OH NO THEY REDEFINED MARRIAGE
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
*Chortle*
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
*waits for all opposite sex marriages to fall apart and for people to start marrying farm animals*
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Only farm animals? Marriage rights for wild animals!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
ACTIVIST LEXICOGRAPHERS
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Samprimary: You aren't doing anybody any favors when you act this way, certainly not homosexuals.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What a fresh and original subject! What a thought-provoking intelligent approach! This is definitely worth putting puppet strings on that dead horse.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
I must admit, I got a chuckle out of this thread. Especially the 'Activist Lexicographers' jab. Nice...
EDIT: SPELLING.
[ March 19, 2009, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: Tstorm ]
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Oh, this is definitely an in-joke for those of us who go "Duh, yes! Of course, gay marriage should be allowed! Why is this even a question?" It's obviously not intended to change any minds or even engage those that disagree.
That said, it's pretty amusing for those of us in that in crowd Posted by Mocke (Member # 11963) on :
Somehow...somehow I don't think this is a serious debate
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: What a fresh and original subject! What a thought-provoking intelligent approach! This is definitely worth putting puppet strings on that dead horse.
Since when do we have a dead horse marionette? I thought it was a more of a pinata thing, I already got this real nice stick and stuff.....
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Sam, I'm really disappointed in you. The title of this thread should have been more like "oh noes!!! teh gays are winning!!!"
[ March 18, 2009, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: Lisa ]
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
It's not over until the OED speaks.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I found it amusing. So much for that whole debate about redefining marriage if someone just goes ahead and literally does it Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Man, churches are going to have to start publishing their own dictionaries now. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Man, churches are going to have to start publishing their own dictionaries now.
Oooo, new potential for entertainment!
I look forward to reading the King James Dictionary.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Man, churches are going to have to start publishing their own dictionaries now.
You know, Noah Webster was a devout Christian. He even published his own revision of the King James Bible.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Next thing you know, the government will demand that churches all mention this in opposite-sex marriage ceremonies.
Hell in a handbasket!
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Not on all of the definitions listed it doesn't. Some of them specifically single out the differences in same-sex marriages, such as legal implications, but they give them status. A couple ignore it entirely.
Both Random House and the American Heritage Dictionary include it.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Dictionary.com disagrees
Did you miss definition 4?
quote:a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
The only aspect that the government recognizes about "marriage" is the civil union aspect.
You can have the biggest marriage in the biggest church and it means nothing till you sign that marriage certificate.
So we need the state to call all marriages for what they are: civil unions. If the religious folks want to keep their marriage ceremonies and titles to only certain people, let them. But churches should not and cannot stop legal contracts.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I found it amusing. So much for that whole debate about redefining marriage if someone just goes ahead and literally does it --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No kidding! I'm looking at the definition of Marriage in a Scott, Foresman dictionary, with the latest copyright date of 1988 (I know, a bit out of date) and here is their entire definitions for Marriage and Married:
Marriage 1. Living together as husband and wife; married life; wedlock. 2. condition of being a husband or wife. 3. act or ceremony of being married; a marrying. See synonym study below. 4 A close union.
Syn. 3 marriage, matrimony, wedding mean the act of marrying. Marriage emphasizes the legal union of a man and woman: The marriage took place on June 26, 1970. Matrimony applies especially to the spiritual or religious bond established by the union: They were wedded in holy matrimony. Wedding is the common word for the ceremony or celebration: It was a beautiful wedding.
Married 1. living together as husband and wife. 2. having a husband or wife. 3. of marriage; of husbands and wives. 4. closely united.
Just thought I'd let you know
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:And the whole world has to answer right back, just to tell you once again, who's bad
Remember when Webster's defined bad as "good" back in the late 80s. That was so bad!
quote:10 bad·der bad·destslang a: good , great b: tough , mean
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
These definitions seem to agree that you don't need government recognition of your marriage in order for gay couples to be in a "marriage". That would seem to undermine the major argument by SSM proponents that gay couples are being deprived of the right to marry whom they want if the government doesn't recognize SSM.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
This is mostly a semantic argument anyway, as Telp has pointed out.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: What a fresh and original subject! What a thought-provoking intelligent approach! This is definitely worth putting puppet strings on that dead horse.
sssshh. there there.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Hmm, sarcasm followed by condescension a winning combination!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:whinnies:
:well, coughs:
"Look, Wilbur! I'm still alive..."
I can smell your brain--
"CARROTS! I mean, carrots. I can smell your carrots."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by adenam: It's not over until the OED speaks.
You may well be right.
quote:Hmm, sarcasm followed by condescension a winning combination!
Let's not forget how much I am not helping teh gays.
[ March 19, 2009, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Dude, you resurrected not just a dead horse, but a dead ZOMBIE horse.
A talking dead zombie horse.
No one is going to thank you for initiating the apocalypse.
Dope.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
One day in and this has already been taken way more seriously than I hoped it would.
quote:One commenter on the YouTube site said it’s just part of the campaign by homosexual activists to take control of the definition of the word and make it align with their goals.
nuu ;_;
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:One commenter on the YouTube site said it’s just part of the campaign by homosexual activists to take control of the definition of the word and make it align with their goals.
nuu ;_;
I love finding out that we have so much power.
I'll inform the others in the atheist cabal that our homosexual powers are rising as well.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I've never actually read worldnetdaily before, so taking a look I'll note that despite the name it has surprisingly little world news.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
*pouts at not being on the mailing list*
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
quote:It's not over until the OED speaks
So far the OED makes no mention of SSM. The only distinction they make is between civil marriage and marriage. The definition of civil marriage is left open for interpretation.
I shall be biting my fingernails in anticipation...provided OED even cares about the issue.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)