Succeeding Through Word Manipulation

[wenglund]

You are the one suggesting that length of time, for homosexual relationship, is the determinate. 

 

The determinate of what? And, where, exactly, in this thread did I allegedly set forth this determination? I have no idea what you are talking about, or how this somehow addresses the question of this thread--i.e. word manipulation.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 5, 2013 by wenglund

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There is a new thread titled, Woman Attends Priesthood Meeting with Open Arms and Full Fellowship, which provides an example of how the words "male" and "female" and "man" and "woman" are being manipulated or controlled.

 

The blurring of definitional lines doesn't stop with transexuals (people who have undergone a sex-change operation), but extends also to the so-called transgendered (people who simply view themselves as the opposite sex).

 

I see this as a case where supposedly sane people are letting the mentally ill manipulate or control the language--i.e. a case of the inmates taking over the linguistic asylum.

 

[Addendum: JKWilliams has opened another thread on, Gender is Eternal, which adds another dimension to gender-specific words.]

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Another excellent observation.

[Senator]

 

I see this as a case where supposedly sane people are letting the mentally ill manipulate or control the language--i.e. a case of the inmates taking over the linguistic asylum.

 

 

..or perhaps a case where people are doing their best to accept, love and fellowship another.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Senator

[Senator]

 

The blurring of definitional lines doesn't stop with transexuals (people who have undergone a sex-change operation), but extends also to the so-called transgendered (people who simply view themselves as the opposite sex).

 

 

Seeing that nature itself is very adept at blurring definitional lines, I'm curious as to why you are all twisted up about this?

[wenglund]

..or perhaps a case where people are doing there best to accept, love and fellowship another.

 

Perhaps our own sanity may be brought into question if we assume that letting the insane manipulate words is the way to show acceptance, love, and fellowship.

 

It is similar in principle to showing primary-aged children that we accept and love and fellowship them by letting them define for their parents the term "healthy food."

 

Truly, the world is going mad. LOL

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Seeing that nature itself is very adept at blurring definitional lines, I'm curious as to why you are all twisted up about this?

 

I understand the important difference between rare exceptions and general rules, particularly within nature. I get "all twisted up" as you say, when allegedly sane people fail to recognize the important difference, and thus allow manipulation of significant words accordingly.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

Perhaps our own sanity may be brought into question if we assume that letting the insane manipulate words is the way to show acceptance, love, and fellowship.

 

 

 

So you're saying we shouldn't offer acceptance, love and fellowship.......because of a word?

[thesometimesaint]

I have read your posts numerous times proposing this idea.  I have a question.  Do you think religion owns the word marriage?  Has the word marriage ever not been used in a religious ceremony?  Putting aside same sex marriage, do you think that a couple married by the justice of the peace should not be allowed to call their union a marriage?  I am not arguing against what your proposal is, I am just wondering how you specifically feel about these questions.

 

It is odd for me to read a Mormon advocate reserving the name marriage for religion when the Mormon church has redefined what marriage is called within the church.  The church looks at a temple marriage as a sealing or an eternal marriage or a temple marriage.  Two terms that probably will never be used by same sex couples.

 

From a legal standpoint the State owns the word marriage. It gets to define what is and/or is not a legally recognized marriage. Traditionally in the US we have given permission to religiously minded people to officiate at weddings. Heck. I could get a license from the State to perform weddings/ However I know the Church would frown upon it, if I invoked the Church in it.

 

Plenty of times. IE; A marriage of products is a product line. A marriage of ideas is a train of thought, etc., etc., etc.. True we don't commonly use the word marriage in those contexts as much any more. But they are is still a valid use of the word.

 

Sure. Just as I believe my marriage in the Temple is also a legally binding contract. The State involvement part of that contract ends at my, or my wife's, death. I'm not likely at this stage in my life to get a divorce. Get the State out of the marriage business altogether. Make them all just legally enforceable contracts, and let religions put any religious meaning they want on the ceremony.

