Succeeding Through Word Manipulation

[jkwilliams]

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.

Well said. I have been happily married for 26 years now, and I think it's great that my gay friends want the same opportunity to build a life together, as we have. People deserve an opportunity to be happy.

[wenglund]

So this is a political thread?

 

No longer interested.

 

It is a religious thread which shares principles and notions with politics (there is considerable overlap). But, suit yourself.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund

[canard78]

I think you're agreeing with me without realizing it.

 

(From the definitions you provided, you indicated that reciprocity has to occur between two complementary genders in order to properly qualify as sexual.)

I guess that's the beauty of scripture, words, talks, everything. You and I can read the exact same content and reach different conclusions.

So are you saying that when two men have sex they're not having sexual relations? They're not in fact have sex? In which case, it's not breaking the law of chastity. If the LoC states that we can only have "sexual relations" with our legal husband or wife then anything between two men is not sexual relations (by your definition). That means that a man could, in theory, only have sex with his wife and no other women, but also have sex with other men and still qualify as living the LoC?

If sexual relations only means between a man and a woman then what is happening between two men or two women?

[california boy]

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.

 

Thanks for your thoughtful answer.  You have given me some things to think about.  I think you are right in stating that the State owns the definition of marriage from a legal point of view.  State marriage has been going on as long as religious marriage or even perhaps longer.  It seems to me that the State is the one that lent out the use of the word marriage to religious institutions.  Perhaps it is the State that should revoke the use of the word marriage from religious institutions.  How do you feel about religions being banned from using the word marriage and their unions should be called religious unions or some other term.

[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-

 

Recognize this? Why do you insist on ascribing human characteristics to things not human.

 

Outside of those mentally 5-7 years old whom doesn't recognize the difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality?

 

What we are talking about is the labels you put on people whom don't agree with you. Calling someone whom is a homosexual a pervert, does nothing but make you feel better. I don't question your sanity, but I do wonder about your motivation to continue to do so when it is continually pointed out to you that it is hurtful to them, and their loved ones.

 

Address the issue not the person(s) with the issue. IE; John 8:3-11

8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

 

"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".

 

I glad you have so much confidence in my abilities, but really neither I nor any one else can do that. To arbitrarily change the meanings of words to its opposite makes communication impossible.

[Stone holm]

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.

 

Another somewhat odd thing is happening.  My brother, who happens to be gay, has said the older gay community is complaining because the younger (read around 40) gays that are married are introducing "family values" restrictions into activities in gay communities and campgrounds, which the older set finds a bit annoying.  I kind of find it ironic -- all these accusations about how gay marriage was going to destroy the heterosexual community, and instead it is altering gay communities.

[thesometimesaint]

Thanks for your thoughtful answer.  You have given me some things to think about.  I think you are right in stating that the State owns the definition of marriage from a legal point of view.  State marriage has been going on as long as religious marriage or even perhaps longer.  It seems to me that the State is the one that lent out the use of the word marriage to religious institutions.  Perhaps it is the State that should revoke the use of the word marriage from religious institutions.  How do you feel about religions being banned from using the word marriage and their unions should be called religious unions or some other term.

We, in the US, and most of rest of the world gets their marriage laws from the ancient Romans. But it is a good question of which was actually first. From my religious perspective it was Adam and Eve, and the State didn't get involved in it until the Romans finally codified it. Before then it was largely a family affair.

 

I'm not big on revoking(banning) words, particularly State imposed revoking(banning(s)). Just make marriages legally non-gender specific, and the natural evolution of words will take care of the rest. IE; It wasn't all that long ago that calling a black person the "N" word was socially acceptable. We didn't have the State revoke the word, but public pressure did the job.

[wenglund]

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

 

No, of course not--as any reasonable person with the least familiarity with my posts would certainly know.

