PLFXpert 0 #76 January 15, 2010 QuoteThat is not the proper way to correct injustice. What is the proper way? What are the pros/cons of that way--other than the pro of designation deference?Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rstanley0312 1 #77 January 15, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote SO co-opting a perfectly good word of ancient origin and well defined meaning to mean something new is really just a matter of convenience rather than necessity. Every one of the rights enjoyed by hetero married couples COULD be enjoyed by gay couples without corrupting the English language, but it would take a little bit more legislative effort. Please describe how something being of ancient origin has any bearing on its being right? As a scientist I'd expect better from you. Galileo got himself in trouble by bucking things with "ancient origin" in favor of reason. I'm talking about the meaning of an existing word. A word is not a right, so your reply is irrelevant. Here we have an existing word with a well defined meaning going back centuries being co-opted and changed by a special interest group. If we arbitrarily allow any group to change the meaning of words to its own liking, then language will become meaningless. It wouldn't have to be changed if bible thumping conservatives insisted on their beliefs having to do with law. I think you're harping on the wrong special interest group, IMO. That is incorrect although I love how you always go to that. Kall is stating a fact that words have meaning and changing the definition of the word is not the way to go about it. I don't think he is saying he doesn't feel homosexuals should have the same rights...... There may be a better way to go about it. It is just simple logic and putting value in language.Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it. Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000 www.fundraiseadventure.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #78 January 15, 2010 QuoteQuoteBlack is a word. White is a word. Citizen is a word, The definition is not wrong, it is what it is and for centuries has described something that is not a black person. Redefining it makes the word less useful, because now we'll have to qualify it in order to specify what kind of "citizen" it is. Fixing injustices doesn't require every dictionary to be rewritten, it just requires a change in the law. I changed a few words around to illustrate my analogy. Contrary to popular belief around here, the USA is not the only English speaking country. US history has some very disagreeable aspects, but that doesn't mean every dictionary should become obsolete on that account.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LyraM45 0 #79 January 15, 2010 QuoteBlack is a word. White is a word. Marriage is a word, The definition is not wrong, it is what it is and for centuries has described something that is not a homosexual relationship. Redefining it makes the word less useful, because now we'll have to qualify it in order to specify what kind of "marriage" it is. Fixing injustices doesn't require every dictionary to be rewritten, it just requires a change in the law. See.... this is where you are both right and wrong. Yes, marriage has been around for centuries and has been used to describe something that is not a homosexual relationship and you are correct in that statement IF YOU ARE USING IT RELIGIOUSLY. In legal standards it describes a union between two people who are now LEGALLY married-- not religiously married. So, in legal standards it still means the same thing. NOTHING has changed or will be changed and the only thing we care about here is how it applies to law (which technically separation of church and state should provide that this should be a non issue when it comes to law). Let the churches do whatever they want with it. They don't have to let gays marry in their church, but as long as it's LEGALLY recognized, then there are no issues I think.Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #80 January 15, 2010 QuoteDisagree - I don't think it works any better than the last one. Then please explain why, as you explained why Bill's didn't work. Black - a minority group being denied a right Homosexual - a minority group being denied a right Citizenship - the right being denied blacks Marriage - the right being denied homosexuals Was it a usurpation of the English language to redefine the word citizen, when blacks got the rights that went along with citizenship? Why not just give them all the rights, but make a new word for them? Leave the word citizenship as it's been for ages, for non blacks?www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #81 January 15, 2010 QuoteQuoteThat is not the proper way to correct injustice. What is the proper way? What are the pros/cons of that way--other than the pro of designation deference? Simple - declare that all formalized unions between partners regardless of gender have the same rights under the law. Leave useful and descriptive dictionary definitions out of it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #82 January 15, 2010 QuoteSimple - declare that all formalized unions between partners regardless of gender have the same rights under the law. Leave useful and descriptive dictionary definitions out of it. Fair enough. How would you re-phrase the title of this thread?Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #83 January 15, 2010 QuoteContrary to popular belief around here, the USA is not the only English speaking country. US history has some very disagreeable aspects, but that doesn't mean every dictionary should become obsolete on that account. Yup, and plenty of English speaking countries already support gay marriage. The word has already been usurped. Those dictionaries are already going down the drain, man. Poor, poor dictionary factories. They're really going to be feeling the squeeze in these upcoming years. Dictionaries are re-written all the freaking TIME. Language was created by man, we certainly have the time and ability to control it.