 

As a Church we can set what ever qualifications and/or reservations on marriage we want for members of our own faith. What we can not do is impose those on those not of our faith. Nor do I feel an Ad Populum convincing enough to exclude SSM from the legal definition of marriage. That being said; Just because something is legal doesn't make it right(in the eyes of the Church). See article of Faith #11: We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

[Senator]

I understand the important difference between rare exceptions and general rules, particularly within nature. I get "all twisted up" as you say, when allegedly sane people fail to recognize the important difference, and thus allow manipulation of significant words accordingly.

 

 

 

What makes you think they (the "sane people") are failing to recognize.  I think they fully understand the situation and are acting compassionately.

 

What do you think aught to happen? Do you think you need to stomp down there and tell those folks in Portland how they are being manipulated by words, and set them straight? This is not how this individual should be treated!!!!! Stop calling him a her, and definitely don't let him into relief society!!!

[wenglund]

So you're saying we shouldn't offer acceptance, love and fellowship.......because of a word?

 

No. I said nothing of the sort. I have no idea where you came up with this.

 

What I am saying is that love and so forth doesn't consist of letting insane people manipulate significant words.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

I understand the important difference between rare exceptions and general rules, particularly within nature. I get "all twisted up" as you say, when allegedly sane people fail to recognize the important difference, and thus allow manipulation of significant words accordingly.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Nature allows for a great many things including homosexuality. Let's not fall for the anthropomorphism fallacy here. Homosexuality will never be more than a statistical rarity. Species tend to die out without reproduction. On the human level it is more important how we treat others than whom we have sex with. Believe me sex is one of the last things I think about while I am strongly disagreeing with my wife.

 

Homosexuality isn't a question of sanity.

 

There may be a few that don't know the difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality. They tend to be those under about 5-7 years old.

 

Can I manipulate you into becoming a homosexual?

[Senator]

No. I said nothing of the sort. I have no idea where you came up with this.

 

What I am saying is that love and so forth doesn't consist of letting insane people manipulate significant words.

 

 

 

That may be exactly what it consists of. After all, the manipulated word is for them, not for me. I could care less that an individual wants to be called her instead of he.  I doesn't affect me one whit.  But it may mean the world to that person.

[wenglund]

What makes you think they (the "sane people") are failing to recognize.  I think they fully understand the situation and are acting compassionately.

 

If they do recognize the important difference (this is debatable), then perhaps they don't get that it isn't compassionate to indulge the insane manipulation of significant words.

 

In other words, perhaps they inanely indulge insane manipulation of significant words because they have been manipulated, themselves, into accepting an inane definition of "compassion."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

If they do recognize the important difference (this is debatable), then perhaps they don't get that it isn't compassionate to indulge the insane manipulation of significant words.

 

In other words, perhaps they inanely indulge insane manipulation of significant words because they have been manipulated, themselves, into accepting an inane definition of "compassion."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Or simply, perhaps not.

 

 

 

..."an inane definition of "compassion"?

 

Come one Wade.....

[wenglund]

Nature allows for a great many things including homosexuality. Let's not fall for the anthropomorphism fallacy here. Homosexuality will never be more than a statistical rarity. Species tend to die out without reproduction. On the human level it is more important how we treat others than whom we have sex with. Believe me sex is one of the last things I think about while I am strongly disagreeing with my wife.

 

Homosexuality isn't a question of sanity.

 

There may be a few that don't know the difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality. They tend to be those under about 5-7 years old.

 

Can I manipulate you into becoming a homosexual?

 

I didn't say that homosexuality was a question of sanity. I suggested nothing of the sort. Again, where are you coming up with this?

 

In answer to your repeated question, and bringing it somewhat back on topic, I can easily be manipulated into becoming a homosexual by manipulating the definition of "homosexual" to include heterosexuals--not unlike manipulating the definition of "marriage" to include homosexual relationships. LOL

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jkwilliams]

Or simply, perhaps not.

 

..."an inane definition of "compassion"?

 

Come on Wade.....

