Gay Marriage. I am honestly confused

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
You are quite obviously twisting my words for them to mean whatever you wish them to mean, relying upon slang to support your stance, rather than the actual formal definition of the word being discussed. What is 'quite obvious' to you, is unsupported with fact, and unsupported with the formal definition of the word.

You seem to be very confused. I posted the definition, and defined the reasons I was calling nenothtu a bastard. It had nothing to do with you. You were the one who was using it for the other meaning, not I. I was responding to nenothtu directly, and that direct response had nothing to do with anything you had said prior to that, rather I was making a joke...to nenothtu...nothing whatsoever to do with you, or your use of the word bastard or the context in which you used it. Is that clearer now?

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
Your hatred of all things Arab has been clearly expressed, and your ignorance of the english language shown quite clearly, you have an agenda, one which is clearly hatred of me.

Is that a chip on your shoulder by any chance? Please show me where I have expressed hatred for the Arab people. You seem to feel as though any criticism or questioning of your perspective equals hatred. Hatred of Arabs, hatred of God...you seem the venomous one here, no one else. I have no agenda, I just enjoy a good discussion on a point by point basis. And, as the definition in the dictionary demonstrates, the bit that you edited out, that word, Bastard, in the context that you used it, is old-fashioned and derogatory. So, it is not my ignorance that is on show here, but your hypocracy and selectivity of perception, perhaps is.

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
Therefore, as my point has been clearly shown, and expressed in no uncertain terms, I find no further reason to continue a discussion which is redundant. Have a good day.

You do make me laugh though, so yes, a good day has been had.

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
Also, point to add. Once, when I was a young child, I heard the word B i t c h used against someone in a derogatory manner, and I, being young, once repeated the word when I was angry at someone. Well, my father heard me...lol... and in no uncertain terms told me this behavior was unacceptable. (I believe that was a time I got a belt for bad behavior!) He then went further, and wrote down every single American cuss word (or word that is used as a cuss word) and made me look up in the dictionary every single one, and write every single word and its proper definition 100 times... (lol... not easy I tell you!)

He went further than that, and made me use every single formal definition in a sentence speaking against someone in a derogatory manner and proceeded to ask a question; "Now does that really make any sense?" I said no, because of course it does really sound ignorant when used that way...

and that is the story to how I learned to use proper english instead of slang! And believe me when I say it was a lesson I never forgot! That was the only, and last time in my life I used a cuss word out of context.

So, you may accuse me of derogatory language if I say someone is no better than feces, or if I say someones parentage is in question when I am angry (then for me this means the shaytan definitely took part in their conception!) then it is most definitely a derogatory remark. But simply using an english word in context is not. It is all in how it is being used, and I quite clearly used that one as a statement of fact, and not something derogatory against anyone.

Perhaps your Dad should have made sure that the dictionary that he had you read was an up to date one. English is a very fluid language. And to enter into the dictionary, a word has to have appeared in print three times...it's most common usage being the predominate meaning, although archaic usage will still be given a place within the definition. And as the dictionary states, that bit, as I said that you chose to edit out, it is commonly perceived, in that meaning, applied to illegitimate children, to be derogatory. More of that selective perception of yours.

I don't hate you, this is what I do for fun, and that is what I am having. I don't take anything said on here personally, and neither should you.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
Interesting - isn't it? So close and yet so far? This is why I like these kinds of conversations - you begin to see that it comes down to semantics and the architecture of our personal philosophies. Sometimes we can only see the world from where we sit - but we discover later that the world looks pretty much the same to each of us after all

It is interesting...take the Universal Declaration of Human Rights...

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Now you would think that that just about covers everything...but that has been appended by a further 29 articles that detail specific abuses and inequalities that should be covered...

www.un.org...

But, if everyone just adhered to the first article...

reply to post by Biliverdin


you did not post the definition, you posted the slang, which was underneath the actual definition which was the first one listed, and the ONLY one not said to be slang, and the ONLY one I used.

My definition is not archaic, or it would not have been the very first definition listed on your link. (and the only one you chose to ignore.)

Grow up, and learn the english language, and stop falsely accusing me. Again, Have a good day. I am sick of your hatred of myself, and my race.