 

I allude to mental capacity when it is due--such as on those occasions where some people are in the bad habit of strewing my comments with uncharitable straw.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jkwilliams]

Another somewhat odd thing is happening.  My brother, who happens to be gay, has said the older gay community is complaining because the younger (read around 40) gays that are married are introducing "family values" restrictions into activities in gay communities and campgrounds, which the older set finds a bit annoying.  I kind of find it ironic -- all these accusations about how gay marriage was going to destroy the heterosexual community, and instead it is altering gay communities.

I'm not surprised. From what I have learned (admittedly not that much), a lot of the promiscuous and secretive behavior among many homosexuals results from there being social and legal barriers to commitment. Removing those barriers is likely to promote "family values," as you put it.

[wenglund]

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.

 

It is amusing to see someone claiming to be "so over the whole gay marriage thing" spending several paragraphs discussing just that. Perhaps an irony adjustment is in order?

 

Be that as it may, you may be pleased to learn that the topic of this thread isn't gay marriage, but word manipulation in general. Radically manipulating the term "marriage" to accommodate gay relationships, among other efforts to advance homosexuality, was just one example of several types of word manipulation techniques mentioned thus far. It was nice of you to unwittingly provide an object lesson for at least one of the techniques, if not both.

 

You may also be pleased to learn that I, too, believe the debate over gay marriage is pretty much over. And, given the way things are going, it wouldn't surprise me if it isn't long before people young and old find it odd that the definition of marriage was only expanded for a time to include homosexuals. But, bringing things back on topic, perhaps you will one day be able to likewise revel in the knowledge of pet lovers aspiring to what you and your wife have. There seems to be no bounds to where word manipulation may end.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

I'm not surprised. From what I have learned (admittedly not that much), a lot of the promiscuous and secretive behavior among many homosexuals results from there being social and legal barriers to commitment. Removing those barriers is likely to promote "family values," as you put it.

 

Kind of the opposite effect than predicted by some groups though.

[Stone holm]

 "only expanded for a time to include homosexuals"   I think it unlikely that geni will climb back in the bottle or closet.

[jkwilliams]

Kind of the opposite effect than predicted by some groups though.

I've always thought it a bit weird to think that promoting commitment would result in less commitment.

[Stone holm]

I've always thought it a bit weird to think that promoting commitment would result in less commitment.

 

Some groups do tend to stand logic on its head, along with the Gospel.

[cinepro]

You may also be pleased to learn that I, too, believe the debate over gay marriage is pretty much over. And, given the way things are going, it wouldn't surprise me if it isn't long before people young and old find it odd that the definition of marriage was only expanded for a time to include homosexuals. But, bringing things back on topic, perhaps you will one day be able to likewise revel in the knowledge of pet lovers aspiring to what you and your wife have. There seems to be no bounds to where word manipulation may end.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Thank you Doctor Venkman.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I've always thought it a bit weird to think that promoting commitment would result in less commitment.

And that in and of it's self seems to manipulate the arguements. No one is argueing that promoting commitment would result in less commitment. That is a total strawman. What I think is weird is when one side has to constantly belittle and make straw man arguments to prop up their own arguements or  lack of arguments. Oh well. Going down this particular road is a waste of time.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Some groups do tend to stand logic on its head, along with the Gospel.

Yup some do. I have seen it quite a few times as of late. And thus we see that one tactic of word manipulation comes that instead of actually making an argument all that is left is to attack those that you disagree with. Good ol' Saul Alinsky.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[jkwilliams]

And that in and of it's self seems to manipulate the arguements. No one is argueing that promoting commitment would result in less commitment. That is a total strawman. What I think is weird is when one side has to constantly belittle and make straw man arguments to prop up their own arguements or  lack of arguments. Oh well. Going down this particular road is a waste of time.

 

Apparently, you haven't seen Wade's "unintended consequences" page, in which he argues that legalizing same-sex marriage will result in less commitment and less marriage among both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Cal it a strawman, but I'm not the one making that argument.

