Gay marriage is adult's pretending

Still no clue on the concept of language and words and now using an even less understood interpretation of feelings to try and escape the actual conversation. But glad to see fairy tales entertain you so effectively, no wonder you are in awe of Bernie Sanders.

 

Wow, a regular Sherlock Holmes! Just what gave you the clue? Are you somehow an expert on ancient languages and have a new interpretation? Of course you're not and haven't a clue. So how about that unless you can somehow get accredited and change the interpretation, that we use what has been the accepted translation, then marriage is the word.

Law, seems to be another subject to which you demonstrate a marked deficiency. And it also seems that jumping to conclusions are a mainstay of your rhetoric. It seems you little accept a language but desire to redefine it to meet your needs but that but creates confusion. If you don't like the English language, then learn to speak another, not my choice and unless you are a slave needing permission and even then don't ask me for permission, I won't 'confirm or deny. Likewise, as your choice, you don't like this countries history, please feel free to find another, again don't ask me as I refuse to be a party to your slavery.

Great rant and no I do not like the changes that have been made. You somehow think this is a democracy, well it's not and never has been. And I did leave, I live in the Republic, something that I believe you could never conceive.

 

I have read thousands upon thousands of opinions of those mystical beings in black robes. It is just as likely as to not find those words, in fact for the titled case I used previously:

"The decree is reversed and the cause is remanded to the District Court with directions to dismiss the bill of complaint for the want of jurisdiction.

Reversed."

Seems this one didn't "So Ordered" anything. And then choosing at random a case from my database: United States v. Lopez, 514 US 549 (1995)

"For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Affirmed."

But for laughs and giggles, here is a really old one chosen at random from my database: Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 (1824)

"This Court is, therefore, of opinion, that the decree of the Court of New-York for the Trial of Impeachments and the Correction of Errors, affirming the decree of the Chancellor of that State, which perpetually enjoins the said Thomas Gibbons, the appellant, from navigating the waters of the State of New-York with the steam boats the Stoudinger and the Bellona, by steam or fire, is erroneous, and ought to be reversed, and the same is hereby reversed and annulled: and this Court doth further DIRECT, ORDER, and DECREE, that the bill of the said Aaron Ogden be dismissed, and the same is hereby dismissed accordingly."

And while they do on occasion use the words "so ordered", they are not as you try to stipulate but are directed to an inferior court as they have the power to do.

 

Repeat: ...but to try and displace anothers beliefs in the process is an injury, that I can't and wont accept no matter how many of the ignorant masses insist otherwise.

Don't care what you like of dislike, doesn't change matters one iota. As to your continuing rant, it changes nothing, you may believe whatever you want but to say it doesn't matter is purely ridiculous. You may try and turn things around any way you desire but it doesn't change the fact, it is a hijack of another's beliefs.

But what I find humorous is you keep trying to make this personal and believe it has to do with me, perhaps it the Deist part that has you confused. Or was it the Political atheist part? I don't do licenses and I will never ask a government or their political entity the corporate church for anything. But they still have the right to their beliefs without being force fed by a bunch of "New Age" politically correct idiots.

 

If you had a clue then perhaps you would understand that which you have written holds no water.

 

Slang is the use of a word beyond it's original meaning, Websters, 1828:

"Slang

SLANG, old preterit tense of sling. We now use slung.

SLANG, noun Low vulgar unmeaning language. [Low.]"

And from the modern dictionary you left out:

"1.1 [count noun] The origin of a word and the historical development of its meaning:"

But again from Websters, 1828:

"Etymology

ETYMOL'OGY, noun [Gr. true, and discourse.]

1. That part of philology which explains the origin and derivation of words, with a view to ascertain their radical or primary signification.

In grammar, etymology comprehends the various inflections and modifications of words, and shows how they are formed from their simple roots.

2. The deduction of words from their originals; the analysis of compound words into their primitives."

In other words, to understand the true meaning of a word and not it's deviation by way of misunderstanding by common use, slang.

 

Do you have a clue concerning your own words and the concept of language you are using?..

An "injury"??? Seriously? You have proven my point so do not pretend that you are approaching this subject from a strictly intellectual standpoint and how it relates to semantics.

Yes indeedy do..I proudly support a man of integrity that has stood by his convictions for three decades based upon the principles of what created and nurtured the middle class. Don't tell me..let me guess..you're a Ted Cruz supporter...LOL

 

The claim to have witnessed the moon landing expresses knowledge that the moon landing happened, within the claim. The claim demonstrates knowledge of the moon landing, it is therefore self-evident that someone claiming to have witnessed the moon landing knew that the moon landing happened.

Striking a man is a violent act. That a person is capable of violence is demonstrated by committing an act of violence. A claim that someone who strikes another man is capable of violence is self-evidently true, because the demonstration (striking another man) is contained within the claim.

That God or elves want you to obey a particular rule is not self-evident. No evidence of elves, God, or that want exists within the claim.




​

 

Taking a people's holy Book, rewriting it in your language, asserting that God meant it for you, and reducing that people's beliefs to "jewish (lower case) mythology?" And you are upset about the 'injurious hijacking' of a single word that did not exist in that book but was applied when you tried to express it's contents in your language?

The law you and I share in this country belongs to both of us. Over 180 years ago the word marriage was introduced into that law without complaint and it is now embedded in thousands of statutes, codes, laws, and precedents. Any claim your particular church may have had to that trademark is long expired (if it ever existed). You are welcome to use the word in your church as you see fit, but you have no ownership of it as a legal term.

