Proposition 8- Allowing gay marriage in Califorina

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
Or because it's between a man and a woman.

In other words, because it's not between 1 man and 1 woman.

I can't say you're absurd for claiming that verbage is everything, when it's clear that, beyond that definition, verbage is important to people on the other side of the argument. But what is absurd is that you think you have a right to dictate definition while claiming that others are trying to redefine a word. Marriage = 2, of-age, consenting human beings who love and commit to each other. In fact, most gay couples have more reverence for the idea of marriage than does the majority of straight couples or even your average pro-marriage, outspoken republican politician. One side of the equation has a reverence for that commitment while the other considers it every day enough to be dismissed or easily-abandoned. Sometimes ideas become so mundane when they're so easily enjoyed and taken for granted by people that they become disposable. This is not the case with homosexuals and the right of marriage.

Originally posted by Devil King
This is not the case with homosexuals and the right of marriage.

Yet...

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
Or because it's between a man and a woman.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Yet...

You're going to have to ellaborate on the ellipsis because I'm not psychic.

Originally posted by Devil King
In other words, because it's not between 1 man and 1 woman.

I can't say you're absurd for claiming that verbage is everything, when it's clear that, beyond that definition, verbage is important to people on the other side of the argument. But what is absurd is that you think you have a right to dictate definition while claiming that others are trying to redefine a word. Marriage = 2, of-age, consenting human beings who love and commit to each other. In fact, most gay couples have more reverence for the idea of marriage than does the majority of straight couples or even your average pro-marriage, outspoken republican politician. One side of the equation has a reverence for that commitment while the other considers it every day enough to be dismissed or easily-abandoned. Sometimes ideas become so mundane when they're so easily enjoyed and taken for granted by people that they become disposable. This is not the case with homosexuals and the right of marriage.

I think I see what you're saying. I am a little confused about the 'dictate' and 'change' you mention; when I dictate it, in my mind I'm not changing it. That does sound narrow but I did give reason for the definition much earlier in this thread.

Also:
mar⋅riage   [mar-ij] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. 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.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
8. Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage.
9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.
10. Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.

Number 4 is close, but a wife has to be a female.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
Number 4 is close, but a wife has to be a female.

Hahahaaa, you clown-shoe.

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 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> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

Like I said, call two men or two women anything you like on a personal level, if the sharing of a word is so unsettling for you. But don't impose inequality and a 2nd class-like status on a group of people simply because you dislike them.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
I think

You only think you think. Sadly, you make that assumption wrongly.

1 & 4 mention women, but make no effort to assume their responsability to limit a dictionary definition. Otherwise, many words would not be included in the dictionary or excluded based on usage. What you assume is your reposnability to limit the right of a publisher to legally add to the definition of a word, inside the boundries of the United States. This freedom or definition is not restricted by the freedom of the law as indicated by the right of homosexuals to marry. You want to absolutely define a word while ignoring the freedom of that publisher to expand on a definition as dictated by society. You want to define a word in absolutes while ignoring the evolution of the term, in context.

I don't get why the above is so funny... A wife is a female. Also my source is Dictionary.com, I didn't make it up on my own. It's a valid definition.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
If a proposition was up for vote tomorrow that guaranteed gay couples who are joined in a union the same rights and benefits as married couples, but denied them the use of the term 'marriage', and instead gave the term [something; not derogatory and can even be a word the you in your own mind could conceivably accept], how would you vote?

(Gay couples are not punished for using the term 'marriage' loosely in this alternate reality, but on paper, officially, the term that represents their union is that other word.)

EDIT: Errr, take out that "and can even be a word the you in your own mind could conceivably accept" bit. That's unfair of me to determine without you answering.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
I don't get why the above is so funny... A wife is a female. Also my source is Dictionary.com, I didn't make it up on my own. It's a valid definition.

EDIT: Errr, take out that "and can even be a word the you in your own mind could conceivably accept" bit. That's unfair of me.

DUH? Most of what you say is unfair and ill-conceived.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
I don't get why the above is so funny... A wife is a female. Also my source is Dictionary.com, I didn't make it up on my own. It's a valid definition.

EDIT: Errr, take out that "and can even be a word the you in your own mind could conceivably accept" bit. That's unfair of me.

As is Merridian-Webster. What it comes down to, you support something that factually eliminated rights and set an inequality for a group of people because of one definition of a word, mind you, not the only definition, ONE DEFINITION of it and your illogical notion that other people should lose rights and become like 2nd-class citizens because the word shouldn't be shared. Good job.

Do you mind answering my question?

Again, both of our views on the definition of marriage are subjective. Just recognize that there is a valid reason for mine just as there is yours.