Now, I would appreciate it if you would post on topic should you continue to post in this thread. This has gone far and away from any topic, and become about me, and what you appear to think about me.

Topic from now on please.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


Get a better dictionary...

World English Dictionary
bastard (ˈbɑːstəd, ˈbæs-)

— n
1. informal , offensive an obnoxious or despicable person
2. informal , jocular often a person, esp a man: lucky bastard
3. informal something extremely difficult or unpleasant: that job is a real bastard
4. old-fashioned , offensive or a person born of unmarried parents; an illegitimate baby, child, or adult
5. something irregular, abnormal, or inferior
6. a hybrid, esp an accidental or inferior one

— adj
7. old-fashioned , offensive or illegitimate by birth
8. irregular, abnormal, or inferior in shape, size, or appearance
9. resembling a specified thing, but not actually being such: a bastard cedar
10. counterfeit; spurious

[C13: from Old French bastart , perhaps from bast in the phrase fils de bast son of the packsaddle (that is, of an unlawful and not the marriage bed), from Medieval Latin bastum packsaddle, of uncertain origin]

'bastardly

— adj

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009

dictionary.reference.com...

You're cracking me up

Hey now!!! Too many of the people I consider to be my friends are fighing on this thread after I read a few pages back! That's not allowed!!!

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by billy197300

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Because everyone else already has equal treatment under marriage law. Gay people are the only group of consenting adults that are disallowed to marry.

But I repeat, marriage is not a public institution, never has been. Was God who defined it, and people who became secular. If you are going to become secular, ie: not believe in God, why simply try to redefine a religious institution simply because you like the institution but not the religion or the God who created it?

Why not say the institution itself is not then something you believe in, since there is no other part of the institution that you do?

In doing so, you are attempting to make religion itself irreligious.

edit on 26-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

Are you saying that you think gay people are trying to change your religion? I am not gay or even hip to what the gay activist agenda is but I honestly don't think they are trying to invade your church and change it into a gay bar. I think they just want to be treated like everyone else. I could be wrong though

Incidentally, I would support such a move. We really should make use of all those wonderful buildings rather than just let them sit there empty all the time as people wake up and leave the church

One day, when I'm wealthy enough, I will buy a church, a nice old one, and open a gay club. Yeah, I'm spiteful like that!

Metropolitan Comunity Church... for Straight, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, all encompassing and treat all people with dignity and respect

reply to post by PurpleChiten


Thank you PC. It is much appreciated for bringing this topic back on topic and attempting to stop a troll from derailing the topic, which is about gay marriage.

Everyone knows that bastard has a negative connotation to it. To pretend that it doesn't is disingenuous.

If you call someones kid a bastard the mother is going to get offended. It implies that the child is less than that of one with a father.

I thought this tread was about gay marriage. Why are we talking about the definition of 'bastard'.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by krossfyter

 

Religions are the ones who defined marriage to begin with.

How can religion define marriage when marriage was here before religion? What you mean is, religion stole the concept of marriage and made up a bunch of rules.

Here's something that will really cook your noodle: ancient records show that gay marriage was totally acceptable in early Christianity.

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual.

Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

anthropologist.livejournal.com...

Very good point!

Here's more about religious texts and homosexuality and how things have been misinterpreted:
www.religioustolerance.org...


I have absolutely zero desire to be with a man in a sexual way at all, that doesn't mean that I condemn those who do. As long as it's two consenting adults who are involved, it has no affect on me. With the divorce rate as high as it is, divorce is the number one threat to marriage, not homosexuals. If you want to preserve the sanctity of marriage, outlaw divorce.

reply to post by trescerveza


It is about gay marriage. Would you care to discuss the topic? I would appreciate someone discussing the actual topic since I am the thread creator.

Thank you! I really just think that there are a great deal of gay people in this world. Married people are afforded rights that gay people can't aquire. Do you think that is fair?

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis

Someplace in this thread you correctly identified me as being somewhat leftier than you are :-) so let's not open that particular can of worms here and now

Everyone is leftier than me - I'm just to the right of Atilla the Hun - so far right I nearly wrap back around to the left. It's not a black mark against you being to the left of me. You're in company with most of the world. I have to make allowances for that with just about everyone!

You obviously support freedom for everyone - you don't discriminate.

