AE14
Board Sponsor
I guess I am to assume you met all of the athiests ever enlisted or at least a good percentage
Gay Curriculum Proposal Riles Elementary School Parents
- Thread starter B5150
- Start date
I guess I am to assume you met all of the athiests ever enlisted or at least a good percentage
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
You negate my thoughts on marriage, so basically i am saying why I stand up for what I think... it is on principle, and people step all over it because they just feel like (I want your religious sacrament without the religion, etc.).. I see the same coming from yourself when I stated Public School are useless... you were all fine and well till someone kicked your cage.
Adams
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
I guess I am to assume you met all of the athiests ever enlisted or at least a good percentage
And I am to assume your second hand experience of guys who knew guys in the military constitutes a better percentage than my first hand experience? :sleeping:
AE14
Board Sponsor
I understand your point, but your closed minded belief about marriage is mind boggling.
In terms of the public schools, I have heard the argument you used before, which (no offense intended) is one that the uninformed use frequently. Never intended myself to get "jumpy"
AE14
Board Sponsor
that cracks me up.
Ok D, you are right, all atheists prayed when there was a fire fight.
Is your ego under control now?
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
that cracks me up.
Ok D, you are right, all atheists prayed when there was a fire fight.
Is your ego under control now?
Never was overblown. My statements were still valid. Because my experience isn't 100% of the population does not negate the truth that it brings.
Then try to find small inconsistencies when you are wrong.
Adams
EasyEJL
Never enough
I dont think marriage has been bastardized at all, and I am happy you are deciding that for me
In all seriousness, marriage is what it is. The definition you gave above. If someone wants it to be religious, so be it, if not, thats ok to
I am totally irreligious, and both of my marriages were by clerk of the city court, however in my dictionary marriage is defined as between a man and woman. I have no problem with people of any other gender groupings including polygamy having contractually binding arrangements that are recognized by the state and allow for the same benefits as a marriage, but that doesn't make it a marriage. It may be semantics only, but it is why I would have voted for California's constitutional amendment but had to vote against florida's. I was in a rather small minority in florida, but the specific amendment was worded stating that it defined marriage as between a man and a woman, and denied any substantially similar legally binding relationship that involved anyone other than 1 man and 1 woman.
I just want the word to keep its definition. Progressiveness seems to be equal to dilution. If everything is special, then in the end NOTHING is special.
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
I feel the reason why this semantic issue remains so contentious, is the evolution of the social context or marriage itself. To me, it seems rather well-established marriage has lost its religious connotation for a large percentage of the population - irreligious individuals get married, religious individuals get divorced, one can become "married" in Las Vegas in ten minutes - and has taken on a much more emotional context; and so, to be "wed" means to not only have a lasting contractual obligation to somebody, or not only to have a bond under "god", but to have an immaterial emotional bond with somebody. While, in my opinion, it is just a word, possibly the homosexual community feels that its legal couple-benefits are not the only issue that needs recognition; for a large number of them, it is probably having their emotional commitment socially-recognized, as much as it is their contractual commitment legally-recognized. And, undeniably, calling it a civil union, contractual agreement or what have you seems to delegitimize the emotional commitment thereof - seeming to imply it is less permanent, less-emotionally attached than a heterosexual marriage.
AE14
Board Sponsor
I understand where you are coming from. However, to me the term doesnt have any intrinsic meaning outside of what each individual gives to it. For me, it is not right to enforce what I or anyone else might feel about the word on another couple, regardless of their gender.
EasyEJL
Never enough
Sure for you thats fine, its not for me. If you look at the word in dictionaries, or its common use over the last 800 years its meaning has been
And the fact that you or anyone else wants to dilute the meaning of the word by making it more encompassing doesn't change 800 years of history. Can groups feel that history is unfair? Sure, just as I can feel them attempting to change the meaning of a word to suit their personal feelings is more unfair.
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Yes, but historical meanings alter over time to more adequately fit current social circumstances, Easy. The meaning of "family" itself has considerably altered its borders in attendance with the changing dynamic of the socially acceptable person. When dealing with historical terms, we have to avoid the irony of not considering the historical circumstances under which they were created. The established definition of religion came into existence where women were legally owned by men, forced and arranged marriages were commonplace, life expectancy was in the mid-forties and so on. To apply the same standards to modern unions is inadequate, IMO.
EasyEJL
Never enough
When there are already other words that describe the type of contractual arrangement that is being looked for, I don't see the need to broaden the definition of this particular word. And again if part of what is being looked for is the emotional affirmation of their emotional bonds, I don't believe the emotional belief of the majority (as has been evinced by multiple votes in multiple states) is the emotional belief that deserves the short end of the semantic stick 
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
When there are already other words that describe the type of contractual arrangement that is being looked for, I don't see the need to broaden the definition of this particular word. And again if part of what is being looked for is the emotional affirmation of their emotional bonds, I don't believe the emotional belief of the majority (as has been evinced by multiple votes in multiple states) is the emotional belief that deserves the short end of the semantic stick
The definition is not being broadened and shallowed beyond recognition, but being made more inclusive for the constantly changing social dynamic it attends to: a normal and healthy social process; in fact, not allowing the word to change based on the dynamism of society dilutes it far more, insofar as all but ensuring it will one day be regarded as archaic. At times, in order to preserve something, you must beneficially alter it.
In terms of the majority: as the saying goes, "A majority of fools may agree, but that does make them any less fools." The emotions the word "marriage" supposedly accord are the exact same, whether two weiners, or two vaginas are touching; the only difference is social context. I just do not see how anybody is getting the short end of any semantic stick by allowing two people to ruin each other's lives in private.