Originally posted by Devil King
1 & 4 mention women, but make no effort to assume their responsability to limit a dictionary definition. Otherwise, many words would not be included in the dictionary or excluded based on usage. What you assume is your reposnability to limit the right of a publisher to legally add to the definition of a word, inside the boundries of the United States. This freedom or definition is not restricted by the freedom of the law as indicated by the right of homosexuals to marry. You want to absolutely define a word while ignoring the freedom of that publisher to expand on a definition as dictated by society. You want to define a word in absolutes while ignoring the evolution of the term, in context.

Yes, they are subjective; that's part of the point. You're using a certain definition of "marriage", to support legislation that factually took away rights from a certain group of people.

Denying homosexuals rights based on ONE definition of a word is a essentially "gay bashing", which is what you are, as you factually support the stripping of rights of people simply because their sexual orientation doesn't fit with what you consider right, or is it "traditional".

I could have sworn there were several definitions for it listed above us. One respected source giving exclusive heterosexual recognition.
("HAHAHA, Aequo, you're so dumb... one of those definitions listed above us allows for homosexual marriage!" One does, but many are for heterosexual recognition only.)

Do you mind answering my question?

I'm not going to read through all your ramblings, but you're basing your argument on the current definition of a word? You realise that definitions do actually change over time, according to the changing of the act itself? The definition doesn't dictate what the act is, just defines it in its current state.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
I could have sworn there were several definitions for it listed above us. One respected source giving exclusive heterosexual recognition.
("HAHAHA, Aequo, you're so dumb... one of those definitions listed above us allows for homosexual marriage!" One does, but many are for heterosexual recognition only.)

Do you mind answering my question?

You can rant all you like that more definitions of the word "marriage" mention "man and woman" than "same sex"; the fact remains there is more than one definition of the word. You're just cherry picking which one you like best and using it has a front to support the removal of rights and promote bigotry.

I would vote for it, I think it's shit because it's essentially "separate but equal" thinking, also known as bigotry. But allowing gays semi-equal rights is better than nothing, I guess.

All you did with posing that question is further show how you're an intolerant bigot when it comes to homosexuals. Good job.

Answer me this, would you think making Asians drink from equal but different water fountains or making them use equal but different public toilets to be fair and equal?

I know there is more than one definition, but with the basic framework of the word relying on the earliest idea that it is between a man and a woman does not accommodate for two men or two women. I know definitions grow and change but there has to be a limit (not for all, but for most words). But that is how I view it. I know you disagree.

AS FOR THE QUESTION:

Originally posted by Robtard
I would vote for it, I think it's shit because it's essentially "separate but equal" thinking, also known as bigotry. But allowing gays semi-equal rights is better than nothing, I guess.

I would also vote yes but I'm not quite retarded...

There is no semi-rights argument. Use of the term marriage is not a right. They now share the same rights. No 2nd-class citizen can be found in this equation.
NOW WAIT: In that tiny brain of yours, you somehow perceive this as not a motion that would secure equal-rights, but as a proposition that would keep equal-rights from being achieved. Yet you vote for it because it's "better than nothing". There's a right way to do things and a wrong way to do things... you just admitted to passing a law that would restrict equal-rights for gay couples in a union...and it's not even a marriage on paper now... you.mother.****ing.bigot.

If the use of the term "marriage" isn't a right, then why are you defending legislation that took aways rights on the use of that term? Who are you to say who can or can't use it, like it's a right you have? Think much?

It was a hypothetical, and I chose the lesser of two evils. I also said it was shit and stated exactly why it was shit, because of the "separate but equal" kind of thinking, which is bigotry, you bigot. You should really take some more time and think before you type-rant.

You also avoided my question.

Edit: You're either too dense to realise that your views are factually bigoted towards homosexuals, or you're just dancing for the sake of arrogantly flaunting your hatred of gays.

The simplest way to put it:

1)You support Prop 8; it factually took away rights from homosexuals.
2)Taking away rights based on sexual orientation is bigotry; no different than taking away rights because of skin color, religion or ethnicity.
3) You're a bigot considering 1 & 2.

Goodnight, bigot. It's 2:17 AM for me and I need sleep. I'll be on later.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
Goodnight, bigot. It's 2:17 AM for me and I need sleep. I'll be on later.

If you want a real bigot to deal with, then focus on me.

Originally posted by Aequo Animo
Do you mind answering my question?

Again, both of our views on the definition of marriage are subjective. Just recognize that there is a valid reason for mine just as there is yours.

The first half of this is inane and you choose to ignore the definitions.
The second half can also be applied to anyone who promotes the Merriam-Webster view. What I'm pointing out is that a strict man-woman view is very real and not designed to be homophobic.

No. What you're doing is pretending you have a valid point while totally ignoring that you don't. You want to define marriage by something you look up and repost from a website, but aren't willing to accept that particular website changes it's definitions based on long-held definitions while also including more modern uses of a word.

Bottom line: you have a definition of marriage but ignore that the links you post to define it are much more willing to adapt to reality than your perspective ever will.