Maybe she did, maybe she didn't, depends upon your personal viewpoint, but it quite clearly and definitively illustrated the difference between a reasoned response and an emotional one.

No, what I'm saying is that values change over time. England was founded on the principles of various pagan groups like the Angles, Saxons and Jutes. But we rarely hear of danegeld any more, and although one man recently requested the courts to allow him his right to trial by combat, it's certainly a rarity.

In any society, and particularly in a democracy, values change. As the whims and mores of individuals shift over time it is reflected in society itself. In a democracy this occurs faster because the public have greater interaction with the lawmaking process, and so hold a greater influence.



I'd call it change rather than degradation. Perhaps the body politic is becoming more corpulent due to allowing gays to marry, but I think permitting women and various 'people of colour' to work and reach the top has made the nation fighting-fit enough to survive a few extra pounds.

No, all it illustrated was somebody not being able to control their response.  Sorry, Mason, but I just don't get it.  How many people have you said "fuck you" to their face?  I guess if that is a normal response for you, then I see why you said it.  But, I have never said that to anyone even if it was my gut response.  I also have never had that gut response on something as meaningless as an online conversation.

"Change" isn't always good.  Do you see it as progress?  I see it as change, too, but I see it as degradation.

So, now we are comparing Gays to women and people of different races?  I see that I might as well exit this conversation now since it has completely lost logic.

 

More than one.



I know you don't get it, but my response was anything but uncontrolled. It was a quite deliberate and considered slap in the face to someone I felt needed it. I always choose my words to convey exactly what I want them to convey. Some people are so wrapped up in themselves that they need that once in a while.



Yes, but you and I are two different people with different backgrounds and different sensibilities. I would never feel the need to get your attention in such a manner because you always express yourself in an intelligent and reasonable manner and you always seem to at least acknowledge and respect other's points of view even if you don't agree with them. Not everyone does so and sometimes they need a good virtual slap.



Yeah, ok, I understand where you're coming from here but personally do not feel that any conversation, whether in person, on the the phone, or online, is meaningless as there are real people involved in that conversation. I always respect the other people in a conversation unless and until one of them demonstrates that they do not the same, as in the case we are discussing.

I think you'll find that the vast majority of the people with whom I interact here and elsewhere on the web would tell you that I am friendly and respectful. It's only those who aren't respectful of me that would say I have been otherwise toward them. Trust me, I am far more harsh toward this sort of patronizing, disrespectful person face to face than I ever am online.

 

 

I left that one alone when she said it, that was just too easy to respond to without being feisty!lol!

 

Good comment!  I have tried to say this but you are more succinct!  I also agree that "Change" is a much better word to use instead of 'degradation'. 

 

Ooh, great termonology!  Maybe we can get the sound effects or a picture to go with that!lol! 

Hey FS,

I know I'm late in responding but wanted to sit back with some popcorn before I contributed.

To the anti-gay group:

One argument I hear often is the break down of the term marriage. I don't see this necessarily an issue about an attack on 'marriage.' Word definitions (as CactoBlasta mentioned) relate to the definition of the populous during that era of time. Words and their definitions change and continue to change.

Gay - "In earlier and in literary usage, the word means "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy". From the 1890s, it had begun to carry a connotation of promiscuity, as in a "gay house" referring to a brothel. It began to be used in reference to homosexuality in particular from the early 20th century, from the 1920s at the latest." (Wikipedia)

The problem I see with those arguing that Marriage definition hasn't changed when it essentially has. It’s probably more that you don’t WANT to see it changed. Change is never easy especially when it has personal value.

This leads me to my next issue. What right do you (anti-gay group) have to impose your belief and/or personal values upon someone else?

The problem really isn't with the definition of the word but rather an internal legalistic mentality that because of your religious belief you feel justified to impose your definition and will upon others who do not adhere to your belief/moral system.

Do you really think that a silly definition or a law is going to or would prevent this behavior?

I want to also discuss the ‘moral’ issue that the anti-gay group have.

This again is an issue that receives its basis in religious backgrounds. I challenge many of you to sincerely consider your basis here. How can you impose your morals on someone who do not use the same book or religious belief as their moral compass as you do? Just because you believe this is right doesn’t mean that they should be forced to live by the same. What if it were reversed?

What if gays were trying to keep the definition of marriage between two consenting adults (no basis on opposite genders) rather then the current issue of the opposite?

Would you still be using the same argument then?

