| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 2/4/13 9:14 AM, Salmonbait wrote:
However, gays who are 'unionized' are *not* living a 'marriage'. Meriam-Webster has it correct in their primary definition: Definition of MARRIAGE 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law You are in no position by education or experience to determine the validity of the definitions of words. And if you are going to "cite" a dictionary, you might at least spell its name correctly. *Meriam*-Webster, indeed. George and Charles Merriam are rolling in their graves. |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 2/4/2013 9:22 AM, ESAD wrote:
On 2/4/13 9:14 AM, Salmonbait wrote: However, gays who are 'unionized' are *not* living a 'marriage'. Meriam-Webster has it correct in their primary definition: Definition of MARRIAGE 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law You are in no position by education or experience to determine the validity of the definitions of words. And if you are going to "cite" a dictionary, you might at least spell its name correctly. *Meriam*-Webster, indeed. George and Charles Merriam are rolling in their graves. So, old wise one, are you conceding that Merriam's definition of the word marriage is valid? The whole world is waiting for your proclamation. ;-) |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#7
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 2/4/2013 10:06 AM, ESAD wrote:
On 2/4/13 10:02 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 2/4/13 9:14 AM, Salmonbait wrote: However, gays who are 'unionized' are *not* living a 'marriage'. Meriam-Webster has it correct in their primary definition: Definition of MARRIAGE 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law You are in no position by education or experience to determine the validity of the definitions of words. And if you are going to "cite" a dictionary, you might at least spell its name correctly. *Meriam*-Webster, indeed. George and Charles Merriam are rolling in their graves. Didn't have the balls to post the WHOLE definition, which is: mar·riage noun \'mer-ij, 'ma-rij\ Definition of MARRIAGE 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage same-sex marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities 3 : an intimate or close union the marriage of painting and poetry ? J. T. Shawcross Herring's offering is not even a definition from a recognized unabridged dictionary. It's a universally accepted definition. However, a few corn holers and progressives might take exception to it. |
|
#8
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article m,
says... On 2/4/2013 10:06 AM, ESAD wrote: On 2/4/13 10:02 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 2/4/13 9:14 AM, Salmonbait wrote: However, gays who are 'unionized' are *not* living a 'marriage'. Meriam-Webster has it correct in their primary definition: Definition of MARRIAGE 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law You are in no position by education or experience to determine the validity of the definitions of words. And if you are going to "cite" a dictionary, you might at least spell its name correctly. *Meriam*-Webster, indeed. George and Charles Merriam are rolling in their graves. Didn't have the balls to post the WHOLE definition, which is: mar·riage noun \'mer-ij, 'ma-rij\ Definition of MARRIAGE 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage same-sex marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities 3 : an intimate or close union the marriage of painting and poetry ? J. T. Shawcross Herring's offering is not even a definition from a recognized unabridged dictionary. It's a universally accepted definition. However, a few corn holers and progressives might take exception to it. "corn holers" because they believe a dictionary over Herring?? |
|
#9
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 17:25:28 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 09:14:05 -0500, Salmonbait wrote: On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 21:26:21 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 21:08:45 -0500, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 2/2/2013 8:13 PM, wrote: On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 11:58:33 -0500, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 2/2/2013 11:52 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 2/2/2013 10:30 AM, ESAD wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=r0Be8LnuG3U#! Be careful.. While you are burying your head in the sand pro choice, pro gay rights conservatives are popping up all around you, we are more libertarian than right. We are everywhere, democrats are fuked... Oh, cool, I didn't know you were were pro gay rights. Let the marriages begin! You didn't know, because you just assume and argue.. Next time try listening... But just to **** you off I will tell you that I support gay rights, BECAUSE I am a Christian, not because I personally approve. How can you adopt such a position, when the Mormon church has clearly stated that acting upon same-sex attraction is a sin. How can you be so stupid? I told you my position, I do not speak for the Mormon Church. “What we do know is that the doctrine of the church – that sexual activity should only occur between a man and a woman who are married – has not changed and is not changing,” (Elder Quentin Cook) C'mon, name calling? You've made it clear that you are Mormon, yet you don't believe that you should follow the Mormon teachings. That is about as confusing as an atheist that believes in God. And your response is name calling. Why try to interject your feelings for