Anything else would be illogical to me. How can I demand my own freedom, unless I am demand yours, too? When someone fights for "freedom", does anyone ever say "this is just for me - the other guy can't partake in it."? No, when it's applied, it has to be applied to all, When the sun shines, it shines on all, and when the rain falls, it falls on all. If freedom is to be considered a right, or a force of nature, then it drapes all to the same extent. If I would deny it to anyone else, I would deny it to all, including my self.

In my political and/or philosophical hope chest I might place a little wish that you would view government differently in as much as - this is the world we live in. In order for any of us to achieve the kind of equality we're looking for we have to work within the system we have now. You want that system to change - in a big way. I want changes too - but we don't have the same basic ideas on that. We could be allies otherwise

Working within the system we have now is what will bring the system of tomorrow, What that will be depends entirely on what we do now, which Is why I argue in favor of gay marriage under the same legal umbrella as the rest of us. My personal feelings regarding the propriety of homosexuality do not matter in the least when it comes to application of the law. to deny them any legal recourse is to deny the same to myself. I don't want that in my tomorrow, so I contend for something different in my today in the hopes that tomorrow will be a better place for my kids and grand kids. Their freedom in tomorrow depends on my defense of the freedom of others in today. I don't have to approve on a personal level - because, if my kids and grandkids turn out anything like me, THEY are going to be "different" when tomorrow gets here.

There are all sorts of "different" in this world, but only one law at any given point to apply to all of those differences.

Interesting - isn't it? So close and yet so far? This is why I like these kinds of conversations - you begin to see that it comes down to semantics and the architecture of our personal philosophies. Sometimes we can only see the world from where we sit - but we discover later that the world looks pretty much the same to each of us after all

It looks that way when one tries to see the whole world for what it is. The only difference in perception is the shading of color we put on the same basic vista, and those shadings are a function of the degree of our own color-blindness, not an intrinsic value of the world itself.

Sorry neno - hope you weren't looking forward to a cage match :-)

I'm sure we'll meet again in another thread where dismantling the government is up for discussion - I'll wear my shiniest armor and give you your moneys worth

Until then - it's been a pleasure

You would wear shiny armor - the reflections from it blind me!

reply to post by trescerveza


Actually, in a secular society not run according to any moral standard whatsoever, but rather one based solely on the equality and freedom of all peoples, I cannot see any fairness to the laws which would be biased against any minority group, no matter how deviant their behavior is to the majority of people, so long as they are not hurting another human being in so doing.

In other words, No.

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

The anthropological handbook Notes and Queries (1951) defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners."[

Edmund Leach criticized Gough's definition for being too restrictive in terms of recognized legitimate offspring and suggested that marriage be viewed in terms of the different types of rights it serves to establish. Leach expanded the definition and proposed that "Marriage is a relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons, which provides that a child born to the woman under circumstances not prohibited by the rules of the relationship, is accorded full birth-status rights common to normal members of his society or social stratum

en.wikipedia.org...

this is historically according to anthropologists the definition of marriage. Religion also interprets it as such, also giving rules and regulations governing the institution.

Homosexual couples cannot have children, as same sex couples do not procreate.

They are perfectly capable of procreating, just not without extra assistance.... just like heterosexual couples where one of the people may be sterile. They're also very capable of raising children.
In fact, if you get right down to it, science has made it possible for two womens eggs to be united and implanted in a uterus making sperm no longer needed. Does that mean that lesbians are ok for marriage but gay men aren't? ... if procreation is the only deciding factor, that would have to be the case wouldn't it?

reply to post by PurpleChiten


They are not, however, capable of procreating with their chosen mate, which is the main purpose of pairing off. Therefore, they must go outside of their chosen arena, in order to effectively procreate. And all procreation would be being done, without their mate.

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by OneisOne

 

I would give birth in another country before I would see my children listed as bastards on their birth certificate which is a legal document.

They don't do that anymore.



on an off topic note and having nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality....
.... there's a book you may enjoy reading, it's titled "Bastard out of Carolina" and goes through one woman's struggle of getting that "bastard" title off her birth certificate back in the day when that was the "norm"

Lets call a spade a spade, you think gay people's acts are deviant?

reply to post by trescerveza


Yes.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


Cool. But should their rights be protected? Encouraged?