[BCSpace]

In posts to come, I will address at least two such word games--i.e. "word redefinitions" and "censoring words." I invite you to not only respond to the word manipulations I will identify, but feel free to identify some of your own.

 

I predict it will not be long before we see "Temporary Refund Adjustment" used in real life.....

 

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/great-tax-moment-simpsons-history

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Apparently, you haven't seen Wade's "unintended consequences" page, in which he argues that legalizing same-sex marriage will result in less commitment and less marriage among both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Cal it a strawman, but I'm not the one making that argument.

So Wade do you agree with the assessment that John has made?

[wenglund]

Apparently, you haven't seen Wade's "unintended consequences" page, in which he argues that legalizing same-sex marriage will result in less commitment and less marriage among both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Cal it a strawman, but I'm not the one making that argument.

 

It is no small distortion/over-simplification to characterize my Leftist LUNCs on SSM as suggesting "promoting commitment would result in less commitment." People can read through the series linked above to see for themselves, particularly my post on Same-Sex Marriage--Spike in Social Ills. Read what I actually say, rather than the words being put into my mouth.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Thank you Doctor Venkman.

 

You're welcome, Alfred E Newman.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jkwilliams]

It is no small distortion/over-simplification to characterize my Leftist LUNCs on SSM as suggesting "promoting commitment would result in less commitment." People can read through the series linked above to see for themselves, particularly my post on Same-Sex Marriage--Spike in Social Ills. Read what I actually say, rather than the words being put into my mouth.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

So, what is your argument? Will commitment between people increase or decrease if same-sex marriage is legalized? You cite statistics from Europe purporting to show that marriage rates decline after same-sex marriages are legalized and that same-sex couple aren't interested, anyway. Are you now saying that you don't really mean that? Please clarify.

[jkwilliams]

For those who missed it, here's Wade's piece on how legalizing same-sex marriage will actually increase promiscuity and its attendant social ills.

 

http://leftistlunc.blogspot.com/2013/06/same-sex-marriage-spike-in-social-ills.html

 

The idea seems to be that homosexuals don't believe in marital fidelity, so even though they will be "married," there's no attendant increase in commitment and fidelity, which will spill over into heterosexual trends. In fact, legalizing gay marriage will encourage infidelity and attendant social problems.

 

To quote Wade: "As such, legalizing same-sex marriage didn't diminish infidelity and social problems common to unmarried homosexuals, but may have even encourage it by giving homosexual infidelity the legitimizing label of "marriage."

 

But I'm sure this is just another deliberate misunderstanding of Wade's point.

[Calm]

For those who missed it, here's Wade's piece on how legalizing same-sex marriage will actually increase promiscuity and its attendant social ills.

 

http://leftistlunc.blogspot.com/2013/06/same-sex-marriage-spike-in-social-ills.html

 

The idea seems to be that homosexuals don't believe in marital fidelity, so even though they will be "married," there's no attendant increase in commitment and fidelity, which will spill over into heterosexual trends. In fact, legalizing gay marriage will encourage infidelity and attendant social problems.

 

To quote Wade: "As such, legalizing same-sex marriage didn't diminish infidelity and social problems common to unmarried homosexuals, but may have even encourage it by giving homosexual infidelity the legitimizing label of "marriage."

 

But I'm sure this is just another deliberate misunderstanding of Wade's point.

So Wade doesn't automatically equate "marriage" with "commitment".  I think that is wise given how some people (heterosexuals and  homosexual) enter into marriage these days, often with an expectation that it has a limited shelf life, starting off with arrangements to ensure that when it ends as expected, they will be fully protected financially, etc.

 

It will be interesting (sad as well) when SSM is around long enough so that stats on divorce can be compared as in how long do such marriages last and the rate of success versus failure, do open marriages stay intact if not sexually faithful longer than closed/sexually exclusive marriages, etc...will they be the same, better or worse.