Quote:
Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Did you really say "nostalgia"?
Anyhoo, "Colored folk" is kind of nostalgic too. Folks will just have to just buck up to the fact that "marriage" may involve two pooty stores instead of one. (NTTAWWT)
|
Well, why should the majority have to learn a new definition? Why not make the minority? We could call the less manly of a gay couple, you know, like a "male bride", and we could call the less womanly of the lesbian couple, you know, like a "female groom"! As for colored folk, I think the definition hasn't changed. People just use the term less. What were we talking about again? Oh yeah, changing definitions. So why not take the easy way instead of redefining words.
Quote:
Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Well if you're saying the rights/duties for both same and different sex unions should be equal, but should have separate names, I'd say that's a "separate but equal" concept.
|
And, just like I'd hope that Rosa Parks doesn't want crackheads hijacking her legacy by appropriating the term "civil rights" to include a made-up right to use harmful substances, I'd hope that the many oppressed people who see "separate but equal" as something, well, more than a mere difference in terminology, would object to your hijacking the image of their suffering for what is (for the sake of argument) only a difference in terminology (i.e., if the treatment is equal except for the title). Sitting at the front of the bus this is not (yet). And slippery slope arguments are for those who don't have a current basis of objection, in case you really are arguing that the marriage office will have a second unattended line for gay folks.
Its this hijacking of legacy that got government involved in the marriage business in the first place, ain't it?
Quote:
Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Anyways, if it's so important to have a different word apply, why not create TWO new terms. One for lesbo marriages, one for gay ones. How about even MORE new terms describing something that really is, in fact, simply "marriage", such as a word for unions where one of the parties is an FTM (female to male transexual). And one for an MTF. And one.....oh, you get the point.
|
We can create as many as you want. The point is, our people don't want to destroy ones we already have. Whether the PC crowd* can force middle-America to use new words is another matter. I doubt the folks in Peoria keep up on the lingo as it is; and its the idea that they don't want to that might explain why the majority of this country seems to object to appropriating the term "marriage" but doesn't object to sharing the concept of equal rights and responsibilities.
Quote:
Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Gay tendencies? Only in NJ government, baby.
I don't get this. But then I think the only thing you and I are sharing is retarded conversation on a Friday night. And I'm on percocet. So Hay Tello Ta Mee!!!!
|
A. Former Gov. Thompson of IL, recently of the 9/11 commission, was the subject of rumors for years at the hands of the Chicago democrats. And I know I'm missing someone else. Something about that state where people are always saying not to mess with them.
B. Tello Ta Mee!!!!
Hope ya feel better. The joke was that I told a girl who was anxious about starting a new job (and had been working 12 hour days for her first 2 weeks) that her gov't job couldn't be that hard, because if there was enough work for her to do, they would have hired two people to do it. Hard working gov't types don't seem to appreciate that kind of thinking.
The point is, if gov't sees an opportunity to create new gov't jobs, gov't will create new gov't jobs. Say hello to the department of civil unions and meet my cousin Lenny who joins us from Streets and San!
Hello
