Bigots are like anyone else in that they like to define categories and identify with some of these categories. What they need is precisely what you indicated here. He also needs to define a group or groups that cannot have access to this category. That’s how he is different and a bigot.
As another example, he does not believe Muslims can be a part of Western Culture and supports the effective ban of any outward sign of their beliefs in what he has esoterically defined as Western Culture.
Oh, Zoe? “Intolerable of change”? I rather like you, so I shan’t be turning you over to the Professional Organization of English Majors. But I can’t speak for the cadre of snotty pedants that haunt the Boards.
Please answer questions 11-13 based on the passage below.
What is the BEST description of Bob and Levi’s relationship at the end of the story?
a. They are brothers.
b. They are married.
c. They are co-workers.
d. They are godless heathens destroying the institution of marriage.
What is the BEST description of the document Bob and Levi receive in paragraph seven?
a. Civil Union certificate
b. Marriage License
c. Driver’s License
d. Deed of Sale
In paragraph two, what is the meaning of the word “marry”?
a. As a man and a woman, join in the eyes of God.
b. As two unmarried adults, agree to a mutually binding, state-licensed relationship.
c. As two foods, taste great together.
d. As a man and a man, pretend to get married like men and women normally do but what is this country coming to?
If you finish the test early, look back over your answers, and then put your head on your desk. You may not speak until your teacher tells you the test is complete.
You may begin.
I thought everyone learned that words changed meaning when they were little kids. I understood it when I got that bad could sometimes mean good. If a grade schooler can grasp that, how can an adult not grok that the definition has already evolved and will keep doing so?
I never said it would.
It will change, i.e. dilute, the term’s meaning. You may think that expanding the definition is good, or neutral, but expanded and dilutes it will be.
I don’t see it as being “stingy”. I see it as being protective. The word, like the word “hero” I wrote about either in this thread or the one over in GD, is special. It represents a foundational cornerstone of civilization.
Why can’t I be both joyful for couples in love and want to protect a term that describes something so important?
I do.
:rolleyes: Are you one of those imbecile teacher I’ve heard about. Are you posting from one of the rubber rooms?
Then you should also be of the mind that words can be important. Symbolic. Tell me, are you in favor of expanding the definition of the word “hero” to mean pretty much: anyone who wears a U.S. military, police, or firefighter’s uniform. And how is it that you can see how the word might be SO important to one group, but that the other group should not try to protect its meaning? Right of wrong, you should be able to understand this, at least. No?
I don’t think pompous applies, but maybe you’re getting confused by some of the sanark I’m throwing back and those pitting me. Miserly, unfortunately doesn’t describe me at all. “Unempathetic”? Because I want committed gay couples to enjoy all the legal benefits and privileges their straight counterparts do? Are you using some new definition of “empathy” that the world isn’t aware of yet? And, of what, specifically, do you find me ignorant of? An answered based on a current-use definition would probably be most helpful. As opposed to one you pull out of your ass, right next to your eyebrow.
Hope that helps.
Wow, you got a Degree in Psychiatry in your Crackerjack Box. No fair! And congratulations on being wrong on all counts, Sigmund!
And how do you feel about that?
Wow. That’s almost like Magellan is der ewige Jude. Magellan, you should add “Please allow me to introduce myself / I’m a man of wealth and taste.” to your sig.
So, I want to extend to gay couples all the legal benefits and privileges their straight counterparts enjoy, and that makes my mephistophelean?
I’ll give your logic and opinion all consideration it deserves.
If someone said that blacks and whites could intermarry and have all the rights of marriage, but it had to be called a “civil union”, would that be okay too?
That you cannot understand that you are arguing the same thing, is a sign of how utterly unable to think clearly about this issue you are.
For a while it seemed as though a “civil union” compromise was the favored option, but public opinion seems to have blown right past that. It even seems as if a “correct” vernacular is settling in, married men are referred to as each other’s “husbands”, for instance.
