Obama's church buddies on his new gay marriage stance

[Annik]

No, it's quite clear to me that you meant what I said you meant, especially since you responded to my point of us talking past each other by agreeing that was your view. I'm not sure why the other guy was claiming you used some heretofore unknown scientific definition of homosexuality.

(I actually do know why, and it's because his outrage forced him to respond even though he was wrong and had no actual arguments.)

I completely disagree with the way you're handling the word itself. They need to be separate, as I mentioned in that post and the only later on. You might have agreed with my basic view, but that does not mean I agree with the way you are using the word. For the purposes for discussion, the blanket term you keep using is not appropriate.

Just to note, I'm fairly confident that you also checked the first site, which only has one definition, which just so happens to be the definition I use. It's disingenuous to completely ignore that and write what you've written here anyway. Cherry picking is not a tactic that leads toward honesty and intelligent discussion.

Yes, I did see the first definition. I thought to use the second one since it was displayed in a way that would get my point across a little easier. However, the first definition is not exempt from my point at all. Just because the definition lumps them together in the same sentence does not mean you're able to lump them together as an idea. We're picking apart homosexuality as a choice, so thought and action need to become separate. In fact, action isn't even relevant to the discussion for the most part. Sexual orientation does not change with action, so why include action at all? (<- Just an aside)

Regardless, I have no issue with using homosexuality to refer to either aspect even when the definitions have different numbers. There's a definite connection there, and I see no need to ignore one definition (using M-W's) and focus solely on the other, or to at various points in a conversation say, "and guys, to clarify, now I'm talking about physical acts, not feelings," or the reverse. It's not like the word "tire," where different definitions are not related in any way. With homosexuality, the two definitions have a relationship that is deeply intertwined.

There are different kinds of tires, though. You can say, "I need a new tire." You could be referring to either needing it for your bike or for your car. This is more similar to the differences between homosexual acts and homosexual feeling. In the context of the conversation, distinction needs to be made.

I know, right? I have no idea why that guy keeps insulting me and calling me names. It really does seems a bit childish. All I did was parody his righteous outrage using a stereotypical Hulk comment. Why would anyone ever post that they got so upset by a comment that they will no longer admit they were wrong, but instead start arguing? In addition to being incredibly stupid, that's just not an attitude that leads to intelligent conversations (as seen by the junk that followed).

Yes, yes, because you were being so cordial. Hovik is a linguist. He's a bit more qualified to comment on this dictionary thing than either of us. He's right in the fact that dictionaries just report how we use words and are not accurate portrayals to how words should be used. He brought this up and you presented yourself as an ass. He didn't even insult you after that, but just used a strongly worded argument. And then you mocked him like a 5-year-old.

You're the one who won't admit to being wrong.

[Godscreated]

Exactly why would you want to do that, seriously?

It might have something to do with the fact that your beliefs would be more welcome in the Bronze Age.

By the way, let me ask you something. Are you okay with banning pork? I mean, Jewish folk don't want to eat any of it, so why should the rest of us? It's against their beliefs! Clearly the only fair solution is to legislate against it.

God told the Israelites that pork was unclean for them, this was not a command for the Gentiles, Paul and Peter made it clear that there's nothing wrong with gentiles eating pork. Jesus said, it's not what enters a persons mouth that makes him unclean, it's what proceeds from a persons mouth. For what enters a persons mouth will be expelled as waste, what proceeds from a persons mouth can be ungodly and bring pain to others.
Your example is a weak attempt to side track an issue, in the above statement, Jesus clearly shows us that what we eat does not make us unclean, so you see it's OK for people to eat pork, if they choose not it's their choice. Jesus never gave any indication what God setup as marriage was to be changed, marriage is to be between a man and woman only. This was setup before the nation of Israel was formed by God, this command applies to all of mankind.

[Annik]

Too bad marriage was around before your novel gained fame. It doesn't matter. Marriage is not a religious matter in this country, it's a matter of the state. Church and state must remain separate.

[Jinkies]

I completely disagree with the way you're handling the word itself. They need to be separate, as I mentioned in that post and the only later on. You might have agreed with my basic view, but that does not mean I agree with the way you are using the word. For the purposes for discussion, the blanket term you keep using is not appropriate.

You keep doing this. You have a consistent habit of responding to what I write as if I had written something completely different. It's a bit frustrating.

In the bit you responded to here, I was VERY CLEARLY only talking about the definition you were using. I wasn't saying it was wrong, or that you should be using a different definition, or whatever your skewed view interpreted my words as. You ignored what I wrote and responded by saying that I shouldn't be using my definition, which has absolutely no fucking relation whatsoever to what I wrote. Why do you continue do this? Once I'd understand, but you posted a number of times earlier trying to convince me that we can't control our sexual preferences. Before any of these I had expressly stated that we can't control them, and after each of your blarfs I restated that position. Please, please, please try to respond to the actual words that I write.

Yes, yes, because you were being so cordial. Hovik is a linguist. He's a bit more qualified to comment on this dictionary thing than either of us. He's right in the fact that dictionaries just report how we use words and are not accurate portrayals to how words should be used. He brought this up and you presented yourself as an ass. He didn't even insult you after that, but just used a strongly worded argument. And then you mocked him like a 5-year-old.

1: I don't care that he is a linguist. Arguments from authority don't hold much weight with me. The fact that he is a linguist does not mean that he was correct when he claimed you were using some special definition of homosexuality or that any other definition than some mythical "medical" definition was insufficient for this conversation.
2: I never stated that dictionaries don't list how words are used or that dictionaries mandate word usage. That would be a poor argument, so I have no idea why both of you mentioned that.
3: As to your portrayal of my conversation with Hovik, I simply have to wonder what you were reading. As usual, you seem to have some interpretation of reality that just doesn't track. If you feel up to saying why calling me an idiot and the other insults he used is not actually insulting me, though, I'd be pleased as punch to hear it. Rationalizations such as that always get me hot. Also, if you could post the bit where I mocked him like a five year old that would also be swell. You really do have some crazy biases skewing your perception of events in this thread.

You're the one who won't admit to being wrong.

I certainly won't admit to being wrong here, since I'm not. I hate to break your heart, but everyone who disagrees with you is not necessarily wrong, especially when it comes to things like acceptable definitions of words where multiple parties with different views can be correct. If you're under the impression that every view you hold is right, though, and every view your opponents hold is wrong, I certainly won't stop you from believing that. You'll just need to present actual solid arguments that this is the case. I'm eagerly awaiting someone to actually prove me wrong here.

(Really. I love being wrong. It allows me to improve as a person. I don't magically become wrong simply because you say I am, though.)