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #84 January 15, 2010 QuoteQuoteBlack is a word. White is a word. Marriage is a word, The definition is not wrong, it is what it is and for centuries has described something that is not a homosexual relationship. Redefining it makes the word less useful, because now we'll have to qualify it in order to specify what kind of "marriage" it is. Fixing injustices doesn't require every dictionary to be rewritten, it just requires a change in the law. See.... this is where you are both right and wrong. Yes, marriage has been around for centuries and has been used to describe something that is not a homosexual relationship and you are correct in that statement IF YOU ARE USING IT RELIGIOUSLY. In legal standards it describes a union between two people who are now LEGALLY married-- not religiously married. So, in legal standards it still means the same thing. NOTHING has changed or will be changed and the only thing we care about here is how it applies to law (which technically separation of church and state should provide that this should be a non issue when it comes to law). Let the churches do whatever they want with it. They don't have to let gays marry in their church, but as long as it's LEGALLY recognized, then there are no issues I think. Changing the established meaning of words to achieve a goal, however worthy, is inappropriate. As you correctly point out, the trouble started when governments got into the marriage business.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #85 January 15, 2010 >That was making new words to accrately describe what existed. Well, no. Even a male fireman is now called a firefighter. The word was effectively retired. >We still call white "white" and black "black" because they are useful >descriptions. Of course. And when blacks and whites were allowed to marry, we redefined the word "marriage" to mean any union between a man and a woman of any race. Now, you might say that "marriage" has ALWAYS meant marriage between a man and a woman; race didn't matter. But that's not what it meant to most people back in the 1950's, and indeed the legal definition of many states specifically excluded any such union between blacks and whites. The Supreme Court officially changed the legal definition of that word (fortunately.) Today we have tens of thousands of legally married same sex couples here in California, and tens of thousands more across the US. By state law, they are married. THAT is the legal definition of that word. You may disagree; in that case, perhaps a campaign to create a new word to define all marriages, gay and straight, might meet with more success. But your kids won't disagree with the definition. To them, marriage will mean a union between two people, and people who say "marriage is between a man and a woman!" will be seen in the same light as the Virginia court that said that if God had meant for blacks and whites to marry, He would have put them on the same continent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LyraM45 0 #86 January 15, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteThat is not the proper way to correct injustice. What is the proper way? What are the pros/cons of that way--other than the pro of designation deference? Simple - declare that all formalized unions between partners regardless of gender have the same rights under the law. Leave useful and descriptive dictionary definitions out of it. Then by this standard you are agreeing that a different word should have been used to describe a black as a citizen since a different word has to be used for gays?Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #87 January 15, 2010 QuoteQuoteContrary to popular belief around here, the USA is not the only English speaking country. US history has some very disagreeable aspects, but that doesn't mean every dictionary should become obsolete on that account. Yup, and plenty of English speaking countries already support gay marriage. The word has already been usurped. Those dictionaries are already going down the drain, man. Poor, poor dictionary factories. They're really going to be feeling the squeeze in these upcoming years. Dictionaries are re-written all the freaking TIME. Language was created by man, we certainly have the time and ability to control it. Do you REALLY want the government in control of the language? Have you read "1984"?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #88 January 15, 2010 QuoteDo you REALLY want the government in control of the language? Have you read "1984"? The government has already been using the word marriage for centuries (as you keep pointing out) and we're not much worse for the wear.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #89 January 15, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThat is not the proper way to correct injustice. What is the proper way? What are the pros/cons of that way--other than the pro of designation deference? Simple - declare that all formalized unions between partners regardless of gender have the same rights under the law. Leave useful and descriptive dictionary definitions out of it. Then by this standard you are agreeing that a different word should have been used to describe a black as a citizen since a different word has to be used for gays? No, I think that is a very poor analogy for reasons already explained. The US is NOT the only English speaking nation, and sad episodes in US history should not usurp the language.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #90 January 15, 2010 QuoteQuoteDo you REALLY want the government in control of the language? Have you read "1984"? The government has already been using the word marriage for centuries (as you keep pointing out) and we're not much worse for the wear. The government USES lots of words. We generally have resisted letting the government redefine words. That is the way to Newspeak.