religion into whether or not gays should have equal rights as non-gays. Civil rights are civil rights. The Constitution doesn't distinguish between gays and non-gays, both are entitled to the same protection under the law. That is not a religious issue. However, gays who are 'unionized' are *not* living a 'marriage'. Meriam-Webster has it correct in their primary definition: Definition of MARRIAGE 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law ...all rest is designed to appease the liberals. Salmonbait The "unionized" stuff (whatever that is) is probably about civil unions, which was the only thing available to gays and lesbians, since the conservatives, pushed along by the religious right, effectively blocked any concept permitting other than "one man and one woman" to wed. That is historical in nature, unless you are (again) trying to rewrite history. MY feelings pertaining to religion have nothing to do with it. Conservative Christian dogma has EVREYTHING to do with it. I said nothing about what *I* believed, I merely pointed to an inconsistency in the OP's wearing of HIS religion on his sleeve vs. the official position of that religion's governing body. Why do you always try to attack the messenger rather than make a logical argument. Of course, as I suspect, you don't HAVE a logical argument and the only thing left is an argumentum ad hominem. You were not attacked. The dictionary made the argument. I simply agree. The rest of the definition was simply added to appease liberals. Oh, and please pardon my misspelling of 'Merriam'. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument! You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... You have to have your parents signature to go on a school field trip but not to get an abortion. |
|
#10
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
says... On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 17:25:28 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 09:14:05 -0500, Salmonbait wrote: On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 21:26:21 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 21:08:45 -0500, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 2/2/2013 8:13 PM, wrote: On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 11:58:33 -0500, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 2/2/2013 11:52 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 2/2/2013 10:30 AM, ESAD wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=r0Be8LnuG3U#! Be careful.. While you are burying your head in the sand pro choice, pro gay rights conservatives are popping up all around you, we are more libertarian than right. We are everywhere, democrats are fuked... Oh, cool, I didn't know you were were pro gay rights. Let the marriages begin! You didn't know, because you just assume and argue.. Next time try listening... But just to **** you off I will tell you that I support gay rights, BECAUSE I am a Christian, not because I personally approve. How can you adopt such a position, when the Mormon church has clearly stated that acting upon same-sex attraction is a sin. How can you be so stupid? I told you my position, I do not speak for the Mormon Church. ?What we do know is that the doctrine of the church ? that sexual activity should only occur between a man and a woman who are married ? has not changed and is not changing,? (Elder Quentin Cook) C'mon, name calling? You've made it clear that you are Mormon, yet you don't believe that you should follow the Mormon teachings. That is about as confusing as an atheist that believes in God. And your response is name calling. Why try to interject your feelings for religion into whether or not gays should have equal rights as non-gays. Civil rights are civil rights. The Constitution doesn't distinguish between gays and non-gays, both are entitled to the same protection under the law. That is not a religious issue. However, gays who are 'unionized' are *not* living a 'marriage'. Meriam-Webster has it correct in their primary definition: Definition of MARRIAGE 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law ...all rest is designed to appease the liberals. Salmonbait The "unionized" stuff (whatever that is) is probably about civil unions, which was the only thing available to gays and lesbians, since the conservatives, pushed along by the religious right, effectively blocked any concept permitting other than "one man and one woman" to wed. That is historical in nature, unless you are (again) trying to rewrite history. MY feelings pertaining to religion have nothing to do with it. Conservative Christian dogma has EVREYTHING to do with it. I said nothing about what *I* believed, I merely pointed to an inconsistency in the OP's wearing of HIS religion on his sleeve vs. the official position of that religion's governing body. Why do you always try to attack the messenger rather than make a logical argument. Of course, as I suspect, you don't HAVE a logical argument and the only thing left is an argumentum ad hominem. You were not attacked. The dictionary made the argument. I simply agree. The rest of the definition was simply added to appease liberals. Oh, and please pardon my misspelling of 'Merriam'. Salmonbait Please do tell, narrow minded racist, where do you get the notion that the "rest" of the definition was to appease liberals? |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| hi lols looking for real males | General | |||
| Right wing strikes again... | General | |||
| New Fixed Wing | Cruising | |||
| Right Wing loses, Left Wing Wins Big | General | |||
| For red-blooded males, not conservative republicans | General | |||