Chick-fil-a

[rwh11385]

About it meaning the same thing, words meanings aren't meant to change and make senseless meaning conversions. Just think of when gay went from meaning "happy" to now it has a totally different meaning and can be construed as hate speech.

Question - do you still call them Negroes?



You'd think Americans would get better at accepting and respecting differences after being through it time and again. But no, there'll always be those who put their comfort or views in front of other's freedoms... and make us look bad compared to most other developed nations.

[Farbin Kaiber]

^Different, the meaning of the word didn't change, the word used was changed.


Again, I never said I didn't accepr, nor respect anyone. I said I did not agree to let people change the meanings of words because it's wasn't fair that they did not fall under the meaning of the word.

[tttoon]

I just posted 27 different instances of the word being used for same-sex unions, more than fucking 1000 years ago. Please.

[Cliche Guevara]

Unless you can show me somewhere, historically where human beings had events and agreements where they were bonded with a lifelong commitment with random objects, or members of the same gender, I think your opinion is meaningless.

The "random objects" bit is an idiotic false analogy, in comparing the two you are either being disingenuous or you're just fucking stupid (I honestly doubt it's the latter). No one is biologically driven to be attracted to objects, animals, whatever, not to mention that those things aren't citizens and do not receive benefits from the government.

tttoon covered the rest of this post quite well.

[dirtysix]

Surely the name 'Chick-fil-A' was a dead give away.

[Cliche Guevara]

^Different, the meaning of the word didn't change, the word used was changed.


Again, I never said I didn't accepr, nor respect anyone. I said I did not agree to let people change the meanings of words because it's wasn't fair that they did not fall under the meaning of the word.

Not fair? Try not constitutional. Again, you are being exceedingly thick in insisting that definitions are, or ought to remain, static. They change as our society changes.

[Farbin Kaiber]

The "random objects" bit is an idiotic false analogy, in comparing the two you are either being disingenuous or you're just fucking stupid (I honestly doubt it's the latter). No one is biologically driven to be attracted to objects, animals, whatever, not to mention that those things aren't citizens and do not receive benefits from the government.

Are you trying to say this guy isn't driven to love this object? How judgmental of his life choices. Are you being thick headed?

Not fair? Try not constitutional. Again, you are being exceedingly thick in insisting that definitions are, or ought to remain, static. They change as our society changes.

What does the Constitution have to do with this? And if definitions are not supposed to remain static, then you are supporting my choice to call myself a Lesbian, right?

[tttoon]

Are you trying to say this guy isn't driven to love this object? How judgmental of his life choices. Are you being thick headed?





What does the Constitution have to do with this? And if definitions are not supposed to remain static, then you are supporting my choice to call myself a Lesbian, right?

Do you have anything to say to the stuff from the wiki page? Or are you just gonna ignore things that don't fit your view?

[rwh11385]

^Different, the meaning of the word didn't change, the word used was changed.


Again, I never said I didn't accepr, nor respect anyone. I said I did not agree to let people change the meanings of words because it's wasn't fair that they did not fall under the meaning of the word.

The cultural meaning of black or colored did change.



I'm sorry if someone's freedom to have equality is negatively impacting your ??? right for defintions to remain the same?? Why not end womens suffrage too? It was equally wrong to change what voting meant or give that other group their remaining two-fifths by that 'logic'.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Do you have anything to say to the stuff from the wiki page? Or are you just gonna ignore things that don't fit your view?

Sure.

No one owns a word. Direct from wikipedia, and dont start with the selective viewing of history on me here.

Ancient


Emperor Nero is reported to have married at least two men on different occasions.
In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[74] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[75]
An example of egalitarian male domestic partnership from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China is recorded in the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian. While the relationship was clearly approved by the wider community, and was compared to heterosexual marriage, it did not involve a religious ceremony binding the couple.[76]
The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[77] For instance, Emperor Nero is reported to have engaged in a marriage ceremony with one of his male slaves. Emperor Elagabalus "married" a Carian slave named Hierocles.[78] These were usually reported in a critical or satirical manner.[79] It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a so-called marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).[80] Furthermore, "matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."[81] Still, the lack of legal validity notwithstanding, there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships existed in ancient Rome, but the exact frequency and nature of "same-sex unions" during that period is obscure.[82] In 342 AD Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans issued a law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) prohibiting same-sex marriage in Rome and ordering execution for those so married.[83]
A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.[84]

You pretty much covered it yourself, it wasn't legit, even back then, so what are you trying to say?

Making a words meaning fluid, and open to change, makes it meaningless, and I assume that is the main agenda of being able to legally use the word "Marriage" thus making it meaningless by making it mean whatever someone wants it to mean.

[kronus]

Hey Farbin, I'm curious, was sort of dowry are you getting in your upcoming marriage? Goats, camels, cows? I'd definitely go for goats if you get a choice, they're pretty awesome.

;)

[tttoon]

Awesome. Like I said in the initial post, one sentence makes you ignore all others. If you read that selectively you can prove or disprove anything.

A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.[84]

What about these three sentences?

edit: seriously if you decide what evidence or sources can be used and what sources cannot be used, I'm done discussing with you. I can't wait till almost everybody sees this the same way as we see racism now.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Hey Farbin, I'm curious, was sort of dowry are you getting in your upcoming marriage? Goats, camels, cows? I'd definitely go for goats if you get a choice, they're pretty awesome.

;)

Already got the goats and cows, I've been asking for a little Nepalese, cold mountainous flair, so I'm actually trying to get a breeding pair of Yaks.

4 SRS.

Awesome. Like I said in the initial post, one sentence makes you ignore all others. If you read that selectively you can prove or disprove anything.



What about these three sentences?

OK, super, a Priest did it in the 1000's. If you recall, in the US of A, we have a separation of Church and State. So, maybe we should look to a legit source, and see what the Library of Congress, or the Judaical Branch has to say on the topic.

[Cliche Guevara]

Are you trying to say this guy isn't driven to love this object? How judgmental of his life choices. Are you being thick headed?

Show me some evidence that his attraction is natural. Do you actually think about your analogies or do you just post the first thing that pops into your mind?

What does the Constitution have to do with this? And if definitions are not supposed to remain static, then you are supporting my choice to call myself a Lesbian, right?

Ever heard of the 14th Amendment? It guarantees equal protection of the law to all citizens and was the basis of the decision in California that ruled Prop. 8 unconstitutional.

You can call yourself a lesbian (not sure why you capitalized it) all you want, but most people will look at you like you're retarded because you'll be the only one acknowledging your definition. In contrast, 38% of Americans support gay marriage, a number that has a consistent upward trend, and just about everyone is familiar with gay marriage as a concept.

Do you have anything to say to the stuff from the wiki page? Or are you just gonna ignore things that don't fit your view?

Didn't you see? He already invalidated each and every one of those examples :roll:

[tttoon]

OK, super, a Priest did it in the 1600's. If you recall, in the US of A, we have a separation of Church and State. So, maybe we should look to a legit source, and see what the Library of Congress, or the Judaical Branch has to say on the topic.

Yeah because politics in the US are know as being completely separated from religion. Try running for office as an atheist, lemme know how that works out.

It blows my mind that you deny this has anything to do with religion and everything to do with semantics. You discriminate on the basis of semantics.