The reality whether you like it or not is that you are more concerned about imposing your views on someone else rather than seeing what is actually happening.

This has little to do with semantics of definition here. This is more of an issue of imposing your will upon someone else on the basis of your ‘moral’ compass.

JMO

Sorry I'm so late to this discussion.  I could say alot here but will just say for now.....Karma said it in a nutshell right here.  She's absolutely right on. 

 

 

  

You don't have to be "anti-gay" to not want the definition of marriage changed.  I have no problem with people doing whatever they do as long as it doesn't harm me or my family.  However, I strongly believe that marriage is sacred and the definition should not be changed.  Heck, why don't we change the legal term to "civil union" ?  Why not throw out the term "marriage" all together since it won't mean the same thing anymore?

Considering that I am not Christian, and have never been Christian, and don't believe in the Bible at all, I can tell you that you are simply stereotyping.  My view is not based on religion. My morals and ethics are very strong, but they have no roots in religion. 

So, are we saying that we shouldn't stand up for our morals? 

It's not semantics, it's changing a sacred term to mean something completely different.  Marriage is sacred to me.  So, why are my rights less important than somebody else's?

There is less than 10% of the population that is gay.  Why should we change a term that is sacred to so many so that less than 10% of the population will be happy?

why do you strongly believe? What is the basis here?



I am saying is it "right" for one to impose their morals on someone else?

My apologies here Karama, when I meant book I was meaning Moral book not necessarily (Bible, Quo'ran, etc). The point being that they are personal values that are mostly unique to you.

I don't even think it's 10%. To test this theory out....you'd have to know 10 people out of every 100 that were gay.

I know lots of people especially being in the ministry and I'd venture a guess it's closer to 1% which is a figure also given out but growing daily. Before long I'd venture to say we'll be at 50% with anything and everything being about experimentation.

I look at this whole thing as a kidnap or coup. First they took our word "gay" and turned it into something that is anything but "gay" and then they went for the rainbow which was a Christian symbol given to Noah as a covenant that God will never again destroy the world by flood. Now they're marching on trying to redefine marriage.

And the world sleeps. Homosexuality will destroy the family which is the backbone of our society and we will fall.....just as Rome did.

Just look now at how screwed up we are now with divorce between hetersexuals. Now what about two men or two women with children in tow going thru divorces maybe going from man to woman in their search of themselves as we as a society applaud the freedom of their sexuality and choice. What is this going to do to our children but screw them all up?

KFC, with all respect. Does this give you the right to force your morals on someone else?

How does this alter your rights in any way? You still have the right to hold marriage sacred, you still have the right to marry the person of your choice, so how are you losing any rights at all?

Oh, by the way, as for your early arguments about health insurance, that really doesn't make a lot of sense either. A company that already has openly gay working for it already has health insurance rates as set by the insurance company, so how exactly would that change is an already employed and insured gay were to get married?

you've got it backwards AD. We've already had these morals established and it's been accepted for thousands of years. It's not us forcing our morals, it's their stepping all over what has already been clearly established since day one.

I'm kind of surprised AD you're taking this stance really given your belief system. What's up with that?

This is the one thing I have yet to seen a proper explanation of too.

 

 

With all due respect, this is such a load of nonsense KFC!  Where and whey did Gay people 'took' the word Gay and made it their own?  How did they "take" the Rainbow which was a representative of God's gift to Noah?  Are you serious? And in what way does a gay marriage interfere with the divorce rate in America, or anywhere else, and how do they cause that?  Where does it harm your children?

I think you need to re-read the comments again, because most of what you said, have already been addressed previously.  These are the 'scare tactics' and things that are said that gets most people up in arms as to why these people shouldn't be allowed to live their lives the way they want to.

 

Interesting AD!  I think KFC, here's your explanation of the word "gay" being taken over, circumstance created the way this word has been used, not necessarilly that the Gays took it and made it their own!

Look how successful having a 'moral' law has been. If the law had any success we wouldn't be having this conversation now would we? It wasn't and hasn't been effective.



But it IS one group (which happens to be established) forcing their morals on everyone else whether they adhere to that same book of morals or not.



Every time I pray the Shema I follow up with Va'havta La'reyacha kamocha (Lev 19:18). ...And you shall love your neighbor as yourself...

My application in short: I don't want my neighbor in my face telling me how I am supposed to live so I shouldn't telling my neighbor how THEY should be living either. I am pretty sure that's what the Holy Spirit and the Bible is for.

jmo