Does that mean homos are equal now that doma has been ruled unconstitutional?
 

What does this mean exactly for god fearing, white straight folks, does it mean that the Supreme Court is saying homos have the same rights as the rest of us? :/

Not at all; they are just saying that the Feds cannot overrule a marriage that is recognized by the state.

Okay cool, for a second there I thought it was going to be similar to what happened when they abolished slavery and give them all the right to vote, drive and work for money.

Nice to see its just about marriage, let them have that, if us god fearing straight folk can get married and be miserable, then the homos should be allowed it too :)

If you are going to troll at least be decent at it.

LMAO how can anyone seriously answer this fucking tool????

Another nail in marriage devaluation. Nice one, politcorrect idiots.

Black folks are Christians as well from what I heard.

How does this devalue marriage?

By wrongly extending the meaning of the word.
Marriage is union between man and woman. Thats one and only definition of that world. Other unions have own words.

LOL
"homos"

1962 called - they want their bigotry back. :D

There are several states that have passed laws legalizing gay marriage therefore, in those states a marriage can between a man and a woman or same sex partners.

This is the definition of the word marriage according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

And? My point was: idiot politcorrects decided to attribute new (wrong) definition to a word "marriage".

So what it boils down to is that you don't want gay people who are legally married to refer to themselves as married correct?

Still, this doesn't explain how gay marriage devalues marriage as a whole.

Let me ask you this. If you are happily married and one day you are driving home and a story comes on the radio that the president has signed into law a nationwide gay marriage law making gay marriage legal in all states (I know this isn't how things work, but use this for the sake of this example) are you going to go home and call off your marriage? Are you going to walk in and tell your spouse that your marriage has no value now that all the gay people can get married?

Likely not.

The value of a marriage is determined by each couple that is in a marriage. There are straight couples that lie and cheat on each other and break their marriage vows all the time. Clearly, to them, their marriage has little value. There are others that take marriage very seriously and place a lot of value in it. It is how you and your spouse conduct yourselves within your marriage that determines the value of your marriage.

Abortions for some, miniature rainbow flags for others.

:thumbsup

kane,

I will explain using unrelated but more vivid example so that you could understand how it devalues marriage.

Lets take word "automobile". We all know what it is. Then suddenly somebody adds new definition to "automobile" and starts calling this thing an automobile as well:
http://www.balkantravellers.com/imag...drawn_cart.jpg

So now when you say "automobile" it could mean actual automobile or that carriage. Word "automobile" is devalued.

My point is that there is no need to add WRONG definitions to the word. Why not simply invent new word, for example "garriage"?
So "marriage" would be union of man and woman and "garriage" would be union between same sex. Everybody would have equal rights, just name of the union would be different.

By defining carriages as automobiles you are not devaluing the word automobile you are just expanding the definition as to what an automobile is.

A definition in and of itself has no real value. It is just an explanation of what something is. By modifying that definition you do not devalue. The value of a marriage comes in the actual marriage itself. The value of anything is relative and depends on the item itself and other factors.

Since we are stuck on definitions, one of the definitions of value is: relative worth, utility, or importance.

So by changing the definition of marriage to include gay couples it doesn't devalue it. It doesn't make a marriage worth less. It does not render it useless or less important. How that value of a marriage is determined is up to those in the marriage.

We can go back to your use of the automobile. You might have a very nice, expensive car that you take very good care of and I might have a beat up piece of shit that I could care less about. They are both automobiles by definition, but yours has more value than mine, not because the dictionary defined them both as cars, but because yours is better, higher priced and in better condition.

By saying that same sex couples can have a marriage it does not devalue anyone else's marriage. It is just an explanation of what it is.

It devalues in this way:
Now when you say that you have an automobile it means that you have an actual automobile.
If carriages were defined as automobiles then when you would say "I have an automobile" it could mean that you actually do not have one, you just have a carriage. And proudly call it automobile just because government extended the meaning of the word. While actually it is just the same old carriage and not an automobile.

There was absolutely no reason to add wrong definition to the world. New word would have made sense.

If you go here you will see how this dictionary decides how to add, change and redefine words. One of the things they do is is search for, "new usages of existing words." They modify the definition of words all the time. There is no difference here. It still does not devalue it because the definition itself has no real value.

If we decide to have carriages defined as an automobile then you could look at three automobiles parked in a lot. One is a carriage. One is a brand new Ferrari and one is a beat up Honda Accord. You can say, by definition, "These are all automobiles." By saying that are you giving any value to any of them? No. There are a million factors that determine the value of an automobile. If you are looking to buy a Ford Mustang you aren't going to just call the first add in the paper for a car for sale and buy that car because it is technically an automobile. You would ask them what kind of car it is and ask other things about it.

The same goes with marriage. There is no value to saying someone is married. It is just a word that defines their arrangement. It doesn't give any value to their marriage.

Clearly, however, it appears that I won't be able to convince you of this.

I'm curious. Do you support civil unions? Is it just the use of the word marriage that you are hung up on or do you think that gay people shouldn't be allowed civil unions as well?

And that would decrease the blue book value of your car?

just like was done with bums, now equals homeless, illegal aliens now equals undocumented workers. so if marriage no longer means holy matrimony between a man and a woman, but between to people, does that now infer that you can marry a corporation since a corporation has a personal identity?

I understand what you are saying, that if some man is married to a woman and says "I am married" it is the same marriage as before wrong definition was added. I understand this point, but its not the point I am arguing.