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #91 January 15, 2010 QuoteAs you correctly point out, the trouble started when governments got into the marriage business. So, when exactly did you begin expressing your opinion that the definition and business of marriage should be kept away from the government? Where were you before the current debate? Your issue is apparently unrelated to the current debate, so it should have been tabled long ago.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LyraM45 0 #92 January 15, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteBlack is a word. White is a word. Marriage is a word, The definition is not wrong, it is what it is and for centuries has described something that is not a homosexual relationship. Redefining it makes the word less useful, because now we'll have to qualify it in order to specify what kind of "marriage" it is. Fixing injustices doesn't require every dictionary to be rewritten, it just requires a change in the law. See.... this is where you are both right and wrong. Yes, marriage has been around for centuries and has been used to describe something that is not a homosexual relationship and you are correct in that statement IF YOU ARE USING IT RELIGIOUSLY. In legal standards it describes a union between two people who are now LEGALLY married-- not religiously married. So, in legal standards it still means the same thing. NOTHING has changed or will be changed and the only thing we care about here is how it applies to law (which technically separation of church and state should provide that this should be a non issue when it comes to law). Let the churches do whatever they want with it. They don't have to let gays marry in their church, but as long as it's LEGALLY recognized, then there are no issues I think. Changing the established meaning of words to achieve a goal, however worthy, is inappropriate. As you correctly point out, the trouble started when governments got into the marriage business. Yes, I agree that the government should just get out of the marrying business all together, but unfortunately it's not going to happen and we need to concentrate on improving something that is here to stay. Again, with "established" definition..... You are assuming there is only one established definition, and as I've already said, there is an established legal definition: "a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife," and an established religious definition: "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc." It is a social instituion, established by the church, so let the church keep doing what they're doing and let the legal definition keep doing what they're doing and utilize the same word since it is in fact established to cover both meanings.Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LyraM45 0 #93 January 15, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThat is not the proper way to correct injustice. What is the proper way? What are the pros/cons of that way--other than the pro of designation deference? Simple - declare that all formalized unions between partners regardless of gender have the same rights under the law. Leave useful and descriptive dictionary definitions out of it. Then by this standard you are agreeing that a different word should have been used to describe a black as a citizen since a different word has to be used for gays? No, I think that is a very poor analogy for reasons already explained. The US is NOT the only English speaking nation, and sad episodes in US history should not usurp the language. We'll have to agree to disagree then and stop beating a dead horse because I think it's actually a perfect and great analogy, and is laterally equal in describing exactly what is doing on in this situation with another. I think you'd rather not like the analogy then admit that by your theory you would have to change other words in the past like "citizen." Even if you don't want to take that one example with citizen you can not tell me that there are ZERO cases where in the pass the definition of a word has not been changed in a similar situation dealing with human rights issues.Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #94 January 15, 2010 Quote Citizenship - the right being denied blacks Which article of the Constitution did that? It only speaks to "free persons". Color is not mentioned anywhere.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #95 January 15, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThat is not the proper way to correct injustice. What is the proper way? What are the pros/cons of that way--other than the pro of designation deference? Simple - declare that all formalized unions between partners regardless of gender have the same rights under the law. Leave useful and descriptive dictionary definitions out of it. Then by this standard you are agreeing that a different word should have been used to describe a black as a citizen since a different word has to be used for gays? No, I think that is a very poor analogy for reasons already explained. The US is NOT the only English speaking nation, and sad episodes in US history should not usurp the language. We'll have to agree to disagree then and stop beating a dead horse because I think it's actually a perfect and great analogy, and is laterally equal in describing exactly what is doing on in this situation with another. I think you'd rather not like the analogy then admit that by your theory you would have to change other words in the past like "citizen." Even if you don't want to take that one example with citizen you can not tell me that there are ZERO cases where in the pass the definition of a word has not been changed in a similar situation dealing with human rights issues. It IS a poor analogy because nowhere in the Constitution, original or as amended, was citizenship denied to blacks. So claiming that "citizen" meant not-black is simply incorrect.