Bishop Watterson teacher fired after being outed in obituary

• QuakerOats

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

  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.
• Heretic

  

  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.

  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

  

  Hi. I use words and phrases to exemplify that words and phrases have no meanings.
• sherm03

  

  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.

  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.
• Heretic

  

  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.

  Apparently, the Dashboard dictionary on my computer is completely incorrect, since when I looked up "marriage" on it, one of the definitions was "a similar long-term relationship between two partners of the same sex". Man, the company pays a lot of money to keep us upgraded technology-wise and now I'm going to have to tell them I have a broken computer because of this...
• Con_Alma

  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.

  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.
• FatHobbit

  

  Whenever I hear people argue that they support gay unions but want them to use a word other than marriage because that should be reserved for "christian" man/woman marriage, I always wonder why they don't get upset about athiest marriages or muslim marriages or Jewish marriages or polygamistic (?)marriages or any other kind of non christian marriages. Calling something a different word doesn't really change what it is, it's just an attempt to make their version "better" IMHO.
• sherm03

  

  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.

  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

  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."

  I read the argument and your response....and then pointed out the only definition that truly matters is that of the State.
• Heretic

  

  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.

  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

  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.

  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

  

  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.

  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

  

  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.

  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?
• cruiser_96

  

  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.
• Con_Alma

  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.

  My point wasn't intended to add up to anything.
  
  I haven't disputed the State's definition can't be changed.
  
  It absolutely matters what the State defines it as considering the reason the those lobbying to have it changed are doing so for equal benefits and rights. Those are only provided under the legal definition of marriage.
  
  What doesn't matter is what I define marriage as or what you define it as.
• Con_Alma

  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?

  Nope. Didn't say that at all. I am neither arguing for it or against it. That position won't change if the State changes their definition.
• QuakerOats

  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.

  
  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.
• QuakerOats

  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.

  :laugh:
• Gblock

  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
• Con_Alma

  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

  Once you bring the "legalize" part of it in, the gender absolutely is inclusive of the defining part.
• Heretic

  

  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.

  And, according to things like dictionaries, the definition has evolved. Which means that you should work on possibly beginning to understand how words and meanings aren't set in stone and are altered over time.
  
  Good luck.
• QuakerOats

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

  
  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.
• sherm03

  

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

  OK...let's say that this year there is a proposal on the ballot to legalize gay marriage. Would you personally vote to legalize it, or would you vote against it?
• Con_Alma

  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.

  Are their not others words that aptly describe what non-heterosexuals are seeking to do? DO we just throw those out with our evolution of words?
• Gblock

  laws change all the time..legal definitions especially...what is your point. human understanding and ways of thinking does too. i dont think/feel the same way about many things as i did when i was 15.