This really gets to the heart of the matter, IMO. For some reason, not only is sin not to be tolerated, but the only way to be compassionate to sinners is to treat them with contempt and label them as evil perverts.

[Senator]

 

In answer to your repeated question, and bringing it somewhat back on topic, I can easily be manipulated into becoming a homosexual by manipulating the definition of "homosexual" to include heterosexuals--

 

 

I do hope you are speaking definitionally only and not where the rubber meets the road, so to speak????

[wenglund]

"an inane definition of "compassion"?

 

Come one Wade.....

 

Yes. (See my blog post on the Politics of Compassion: Killing Through Confused Kindness)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

Yes. (See my blog post on the Politics of Compassion: Killing Through Confused Kindness)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So this is a political thread?

 

No longer interested.

[wenglund]

This really gets to the heart of the matter, IMO. For some reason, not only is sin not to be tolerated, but the only way to be compassionate to sinners is to treat them with contempt and label them as evil perverts.

 

This may be the perception of people, such as yourself, who can't seem to tell the difference between the sin and the sinner.

 

Whereas, it is quite some distance from what I have suggested.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I do hope you are speaking definitionally only and not where the rubber meets the road, so to speak????

 

Obviously.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

No. I said nothing of the sort. I have no idea where you came up with this.

 

What I am saying is that love and so forth doesn't consist of letting insane people manipulate significant words.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I believe in the work that coined the phrase "paradigm shift" that usually what happens is that the rule gets so weighed down with exceptions and caveats, that it eventually fails and a new paradigm arises.  Would that not be true of words and their meanings, as much as that the meanings are being manipulated.  Language is not static.  The problem with the word "marriage" is not its definition, but that people tried to solve a very divisive social issue without a rational dialogue and instead with a battle over the definition of a word.  Eventually the "word" became more important than reason, and victims were created because suddenly they had the traumatic experience of having to adjust their personal definition of a word.  One is kind of reminded of travelling with Gulliver or stumbling with Alice down the rabbit hole.

[Stone holm]

This may be the perception of people, such as yourself, who can't seem to tell the difference between the sin and the sinner.

 

Whereas, it is quite some distance from what I have suggested.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Do you simply find it impossible to carry on a discussion without pointed attacks on the mental capacity of others?

[jkwilliams]

Do you simply find it impossible to carry on a discussion without pointed attacks on the mental capacity of others?

I've heard worse. It's just the way Wade operates, so it's not worth taking seriously or personally.

[cinepro]

I didn't say that homosexuality was a question of sanity. I suggested nothing of the sort. Again, where are you coming up with this?

 

In answer to your repeated question, and bringing it somewhat back on topic, I can easily be manipulated into becoming a homosexual by manipulating the definition of "homosexual" to include heterosexuals--not unlike manipulating the definition of "marriage" to include homosexual relationships. LOL

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I am so over the whole gay marriage thing.

 

You know, as a person who is happily married, I'm a little flattered that "marriage" is seen as something worth aspiring to for people who are attracted to others of their same gender.

 

Sure, they could create their own type of legal, committed relationship and call it something else (is "Pon Farr" already taken?), but it's great that they don't want to.    I look at all the great things that my marriage gives me, and hopefully to my family and community, and to the degree that homosexuals think they could find those same positive benefits in their lives, I say go for it!

 

It's great that "marriage" as an institution and cultural idea is so strong that heterosexuals, with our rampant divorce and infidelity, couldn't ruin it.  It's still seen as something great.  As far as I can tell, the only benefit that homosexuals will never be able to attain in their marriages compared to heterosexuals is the benefit of heterosexual intimacy (and from what I hear even that isn't always a given in heterosexual marriages   ).  But since they by definition don't really want that, there's not much downside.  

 

But, based on the arguments in this thread, I think the whole "debate" over gay marriage is just about over.  Because word definitions will change to reflect reality, and the way things are going, it won't be long before people (especially younger people) find it odd that the word "marriage" used to only apply to heterosexuals.