My point bellow:

Regarding honda, ferrari and carriage, it devalues word "automobile" in such a way:
Now automobile is something from honda to ferrari. And after it would be from carriage to ferrari - broadens the interval by including something worse than a honda.

So by saying "someone is married" now you won't be able to tell if he/she is actually married or not (because NOT marriage would be called marriage as well).
Meaning that saying "I am married" now carries less weight (=devalued) because it could mean that person is actually married and also could mean that person is using wrong definition.

And yes I support union and even same union rights. I just disagree with adding wrong definition to existing word. New word would have made sense. For example "garriage". Garried and married people would have same civil union rights.

Another vivid example - lets say someone discovers new type of berries. They would not call them blueberries or cranberries just because they taste as good. They would create new word for it.



Yes I support civil unions and same rights. I merely do not agree on using wrong definition.

this is great stuff, I support civil unions and disagree with using the 'word marriage' and oddly enough the angry intellectuals here at GFY can't seem to understand this.

this is cool: lets say someone discovers new type of berries. They would not call them blueberries or cranberries just because they taste as good. They would create new word for it.

here ya go: pairagge

As I explained in my previous post - not my point. Value of any car would be the same. I am not arguing that it decrease value of the thing that word describes. I am arguing that it decrease value of the word itself.
Meaning that when you say "I have an automobile" it means that you have at least beat up honda and after definition change it could mean that you don't even have beat up honda, only old carriage. Value of beat up honda would be the same, but value of word "automobile" itself would be decreased.

Thats 2 different things and kane is arguing the first thing while I am arguing the second.

I actually have no friends that do not honor their vows, and will not knowingly associate with people that dishonor their marriage vows. I believe that a marriage is a fundamental contract with strong boundaries that must be adhered too... think of it like this, if a man will cheat his wife/family relationship. he will cheat you in a business relationship.

when did the dictionary definition change? is a dictionary involved in setting law?

If someone found a new type of berry, you are correct. They wouldn't call them strawberries or blueberries. But, they would still be defined as a berry. Just like you call a Honda a Honda and a Ford a Ford. They are not the same thing, but they are still automobiles.

If you give a gay marriage a different name you could still open it up to discrimination. If you call it a Garriage there is nothing stopping states from passing laws restricting some things to anyone in a Garriage. The idea is that everyone has equal access and protection under the law. By defining a gay marriage as anything other than a marriage you could open it up to discrimination.

The dictionary changes/modifies the definitions of hundreds if not thousands of words every year.

The dictionary definition and the legal definition are two different things.

extending the meaning of the word 'in english'?

or are you talking the greater 'definition' that would be the same in all languages, except for the minority group you're trying to strip the rights of? Or are we going to war wiht other nations cause they dare smear our english-only definition of marriage?

you see how this is a slippery slope?

good luck explaining to your kids how 'marriage is just for men and women', but 'they better accept everyone equally'

You have to know how funny that sounds right? It makes you sound like a spoiled little kid who has a grape Popsicle then when someone else gets a grape Popsicle suddenly you don't like them using the word grape to describe what they have so you insist that they call their Popsicle purple.

Name it g-marriage and stop bitching. Big fucking deal.

It means you god fearing, white straight folks, can still cruise the men's bathroom at the airport

What about having plump Popsicle yet calling it grape? Same color and all but tastes like poop.

Ok not too good example with berries. How about if some fruit growing on tree is discovered. It would not be called apple, it would have new name. Maybe blapple? Or whatever.
Would that mean it would be worse than apple or "discriminated" because it is called different? Both would be fruits. Same as garriage and marriage both would be civil unions.

Laws can be passed or changed anyway. You can pass that garriage and marriage must always have same rights and its good to go.

We can sit here all day long and try to come up with examples. A new fruit would not be called an apple, but it would still be defined as a fruit.

I'll just cede the point. Clearly you have placed some intrinsic value on the definition of certain words. There is nothing I can say that will change your mind.

I'll leave you with this one thought.

When you have a group of people anything you do to label any segment of that group as different from the others can open that segment it up to discrimination of some sort. It may never happen, but it might. We saw it for years with civil unions. Civil unions were 100% legal in many places, but if you happened to work for the government they didn't recognize it and therefore your legal partner could not have access to any benefits you had from that job. The same could happen if you force gay couples to refer to themselves as having something other than a marriage.

:thumbsup:thumbsup

i think they're saying g-marriage is acceptable as long as it sits in the back of the bus

nope, only to you because you have a vested interest in being morally right. I don't.

I am able to see the conservative rights concerns and the gay agenda while you are polarized and only able to see your own agenda. :thumbsup

Nail, head, hammer:thumbsup

I wonder if those opposed to the word marriage "being redefined" to include same-sex couples disagree with the outcome of Loving v. Virginia? It redefined marriage for many states. Should interracial couples have been given something called other than marriage?

you're going to love the shit out of this:

'Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may be recognized as an individual in the eyes of the law. This doctrine forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. '

now you can get married to Mc Donald's because the definition of marriage has been redefined :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

:winkwink:

yea, but we know full well how much bullshit 'corporate personhoods' is

Amen! Corporations are not people and money is not speech, it is property.
Move to Amend

What is the gay agenda exactly? I hear that a lot.

As far as I can tell the gay agenda is simply gay people wanting the same rights as straight people.