I think, but cannot prove, that the Republican Party inadvertently contributed to the rapidity of the change. Back when they were pressing for gay marriage legislation as referenduh in order to turn out their knuckle-walking base for the 2004 election, they flooded the airwaves and intertubes with shocking! shocking photos of same sex couples getting married in perfectly ordinary fashion: dressing up, the cake, the usual. That was the problem, they looked so normal, no scales or other reptilian characteristics. “Hey, that looks just like Aunt Martha! Wait a minute, that is Aunt Martha!” Unintended consequences from the team of Loki and Coyote!
As soon as gay people getting married looked no more weird than Fred from Accounting, game over, man, game over!
It was ironic. I was merely a little amused at Rick casting you as the eternal Jew or supreme evil.
More interesting than homosexual marriage is what becomes of the institution of marriage when subjected to such fervent partisan disagreement. It remains to be seen that the bold new neo-marriage can be imbued with the same deep meaning and symbolism that paleo-marriage has traditionally been. I doubt it since human nature does seem to require happiness and levity to be mixed with a good dose of solemnity, severity, and consequence for it to be taken serious, and you guys just don’t seem to be very good with that. And in any case, much of the agitation around the subject of homosexual marriage appears to not actually concern marriage as such, as much as using it as a vehicle for creating a broader acceptance of homosexuality, and when it comes down to it very few homosexuals are all that interested in getting married. We’ve had homosexual church marriage here for some time. Last I saw, having won the day, very few homosexual couples actually chose to walk the isle.
Whatever, my guess is that most likely it’ll go the usual route in such situation of becoming more or less irrelevant, and since marriage does seem to address an important issue for many people, a successor institution will naturally emerge to fulfil the wishes and requirement the broader definition of marriage is not able to for a broad segment of the population. So you’ll end up with a two-class marriage system. Marriage A for everybody, but not much respected. A stricter Marriage B homosexuals need not apply. And back to square one.
Heck, if you want to know (or at least get a sense of) the future of gay marriage in the U.S., I can only suggest looking at the present of gay marriage in Canada.
If it’s any indication, I know very little about it because it hasn’t been enough of a problem for me to take notice of it. As a social phenomenon, I’ll take its utter harmlessness over Stanley Cup victory riots any day.
I don’t think anyone on either side is unaware of this. The point is full legal equality. Worthy human beings support it, ambulatory piles of trash oppose it. It could have been equal access to government jobs or federal oversight of cops who refuse to investigate crimes against gays that became the issue that the war was won or lost on, but it happened to be marriage.
Except it doesn’t, fuckwit. This is shown because you have continually avoided the direct question in GD.
Sigmund was a psychiatrist? Reference fail.
If I actually believed for a second that you “want to extend to gay couples all the legal benefits and privileges their straight counterparts enjoy” instead of disingenuously claiming this for rhetorical purposes, I would say it’s actually pretty horrible that you admit you have no justification to treat gays differently, yet you insist they wear a badge of inferiority by explicitly labeling their separate-but-equal institution not-marriage. At least the admitted Christians are just insane people who think God mandates they treat gays this way. You appear to actually be proud that your only motivation is spite.
Not that it matters, but I like to think of it as the default position. If anyone can offer a reasonable case why someone’s fully array of freedom needs to be curtailed, well, ok. Absent that, no.
And in no wise comparable to gun control issues, your prospects with Russian Roulette being so much more optimistic than marriage.
Nonsense. Back in '52, he would have been out there on the front lines, demanding that justice be served by making the colored water fountains just as nice as the white ones. Then, when he failed to be named the NAACP’s “Man of the Year,” he’d be pointing out, “But the water comes from ONE source. What’s the problem?”
For starters, you’re evidently stupid and cannot understand simple concepts. Granted, there are probably others.
What, how dare you treat gays differently by referring to them as “gays”. How dare you?!!! :rolleyes: