Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Umfuld
Right. So switch it to a man who has had his testicles cut off by a tragic lawn mower accident. Or anyway in which a man and woman cannont have a child due to medical reasons.
And answer the question in that way.
Or just refuse to again, because it dismisses the entire point.
And you are wrong about the dictionary. Yes, it simply lists the legal definition. If gays are allowed to marry, guess what, the dictionary isn't going to keep the old definition as some sort of politcal statement.
Good lord.
I'm implying that it's foolish to whine about people who are trying to change things and act like the status que has always been great and never needed changing.
Duh, get it?
|
Yeah i get it. You're reduced to imagining obscure testicle accidents in a desperate attempt to make your flawed point.
However, regardless of your own "gimme, gimme" childish arguments, the status quO on the definition of the word marriage is fine as is and doesn't need changing. Come up with some really valid reasons for changing it and
just maybe people will listen to you, but change for changes own sake is not one of them.
As for the dictionary, you could redefine
any word to mean something it doesn't but that wouldn't make it accurate or proper to do so. Changing the definition of a word just to make a political statement, which is what you, not me, are demanding, would be as ridiculous as asking what the definition of "is" is.