I'm not 'hung up' on the meaning of marriage. I am using the word as it has been used for thousands of years.
Which is why I still use a dictionary with a copywrite of 1957.
I'm not 'hung up' on the meaning of marriage. I am using the word as it has been used for thousands of years.
Yes; I hold the media largely to blame for this shift in perception. Who else is capable of changing public perception? Smoking for example is now much less acceptable than it was two generations ago. The media got the message out about the dangers of smoking. Guns are another example where the media is trying (but in this case, not succeeding) to change perceptions. You mention civil rights. Had the media portrayed the civil rights movement in a negative fashion, it would not today be the potent force that it is.
The same thing is happening with LGBT issues. They are portrayed in a very favorable light with favorable results.
Don't underestimate the power of the media.
I'm not 'hung up' on the meaning of marriage. I am using the word as it has been used for thousands of years.
Which is why I still use a dictionary with a copywrite of 1957.
Let's say you're sitting around fellowshipping with the elders and someone refers to God as "awful"?Which is why I still use a dictionary with a copywrite of 1957.
"To blame". Ha!
Or, to put it another way, the media (if you must) picked up on and drew attention to a legal injustice and the people have made up their minds to change. And in regards to civil rights and the media, i'm pretty sure pictures of fire hoses and police dogs being turned on peaceful marchers was totally agenda driven and had nothing to do with exposing the reality of the situation... Perhaps it'd be better to say 'got the message out about the lack of dangers of (insert gay marriage, civil rights, etc here).' But again, i'm more for freedom of association than using government power to restrict things i don't believe in personally.
If you are 'fine' with civil unions, but only want 'marriage' to be between a man and woman than it does seem like you're hung up about the word. Why else create the legal need for two separate processes that are really only different in makeup of the two people involved. Why does it make sense to create a need for bob and steve to get a 'civil union license' while bob and sally need a 'marriage license' (and there it is again, using 'marriage' as a term with government involvement).
And of course, "They are portrayed in a very favorable light with favorable results" might also be offsetting all the years where they weren't portrayed that way. In much the same way as has been true for blacks, asians, irish, etc, etc, etc.
Wow, what do you think marketing, advertising is all about? Of course the media plays a very large role in influencing the thinking of society. Why else would all these idiot dem be jumping at every chance they have to get in front of a camera?
You seem, to be to use your phrase 'hung up' on what I said about marriage, but you must have missed the part where I agreed with you about the government getting out of the marriage business altogether."To blame". Ha!
Or, to put it another way, the media (if you must) picked up on and drew attention to a legal injustice and the people have made up their minds to change. And in regards to civil rights and the media, i'm pretty sure pictures of fire hoses and police dogs being turned on peaceful marchers was totally agenda driven and had nothing to do with exposing the reality of the situation... Perhaps it'd be better to say 'got the message out about the lack of dangers of (insert gay marriage, civil rights, etc here).' But again, i'm more for freedom of association than using government power to restrict things i don't believe in personally.
If you are 'fine' with civil unions, but only want 'marriage' to be between a man and woman than it does seem like you're hung up about the word. Why else create the legal need for two separate processes that are really only different in makeup of the two people involved. Why does it make sense to create a need for bob and steve to get a 'civil union license' while bob and sally need a 'marriage license' (and there it is again, using 'marriage' as a term with government involvement).
And of course, "They are portrayed in a very favorable light with favorable results" might also be offsetting all the years where they weren't portrayed that way. In much the same way as has been true for blacks, asians, irish, etc, etc, etc.
I never said that the media 'created' these issues; only that they promoted them.oh i know it plays a large part, never said it didn't. What i found comical is the notion that it 'created' some of the larger movements in our political past. Things like civil rights, equal access to marriage, etc were always there as issues. How the media chose to cover them can certainly be debated and discussed, but that point out such inequalities as the cause of the change is foolish. Especially when the implication (at least to me with using such words as 'blame') is that those changes weren't done in the spirit of equal access (regardless of whether you feel they were 'right' or not).
Enter your email address to join: