Monday, November 24, 2008

pseudo linquistic humbuggers

My reply to a comment I found on skepticblog.org

  1. My comment is on the pseudo linguistics (I call them humbuggers! (I did not know by the way that “‘em” was a word. Maybe newly (re)-defined? Hmm, maybe language does change after all))

    Same-sex “marriage” is possible because the word “marriage” is (or will be) re-defined. The word “Marriage” has NOT meant the same thing for about ten thousand years: the committed union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.

    For one the word is only as old as the English language. (Earliest record around 1290. (See also: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/marriage) Oh and for your information, the fact that a word had a specific meaning for and during a certain time does not mean it will always stay like that. The interesting thing about language is that, just like life, it evolves over time. Words change, words appear, word disappear and so on. The good thing really is that there has never been any group, legislative body, pressure group, government or any other socio entity such as a religeous congregation that has been able to claim ownership to a word. Hell, even the words god and atheist have multiple meanings. (thank your brain for that btw)

    This entire argument is being obscured by those who think they might loose certain rights if they allow others (oooh, scary, different people) to “marry.” This is patently true.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with two (or more) people (or other species) living together in a committed relationship. There are even long-established legal AND SOCIAL procedures for doing so. “Partnerships, tenants-in-common, tenants-by-the-entirety,” etc.

    The question IMHO is why should agitators be able to have government HIJACK a word (for the underwhelming minority (POV is very important here)) that has clearly changed over the past decade. WOW, eons of anthropological conservatism.

    If different-sex couples (or other multiples) wish to cohabit, let them feel free to do so and call their relationship by any term they so wish INCLUDING “MARRIAGE,” because “marriage” means: A joining of two parts (Amongst a slew of other things)

    Churches and all other religeous institutions should be brought around to allow same-sex family visitations (between consenting adults please, the other stuff we’ve seen too much off already) and POA (Power of Attorney) rights merely by boycotting those who don’t offer such recognition.

    This same principle can be applied to any other situation.

    Call ‘em “civil unions.” “partnerships,” “companionships,” or any other word that some word smith deems appropriate, INCLUDING “marriage,” BECAUSE “MARRIAGE” BY NEW TRADITION IS BETWEEN TWO CONSENTING (as opposed in certain cultures/religions) ADULT PEOPLE

    I wonder why such “oppressive and restrictive” people can’t solve such a simple “problem” without stirring up such a brouhaha ! Could it be that there is something more (sinister and disclosed) on their agenda? Such as to rid the world of non-believers or to bring heaven to earth or …?

    As for genes, I firmly believe what I have read from the experts.

    Genes in humans surely can make suggestions” or “create urges” toward certain human actions. Genes in human do dictate irresistible, “soft-wired” behaviour (Proper spelling is with of without an u?) patterns as we see in “other-animal” behaviour.

    This means that I think heterosexuality is not a definite choice. In some, it is a conscious choice (often made by others) (the IQ crowd pleasers). In others, they just feel “drawn to it” (the EQ crowd pleasures)

    In any case, “can’t we all just get along?” Live and let live and quit trying to HIJACK a word from us “ultra-hot” people.

    Comment by Erik — November 25, 2008 @ 2:09 am

  2. My comment is on the “gay” question (I call ‘em perverts).

    Same-sex “marriage” is impossible unless the word “marriage” is re-defined. “Marriage” has meant the same thing for about ten thousand years: the committed union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.

    This entire argument is being obscured by those who think some might be denied certain rights if they aren’t allowed to “marry.” This is patently not true.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with two (or more) people (or other species) living together in a committed relationship. There are even long-established legal procedures for doing so. “Partnerships, tenants-in-common, tenants-by-the-entirety,” etc.

    The question IMHO is why should agitators be able to have government REDEFINE a word (for the overwhelming majority) that has had the same definition for eons?

    If same-sex couples (or other multiples) wish to cohabit, let them feel free to do so and call their relationship by any term they so wish EXCEPT “MARRIAGE,” because “marriage” means a man and a woman.

    Hospitals and all other institutions can be brought around to allow same-sex family visitations and POA (Power of Attorney) rights merely by boycotting those who don’t offer such recognition.

    This same principle can be applied to any other situation.

    Call ‘em “civil unions.” “partnerships,” “companionships,” or any other word that some wordsmith deems appropriate, except “marriage,” BECAUSE “MARRIAGE” BY ANCIENT TRADITION IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN.

    I wonder why such “creative and artistic” people can’t solve such a simple “problem” without stirring up such a brouhaha ! Could it be that there is something more (sinister and undisclosed) on their agenda?

    As for genes, I firmly believe what I have read from the experts.

    Genes in humans merely “make suggestions” or “create urges” toward certain human actions. Genes in human do NOT dictate irresistible, “hard-wired” behavior patterns as we see in “lower-animal” behavior.

    This means that I think homosexuality is definitely a choice. In some, it is a conscious choice (the high-IQ crowd). In others, they just feel “drawn to it” (the non-introspective crowd.)

    In any case, “can’t we all just get along?” Live and let live and quit trying to force a word-redefinition on us “un-cool” straights?
    *******************************************************

    Comment by Old Curmudgeon — November 19, 2008 @ 7:14 pm

Monday, August 18, 2008

Devine medication?

It's official now. The Americans have gone crazy. Apparently some 57% of Americans believe that God will intervene where medical specialists have determined a patient will not recover.

The most stunning about this is that, yet again, there is NO evidence to support this believe.

Saturday, April 19, 2008