And yet, it exists. So time to re-examine those foundational axioms there, buddy.
Because they point out your poor grasp of the nature of human language, cultures, and traditions? I can see how that might piss you off.
It’s probably a mercy degree.
Man, this thread has made my day. I’ve learned that:
Blacks and whites should not have been allowed to change the definition of marriage. Interracial marriages are wrong.
My two childless marriages were or were not marriages (I can’t follow Melchoir on that, but my lesbian sister, her legally married wife, and her eight (!) daughters are not a marriage.
If you count cargo cult ‘marriages’ as marriages. I don’t.
No, actually I am more intelligent than most of them. Not all, but most. A lot of people believe that professors are more intelligent than the average lot of humanity. This is false. They are merely in different specialties.
Finally, we’re making progress.
OK, in the context of Melchior, a “marriage” is defined as one man, one woman, for the purpose of reproduction. I’ll keep that in mind if I ever need to discuss marriage with you. In the context of the rest of the English speaking world, the word covers a little bit more ground, so I’ll go with that.
You let me know how that works out for you.
Pompous little ass, isn’t he?
If you knew anything about how professors are chosen you would understand that my claim is modest, actually. It’s not much of an accomplishment at all to be more intelligent than a professor.
I hang out with college professors too. (I’m married to one, after all.) You’re correct that they’re not all geniuses. But for the most part, they’re smarter than you. You seem have to a certain aptitude in a narrow field, but your grasp of broader theory is so woefully lacking that you are not even aware of your incapacity. Dunning-Kruger … .
Just like it excluded mixed race marriage prior to 1960. Why didn’t changing the definition then lead to polygamy, people marrying apes or rocks?
One anti-SSM protestor told me that "marriage is for monogomy and gays can’t be monogomous, so gays can’t get married. Makes as much sense as anything Melchior has said in this thread.
I didn’t realize it was this easy! Let me try one!
White chocolate bothers me. I don’t ‘oppose’ it, but it doesn’t have cocoa powder in it. Even though the FDA and the EU regulate marketing items as being made of ‘white chocolate,’ it’s found in the dictionary, it’s made from cocoa butter, and people recognize it as a food, I say the notion of chocolate excludes ‘white chocolate.’
(aka, I reject your reality and substitute my own)
But he has a COLLEGE DEGREE. Geesh. That obviously makes him smarter than most professors. Hmm…there seems to be a flaw in the logic somewhere.
I must say, I’m diggin’ the phrase-of-the-day arguments. It’s like reading Brickipedia.
Yeah, I can see why you’d despise somebody who gave you a college degree the way a Nigerian “prince” despises the suckers who actually fall for his scam.
“A priori” does not mean “according to my personal conception” or even “according to general consensus” or “according to all history and custom”. The fact that some gay couples have gotten married and are treated as being married by the state and their local communities clearly demonstrates that the notion of marriage doesn’t exclude the possibility of a same sex union A PRIORI. You shouldn’t use big Latin words if you’re ignorant of their meaning.
But I LOVE white chocolate. When chocolate is on sale, I should be allowed to buy it cheaper. Don’t tell me there should be two separate but equal sales on chocolate and white chocolate. And should white chocolate and real chocolate be allowed in the same candy bar? Should people be forced to eat white chocolate. The majority doesn’t think so.
Maybe white chocolate should be illegal.