Poll- Marriage Equality

[Syriusly]

It has been over 50 years since the Supreme Court told Virginia that the Lovings had the Constitutional right to marry each other despite the ban on inter-racial marriages.

It has been a year since the Supreme Court told multiple States that the Obergefells had the Constutional right to marry each other despite the ban on same gender marriages.

The question is- are you in favor of marriage equality in the United States- or against it?

The actual question is whether you favor redefining the meaning of a word or not?

Words are redefined- or more accurately have additional content added quite regularly.

The question is really simple- do you believe in marriage equality or not?

I suppose your correct. It seems that the legal term "illegal alien" that describes a non-citizen who entered the country illegally is now a "racist" code word instead of a legal term. Or maybe the definition is all in a persons mind and they just create their own personal reality. Blue is white, hot is cold, wet is dry, marriage is two men, etc. I'm kind of digging this whole words have no static meaning. It's all fluid and can be redesigned to each individual's liking. For instance, I think you're "smart"......but you do realize the term has been redefined, correct?

Words don't have a static meaning. If you asked for a fag 200 years ago imagine your surprise when it didn't turn out to be a homosexual male. And if you described yourself as 'gay' 100 years ago you would be having a jolly (and likely heterosexual) time.

But if all of that confuses you, I have a solution for you- it is called a dictionary.

The two standards are the Merriam Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary- both have versions online and available to anyone who is confused as to the definitions of words.

Ahhhh, you mean words that fall out of use over time and applied to different things over time? Not a word like marriage that has had the same meaning since pre-history. What you're describing is when a small minority want to redefine an already defined word to meet their own niche standard and impose it on the rest of society. Two different things.

I am suggesting that if you are confused as to the meaning of words, that you use what English language users use to understand the definitions- it is called a dictionary.

The two standards are the Merriam Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary- both have versions online and available to anyone who is confused as to the definitions of words

Now if you just refuse to accept the definitions in the dictionary, then I suggest you are careful before you start asking your neighbors where you can get a faggot of hardwood......

 

[Syriusly]

No such thing as equality in nature.

Marriage licenses were born out of racism, so why would the far left be for them?

marriage same sex or opposite sex does not exist in nature
your are wrong about equality in nature.
Does equality exist in nature? - Quora

Equality and Nature
Posted on September 30, 2010December 8, 2013 by The Big PIcture


Our values are shaped by our relation with other living beings and with the natural world. Equality means a relation between individuals that is not based on the use of force – not dominating another living being, and not being dominated by another being. The values of equality and freedom are intrinsic to each other, and reinforce each other. This is because inherent in the value of freedom is the idea that we must avoid restricting others, and others must avoid restricting us. By using force or dominating another living being we are restricting its freedom. We cannot genuinely have freedom without equality, and we cannot have equality without freedom.
Equality and Nature | The Big Picture

In reality equality and freedom cannot exist together. Equality has to be imposed by force, it doesn't arise naturally, not even among plants where the strong crowd out the weak.

Yet- after Loving v. Virginia mixed race couples had both more equality and more freedom.

 

[Syriusly]

63% believe in marriage equality.

Where is Silhouette?

 

[Skylar]

63% believe in marriage equality.

Where is Silhouette?

Probably connecting strings of red twine on her conspiracy wall between a photo of 'The Gheys' and a logo from Gallup polling.

 

[Syriusly]

63% believe in marriage equality.

Where is Silhouette?

Probably connecting strings of red twine on her conspiracy wall between a photo of 'The Gheys' and a logo from Gallup polling.

LOL......

 

[kwc57]

Words are redefined- or more accurately have additional content added quite regularly.

The question is really simple- do you believe in marriage equality or not?

