.

It matters that you do, because your point of view hinders others from pursuing what makes them happy. That which makes them happy has no 'real' effect on you. Therefore, considering "all men are created equal....life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," they should be allowed to do what they want and you should not worry about their lives.

 

[foszoe]

It matters that you do, because your point of view hinders others from pursuing what makes them happy. That which makes them happy has no 'real' effect on you. Therefore, considering "all men are created equal....life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," they should be allowed to do what they want and you should not worry about their lives.

I would be interested to know how my point of view is hindering others from pursuing what makes them happy because I certainly don't agree with that assertion.

Perhaps you define your terms differently than I do. I learned a long time ago that to prove an assertion one must first agree on terms, without which there can be no logical discussion. You want to make a conclusion which appears to be based entirely on my refusal to agree with your terms, which on its own should have no affect on "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

 

[GBuck]

I would be interested to know how my point of view is hindering others from pursuing what makes them happy because I certainly don't agree with that assertion.
Because you're telling them they can't do something because you don't agree with it.
Perhaps you define your terms differently than I do. I learned a long time ago that to prove an assertion one must first agree on terms, without which there can be no logical discussion. You want to make a conclusion which appears to be based entirely on my refusal to agree with your terms, which on its own should have no affect on "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

That's because there is no logic to be found in what you're saying.


You're position is that the word marriage should ONLY mean a joining of a man and a woman and that it meaning a man and man or woman and woman has a detrimental effect on you. That, my friend is not logical. If you can show me how it is logical, please do. Saying, "That's how it has always been," is not logic.

 

[foszoe]

That's because there is no logic to be found in what you're saying.


You're position is that the word marriage should ONLY mean a joining of a man and a woman and that it meaning a man and man or woman and woman has a detrimental effect on you. That, my friend is not logical. If you can show me how it is logical, please do. Saying, "That's how it has always been," is not logic.

I disagree with the conjunction. My statements have not said anything about it being detrimental