If that makes you unhappy, I truly regret your unhappiness. But making your particular church more happy than the next isn't worth making our shared law unfair. And I do not see how you can claim doing that has in any way caused you injury.




​

 

Point to the evidence within this claim.

So as far as you're concerned, Jefferson didn't understand the term either. Got that about right, haven't I?

 

There is no 'informal' or context disclaimer on that entry in my copies of Webster or Oxford, the way there is for 'grass' being 'informal' or 'medical' for marijuana. Neither authority seems to call that second definition slang. How did you determine it was an informal definition?





​

​

 

Words #5 through 8. Those words demonstrate knowledge of the moon landing, it is therefore self-evident that someone claiming to have witnessed the moon landing knew that the moon landing happened.



​

 

The second stage of death is "denial".

 

You may be thinking of the stages of coping with a death. When you die, denial isn't usually an option.

(then again, there was Jesus...)





​

 

Thank you for the correction.
Though you would think with all the wailing and teeth gnashing going on over the new reality of marriage that someone had died.

 

If you had any idea what you're talking about, you'd realize this clause is nonsensical.

Now did Jefferson understand what "self-evident" means, yes or no?

 

Don't need clues as I expressly comprehend the context of words, something that seems apparent you lack. To you words are dynamic, but to me that can never be because that is not a language but a cult.

Excellent example, the total misconception of injury and how how inflicts same on another. No, you have proven your point and I have never once believed any response to same has been on an intellectual level. Semantics, not within this conversation as that would require the comprehension of some underlying principles that escapes the "New Age" progressivism.

Another excellent example, to describe Bernie Sanders as a man of integrity. But he has stood by his convictions of that which has been most destructive of the middle class. Likewise you guessed and you failed, another area in which you demonstrate that you have no clue.

 

Why do you believe that?




​

 

The use of the word "marriage" inflicts no injury by anyone that legally enters into the union ...the perceived "injury" is self-inflicted by delusional bible thumpers.

And btw...you already have shown that you are clueless as to what built or is destroying the middle class, which is why I have decided to not respond to your posts on the topic on that particular thread.

 

Why do you keep persisting that you are somehow my slave? I have no slaves and am but the master of one, where the master and subject are the same. Likewise, I am slave to no one and that includes theology. And besides, the government seems to be your master.

I took no-one's holy book and the rewriting was commissioned by King James I in 1604 shortly after his coronation. The Bible as it is called is actually two different books, both a collection of writings from various authors. The first book, the "Old Testament" is a collection of jewish mythological scrolls dating back some 6000 years. That the stories are true I have no doubt to a certain degree but as to their meanings, I don't accept that.

The second book is the "New Testament" that is a collection of scrolls that date back to the turning of time into AD which the jewish and some others do not accept. By way of the actual stories, these are said to be the writing of the Apostles of Jesus. But, just where do you get that I have said it was meant for me.

But you should stop and comprehend the actual title of this thread, then perhaps you can get a grip on the conversation. I care less if you desire to marry an ape (need an introduction, I know this 31 year old Silverback). But what I find really humorous is the instance of those that desire to invite a third, and dominate, party into a relationship, sad really.

So that would make you wrong on two counts, my acceptance of either the institution of marriage or the institution of religion. I shun both with equal disdain. To those that accept either or both, more power to them, I hope that find what they were looking for and not what they accepted.

The law, no, you and I do not share the law, we are totally at odds at what that even means as most evident by your description. To me law is a moral conviction, one that has been the whole basis I have used for this conversation. For you, law is the master that you are so diligently trying to escape but can't find the exit.

But to humor you, marriage was first integrated into the statutes in New York in regards to interracial relationships. It was against the law for interracial couples to be married without a license. Otherwise, marriage was a union ordained and blessed by the church or just a common law declaration, living with someone for seven or more years or bearing offspring. Neither had any involvement of the state other than those wishing to have there testaments recorded for prosperity by the county recorder, now known as the Clerk of the Courts or more properly in some cases, the register of Deeds.

As to your last statement, of course you don't see how, for the entire paragraph.

 

First answer the question about Jefferson.

 

If you are a U.S. citizen, a condition of that contractual agreement you voluntarily entered into is a recognition and acceptance of U.S. law. Should you not wish to enjoy the benefits of that agreement, you are free to exit it -- but unless you make that choice are legally bound by it.

The legal status 'married' exists so that our shared laws, which are mostly designed to treat people as individuals, can accommodate those couples amongst us who wish to live a shared life. No requirement of ordination or blessing is required, simply that claim to live as one couple be registered with the state.

Once that that status is recognized by law our courts, police officers, tax collectors, prison officials, property assessors, educators, and are allowed to offer accommodations to that union. And these laws first came on the books around 1830.

If you honestly believe another party receiving those accommodations harms you, I'd be curious as to your description of that harm.




​

 

of course it doesn't, but then one has no clue do they?

Marriage

MAR'RIAGE, noun [Latin mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Hebrews 13:4

1. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage

The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage for his son. Matthew 22:2.

2. In a scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace. Revelation 19:7

The difference being my Webster's and yours. My Webster's was written by Noah Webster himself while yours was written by a large corporate concern with profit as a motive. When comparing the two and adding the etymological origin of the word, one can see how informal slang has had an influence.

You profess to know law, but I have my doubts that you understand just why so many of the words are in Latin.

 

I couldn't tell you with certainty, but I would guess he did.




​

 

Or in this case, judicial mandates