I suppose your correct. It seems that the legal term "illegal alien" that describes a non-citizen who entered the country illegally is now a "racist" code word instead of a legal term. Or maybe the definition is all in a persons mind and they just create their own personal reality. Blue is white, hot is cold, wet is dry, marriage is two men, etc. I'm kind of digging this whole words have no static meaning. It's all fluid and can be redesigned to each individual's liking. For instance, I think you're "smart"......but you do realize the term has been redefined, correct?

Words don't have a static meaning. If you asked for a fag 200 years ago imagine your surprise when it didn't turn out to be a homosexual male. And if you described yourself as 'gay' 100 years ago you would be having a jolly (and likely heterosexual) time.

But if all of that confuses you, I have a solution for you- it is called a dictionary.

The two standards are the Merriam Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary- both have versions online and available to anyone who is confused as to the definitions of words.

If you asked for a fag 200 years ago you would get a stack of firewood. If you asked for a fag 100 years ago you would get a cigarette.

And if you spoke of marriage 2000 years ago or 1000 years ago or 1 year ago, it would have meant the same thing to people across all societies. A man and a woman. You're talking about the name of inanimate objects, not a social tradition, folkway or more. Very different things. It's kind of like calling your male child your dog instead of your son.

Except for roughly 1/3 of the world that recognizes polygamy. With the Bible citing numerous examples of such.

Same sex or male/female?

 

[daws101]

I suppose your correct. It seems that the legal term "illegal alien" that describes a non-citizen who entered the country illegally is now a "racist" code word instead of a legal term. Or maybe the definition is all in a persons mind and they just create their own personal reality. Blue is white, hot is cold, wet is dry, marriage is two men, etc. I'm kind of digging this whole words have no static meaning. It's all fluid and can be redesigned to each individual's liking. For instance, I think you're "smart"......but you do realize the term has been redefined, correct?

Words don't have a static meaning. If you asked for a fag 200 years ago imagine your surprise when it didn't turn out to be a homosexual male. And if you described yourself as 'gay' 100 years ago you would be having a jolly (and likely heterosexual) time.

But if all of that confuses you, I have a solution for you- it is called a dictionary.

The two standards are the Merriam Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary- both have versions online and available to anyone who is confused as to the definitions of words.

If you asked for a fag 200 years ago you would get a stack of firewood. If you asked for a fag 100 years ago you would get a cigarette.

And if you spoke of marriage 2000 years ago or 1000 years ago or 1 year ago, it would have meant the same thing to people across all societies. A man and a woman. You're talking about the name of inanimate objects, not a social tradition, folkway or more. Very different things. It's kind of like calling your male child your dog instead of your son.

Except for roughly 1/3 of the world that recognizes polygamy. With the Bible citing numerous examples of such.

Same sex or male/female?

Any combination of the above.

 

[Skylar]

I suppose your correct. It seems that the legal term "illegal alien" that describes a non-citizen who entered the country illegally is now a "racist" code word instead of a legal term. Or maybe the definition is all in a persons mind and they just create their own personal reality. Blue is white, hot is cold, wet is dry, marriage is two men, etc. I'm kind of digging this whole words have no static meaning. It's all fluid and can be redesigned to each individual's liking. For instance, I think you're "smart"......but you do realize the term has been redefined, correct?

Words don't have a static meaning. If you asked for a fag 200 years ago imagine your surprise when it didn't turn out to be a homosexual male. And if you described yourself as 'gay' 100 years ago you would be having a jolly (and likely heterosexual) time.

But if all of that confuses you, I have a solution for you- it is called a dictionary.

The two standards are the Merriam Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary- both have versions online and available to anyone who is confused as to the definitions of words.

If you asked for a fag 200 years ago you would get a stack of firewood. If you asked for a fag 100 years ago you would get a cigarette.

And if you spoke of marriage 2000 years ago or 1000 years ago or 1 year ago, it would have meant the same thing to people across all societies. A man and a woman. You're talking about the name of inanimate objects, not a social tradition, folkway or more. Very different things. It's kind of like calling your male child your dog instead of your son.