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LyraM45 0 #96 January 15, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThat is not the proper way to correct injustice. What is the proper way? What are the pros/cons of that way--other than the pro of designation deference? Simple - declare that all formalized unions between partners regardless of gender have the same rights under the law. Leave useful and descriptive dictionary definitions out of it. Then by this standard you are agreeing that a different word should have been used to describe a black as a citizen since a different word has to be used for gays? No, I think that is a very poor analogy for reasons already explained. The US is NOT the only English speaking nation, and sad episodes in US history should not usurp the language. We'll have to agree to disagree then and stop beating a dead horse because I think it's actually a perfect and great analogy, and is laterally equal in describing exactly what is doing on in this situation with another. I think you'd rather not like the analogy then admit that by your theory you would have to change other words in the past like "citizen." Even if you don't want to take that one example with citizen you can not tell me that there are ZERO cases where in the pass the definition of a word has not been changed in a similar situation dealing with human rights issues. It IS a poor analogy because nowhere in the Constitution, original or as amended, was citizenship denied to blacks. So claiming that "citizen" meant not-black is simply incorrect. So then where in the constitution is marriage denied to gays??Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #97 January 15, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThat is not the proper way to correct injustice. What is the proper way? What are the pros/cons of that way--other than the pro of designation deference? Simple - declare that all formalized unions between partners regardless of gender have the same rights under the law. Leave useful and descriptive dictionary definitions out of it. Then by this standard you are agreeing that a different word should have been used to describe a black as a citizen since a different word has to be used for gays? No, I think that is a very poor analogy for reasons already explained. The US is NOT the only English speaking nation, and sad episodes in US history should not usurp the language. We'll have to agree to disagree then and stop beating a dead horse because I think it's actually a perfect and great analogy, and is laterally equal in describing exactly what is doing on in this situation with another. I think you'd rather not like the analogy then admit that by your theory you would have to change other words in the past like "citizen." Even if you don't want to take that one example with citizen you can not tell me that there are ZERO cases where in the pass the definition of a word has not been changed in a similar situation dealing with human rights issues. It IS a poor analogy because nowhere in the Constitution, original or as amended, was citizenship denied to blacks. So claiming that "citizen" meant not-black is simply incorrect. So then where in the constitution is marriage denied to gays?? Ask Matt, it's his analogy, not mine. I've explained why it is an INVALID analogy. Your question, therefore, is moot.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rstanley0312 1 #98 January 15, 2010 The legal definition is a union between a man and a woman so that is the meaning of the word outside of religion. Should the govt. got involved.... no but be that as it may it is still the definition.Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it. Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000 www.fundraiseadventure.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LyraM45 0 #99 January 15, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThat is not the proper way to correct injustice. What is the proper way? What are the pros/cons of that way--other than the pro of designation deference? Simple - declare that all formalized unions between partners regardless of gender have the same rights under the law. Leave useful and descriptive dictionary definitions out of it. Then by this standard you are agreeing that a different word should have been used to describe a black as a citizen since a different word has to be used for gays? No, I think that is a very poor analogy for reasons already explained. The US is NOT the only English speaking nation, and sad episodes in US history should not usurp the language. We'll have to agree to disagree then and stop beating a dead horse because I think it's actually a perfect and great analogy, and is laterally equal in describing exactly what is doing on in this situation with another. I think you'd rather not like the analogy then admit that by your theory you would have to change other words in the past like "citizen." Even if you don't want to take that one example with citizen you can not tell me that there are ZERO cases where in the pass the definition of a word has not been changed in a similar situation dealing with human rights issues. It IS a poor analogy because nowhere in the Constitution, original or as amended, was citizenship denied to blacks. So claiming that "citizen" meant not-black is simply incorrect. So then where in the constitution is marriage denied to gays?? Ask Matt, it's his analogy, not mine. I've explained why it is a poor analogy. This has nothing to do with his analogy and has everything to do with your answer as to WHY it was a bad analogy. You said the reason it was bad was because "nowhere in the Constitution, original or as amended, was citizenship denied to blacks." So, with that reasoning you're saying that gays are denied marriage in the U.S constitution. I'd like you to link me to the section that says gays aren't allowed to marry. I don't think it's in there, which makes your reasoning wrong because BOTH of those things aren't in there, making them EQUAL and useful for an analogy.Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #100 January 15, 2010 The analogy is INVALID for reasons previously descibed. So your question is moot.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
