Heretic;1432898 wrote: Exhibit #4347358740, since it does exist in multiple states.

QuakerOats;1433392 wrote:Maybe certain people think it exists, but it does not. You cannot change the definition of a term, just because you want to. If two people of the same sex want to spend their life together so be it; and there can be a term for that. But you cannot hijack an existing word or term, and change its definition, just because you want to appease a certain group for various reasons. Sorry, it does not work that way.

QuakerOats;1433392 wrote:Maybe certain people think it exists, but it does not. You cannot change the definition of a term, just because you want to. If two people of the same sex want to spend their life together so be it; and there can be a term for that. But you cannot hijack an existing word or term, and change its definition, just because you want to appease a certain group for various reasons. Sorry, it does not work that way.

sherm03;1433432 wrote:You're right. It doesn't work that way. Once a word is defined, it remains with that definition forever. Only...it doesn't. At all.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/05/31/735843/-The-Mad-Logophile-Words-That-Have-Changed-Their-Meaning-Part-1

We constantly change definitions, add to them, add variations of words. To act like gay marriage is wrong because it's not the "definition of the word marriage" might be the most idiotic anti-gay marriage argument I hear.

sherm03;1433432 wrote:You're right. It doesn't work that way. Once a word is defined, it remains with that definition forever. Only...it doesn't. At all.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/05/31/735843/-The-Mad-Logophile-Words-That-Have-Changed-Their-Meaning-Part-1

We constantly change definitions, add to them, add variations of words. To act like gay marriage is wrong because it's not the "definition of the word marriage" might be the most idiotic anti-gay marriage argument I hear.

Con_Alma;1433437 wrote:It's not that it's "wrong" necessarily as you or I see it but rather as the law sees it in the State of Ohio. The State's definition is what applies here.

sherm03;1433447 wrote:The argument presented was that you can't call it "marriage" because that is not the definition of the word. You can call it something else, but you can't call it marriage because you can't just change the definition of a word. I have seen that argument used quite often (my father-in-law just tried to use it in a discussion with me on Monday).

I simply showed that words evolve over time and definitions change. The same can be true of the word "marriage."

Con_Alma;1433448 wrote:I read the argument and your response....and then pointed out the only definition that truly matters is that of the State.

Heretic;1433451 wrote:Okay, Cap'n Lol, let's spell things out.

1. QuakerOats initially said gay marriage does not exist. He did not specify any particular state -- just that it didn't.
2. I pointed out that it does, as a number of states have it.
3. He responded with the moronic argument that it doesn't because that wasn't the original use of the word and therefore, the word can't be changed or altered in any way to add onto the definition.
4. Laughter commenced at that.
5. You, completely missing the point, brought up something completely unrelated to that discussion, making it completely about the state of Ohio, when beforehand, it was just the general concept of gay marriage existing in any form anywhere.

Hope this helps.

Con_Alma;1433455 wrote:I didn't miss the point....I added to it with my opinion containing additional information on marriage.

It is related with regards to the definition of marriage...but it's only related.

Your summary really doesn't help as it relates to my offering...it may help you understand my post better, however.

Con_Alma;1433455 wrote:I didn't miss the point....I added to it with my opinion containing additional information on marriage.

It is related with regards to the definition of marriage...but it's only related.

Your summary really doesn't help as it relates to my offering...it may help you understand my post better, however.

sherm03;1433458 wrote:Your point doesn't really add up, though, considering the State's definition of something can easily be changed with a vote. The point being that people would vote no on a gay marriage proposal because they don't want it called "marriage."

It doesn't matter what the state defines marriage as right now. What matters (and is pretty stupid, IMO) is that people want to hold on to their Biblical definition of marriage and not adjust their thinking to the current times and situation.

Heretic;1433459 wrote:So, basically, what you're saying is that WHEN (not if...even if parts of the state are totally backwards, eventually enough of them will die out that gay marriage will be passed) Ohio passes gay marriage, you'll be arguing for it because it suddenly does exist now?

Heretic;1433397 wrote:lol, Just because your delusional self wishes to believe things don't work that way, doesn't mean anything of the sort. The term on things like ballots and such is "marriage". If you have an issue with that, that doesn't have ANY effect on the reality of the situation.

cruiser_96;1433460 wrote:I once went scuba diving. My parachute didn't open. But the good thing is, I was able to make a pet at the bank.

Gblock;1433474 wrote:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

personally i dont think the "opposite sex" or "husband and wife" is the defining part of the word marriage. webster agrees. i think the important part of the definition is two people who want to legalize their union

QuakerOats;1433465 wrote:It is NOT my delusional wish; it is not my wish; it is simply a fact: marriage has its own definition. Furthermore, you seem to want to reach and label me as anti-gay etc... once again you are wrong. I do not care if two people of the same sex wish to spend their life together. But when that happens, let's us the proper term, perhaps it shall be a new term, to describe such an arrangement. But it is not marriage.

Once you get over your sensitive and emotional responses, realize we are discussing terminology and definitions, and leave your anti-homophobic opinions out of the conversation, you may possibly begin to understand what some of us are saying.

Good luck.

sherm03;1433458 wrote: adjust their thinking to the current times and situation.

Con_Alma;1433476 wrote:Once you bring the "legalize" part of it in, the gender absolutely is inclusive of the defining part.

QuakerOats;1433480 wrote:Comical.

Why not develop new descriptors when a new phenomenom evolves, or are we too shallow to do so; hence we instead hijack an existing word and attempt to alter its definition to fit our political 'thinking'. Naw, doesn't really work that way.