Except for roughly 1/3 of the world that recognizes polygamy. With the Bible citing numerous examples of such.

Same sex or male/female?

More than 'a man and a woman' as you insisted was the same across all people and all societies.

Clearly that's not the case. Polygamy disproves your nonsense. Plenty of peoples recognize same sex marriage as marriage. You're offering us an obtuse 'No True Scotsman' fallacy where you ignore every time your definition fails. And every people that don't use your definition.

I'll stick with the law and the dictionary, thanks.

 

[Syriusly]

Words don't have a static meaning. If you asked for a fag 200 years ago imagine your surprise when it didn't turn out to be a homosexual male. And if you described yourself as 'gay' 100 years ago you would be having a jolly (and likely heterosexual) time.

But if all of that confuses you, I have a solution for you- it is called a dictionary.

The two standards are the Merriam Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary- both have versions online and available to anyone who is confused as to the definitions of words.

If you asked for a fag 200 years ago you would get a stack of firewood. If you asked for a fag 100 years ago you would get a cigarette.

And if you spoke of marriage 2000 years ago or 1000 years ago or 1 year ago, it would have meant the same thing to people across all societies. A man and a woman. You're talking about the name of inanimate objects, not a social tradition, folkway or more. Very different things. It's kind of like calling your male child your dog instead of your son.

Except for roughly 1/3 of the world that recognizes polygamy. With the Bible citing numerous examples of such.

Same sex or male/female?

More than 'a man and a woman' as you insisted was the same across all people and all societies.

Clearly that's not the case. Polygamy disproves your nonsense. Plenty of peoples recognize same sex marriage as marriage. You're offering us an obtuse 'No True Scotsman' fallacy where you ignore every time your definition fails. And every people that don't use your definition.

I'll stick with the law and the dictionary, thanks.

Ah- the law and the dictionary.......what scoundrels!

 

[DOTR]

you got your ass handed to you and now we're faggots ?
who's the degenerate on this thread again?

Arent "faggots" something you burn?

 

[DOTR]

If D.C. were blown to smithereens today, there would be no protections for "gay marriages", outside of state governments of course...and most states have not favored it.

So it is a creation of the government and not true marriage.

Very true. A self governing people would continue their traditions with marriage. it is enforced from the elite power base of DC.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

No such thing as equality in nature.

Marriage licenses were born out of racism, so why would the far left be for them?

marriage same sex or opposite sex does not exist in nature
your are wrong about equality in nature.
Does equality exist in nature? - Quora

Equality and Nature
Posted on September 30, 2010December 8, 2013 by The Big PIcture


Our values are shaped by our relation with other living beings and with the natural world. Equality means a relation between individuals that is not based on the use of force – not dominating another living being, and not being dominated by another being. The values of equality and freedom are intrinsic to each other, and reinforce each other. This is because inherent in the value of freedom is the idea that we must avoid restricting others, and others must avoid restricting us. By using force or dominating another living being we are restricting its freedom. We cannot genuinely have freedom without equality, and we cannot have equality without freedom.
Equality and Nature | The Big Picture

In reality equality and freedom cannot exist together. Equality has to be imposed by force, it doesn't arise naturally, not even among plants where the strong crowd out the weak.

Yet- after Loving v. Virginia mixed race couples had both more equality and more freedom.

It was a man and a woman. The Loving decision was as much protecting children from bastardy as "loving". Children born to interracial couples had no way of securing inheritance rights. Their parents could not be married by law. Their mother and father could never be a family.

Same sex couples have different motivations because their relationship is perverted and an abomination.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

you got your ass handed to you and now we're faggots ?
who's the degenerate on this thread again?

Arent "faggots" something you burn?

Shhhh. We would never do such a thing even though it was once common.

 

[my2¢]

Government should not even be asked if we can marry someone.

Why is a secular state involved in the marriage business?

I see marriage as a matter of one's religion and government laws should involve civil unions. I think that change in terminology alone would alleviate a lot of grief over the whole matter.

 

[Skylar]

No such thing as equality in nature.

Marriage licenses were born out of racism, so why would the far left be for them?

marriage same sex or opposite sex does not exist in nature
your are wrong about equality in nature.
Does equality exist in nature? - Quora

Equality and Nature
Posted on September 30, 2010December 8, 2013 by The Big PIcture


Our values are shaped by our relation with other living beings and with the natural world. Equality means a relation between individuals that is not based on the use of force – not dominating another living being, and not being dominated by another being. The values of equality and freedom are intrinsic to each other, and reinforce each other. This is because inherent in the value of freedom is the idea that we must avoid restricting others, and others must avoid restricting us. By using force or dominating another living being we are restricting its freedom. We cannot genuinely have freedom without equality, and we cannot have equality without freedom.
Equality and Nature | The Big Picture

In reality equality and freedom cannot exist together. Equality has to be imposed by force, it doesn't arise naturally, not even among plants where the strong crowd out the weak.

Yet- after Loving v. Virginia mixed race couples had both more equality and more freedom.

It was a man and a woman. The Loving decision was as much protecting children from bastardy as "loving". Children born to interracial couples had no way of securing inheritance rights. Their parents could not be married by law. Their mother and father could never be a family.

Same sex couples have different motivations because their relationship is perverted and an abomination.

According to you. Not to them. And that's the rub. Your personal opinion on someone else's marriage is gloriously irrelevant to the legal validity of that marriage.

Your ilk tried to impose your views and abrogate rights. You failed. Get used to it.

 

[Skylar]

Government should not even be asked if we can marry someone.

Why is a secular state involved in the marriage business?

I see marriage as a matter of one's religion and government laws should involve civil unions. I think that change in terminology alone would alleviate a lot of grief over the whole matter.

I see no point in invalidating every marriage certificate and all marriage law just because a minority want to strip gays and lesbians of their right to marry.

Including gays and lesbians in marriage works just as well and is far simpler.

KISS

 

[Syriusly]

No such thing as equality in nature.

Marriage licenses were born out of racism, so why would the far left be for them?

marriage same sex or opposite sex does not exist in nature
your are wrong about equality in nature.
Does equality exist in nature? - Quora

Equality and Nature
Posted on September 30, 2010December 8, 2013 by The Big PIcture


Our values are shaped by our relation with other living beings and with the natural world. Equality means a relation between individuals that is not based on the use of force – not dominating another living being, and not being dominated by another being. The values of equality and freedom are intrinsic to each other, and reinforce each other. This is because inherent in the value of freedom is the idea that we must avoid restricting others, and others must avoid restricting us. By using force or dominating another living being we are restricting its freedom. We cannot genuinely have freedom without equality, and we cannot have equality without freedom.
Equality and Nature | The Big Picture

In reality equality and freedom cannot exist together. Equality has to be imposed by force, it doesn't arise naturally, not even among plants where the strong crowd out the weak.

Yet- after Loving v. Virginia mixed race couples had both more equality and more freedom.

It was a man and a woman. The Loving decision was as much protecting children from bastardy as "loving". Children born to interracial couples had no way of securing inheritance rights. Their parents could not be married by law. Their mother and father could never be a family.

Same sex couples have different motivations because their relationship is perverted and an abomination.

Bigots like you thought that the Loving's marriage was perverted and an abomination.

Luckily the Supreme Court saw through the bigotry.

By the way- everything you said about Loving v. Virginia being about 'bastardy' and inheritance rights you just pulled out of your ass.

 

[Correll]

you got your ass handed to you and now we're faggots ?
who's the degenerate on this thread again?

Arent "faggots" something you burn?

Shhhh. We would never do such a thing even though it was once common.

Agreed. There is a HUGE difference between not wanting to sell someone a cake and burning people alive.


For example in one you do LESS work, and in the other you do a LOT more work.


That's no way to live.