Semantics

Ionax

Marriage has always referred to a life-long commitment between man and woman. A woman announcing her engagement would simply say to her friends "I'm getting married!" (the obvious implication being that's she's getting married to a man). But why do the homosexual lobby seek to forcibly change the meaning of the word "marriage"? Surely there should be a different word for it? Liberals are attempting to put more ambiguity in the modern-day equivalent word for "marriage" (assuming marriage between man and woman and man and man is somehow "the same") - which is not only wrong, but also linguistically inefficient. Linguistic progress involves maximising the amount of information in each word so there's as little ambiguity as possible. Using "marriage" in the context of two (or three, or more...) homosexuals is inefficient and the word either needs to be redefined or deprecated in favour of a new word.

In summary: gays should go find a new word to describe their unions.

El Guapo!

Don't be ridiculous.

kneemos

They could put the number 1 in front of it.

Death and Taxes

What a sad opening post, chap needs to get out more:rolleyes:
Gay marraige is as real, meaninful, and legitmate to the couple involved as hetrosexual marraige.

crockholm

would it be ok to put the word "gay" before it, thereby giving it a new meaning?

9959

Like hetrosexuals they even use the word 'love', it's a disgrace so it is!

Froyo

May I suggest 'g_marriage'...

anhedonia

Username bares a resemblance to the Iona Institute.

Great work on your latest advertisement guys !!

Hazys

Ionax wrote: »

Marriage has always referred to a life-long commitment between man and woman. A woman announcing her engagement would simply say to her friends "I'm getting married!" (the obvious implication being that's she's getting married to a man). But why do the homosexual lobby seek to forcibly change the meaning of the word "marriage"? Surely there should be a different word for it? Liberals are attempting to put more ambiguity in the modern-day equivalent word for "marriage" (assuming marriage between man and woman and man and man is somehow "the same") - which is not only wrong, but also linguistically inefficient. Linguistic progress involves maximising the amount of information in each word so there's as little ambiguity as possible. Using "marriage" in the context of two (or three, or more...) homosexuals is inefficient and the word either needs to be redefined or deprecated in favour of a new word.

In summary: gays should go find a new word to describe their unions.

lol

Why don't we let gheys call their union 'Marriage' then lets change the definition of heterosexual marriage's name to just 'Marge'.

That makes the definition of heterosexual marriage quicker to say and way more efficient...and the gays get marriage...win win

WindSock

Linguistic progress should reflect societal progress so the meanings of words don't cause ambiguity among people who refuse to understand what it means to be discriminated against by categorising others by giving them their own seperate words for the same things, my n1gga.

Annasopra

Ionax wrote: »

Marriage has always referred to a life-long commitment between man and woman.

You do know that in 1937 when Bunreacht na hEireann was introduced 12 year old girls and 14 year old boys could marry, don't you?

Micky Dolenz

OP banned.

/thread.