Texas Religious Liberty Law Signed

[TerryMiller]

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.

 

[donner]

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.

"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.

 

[donner]

Which is why I still use a dictionary with a copywrite of 1957.

really? that is interesting. I wonder what it actually says about 'marriage'. Or even if it includes 'civil rights'. It obviously wouldn't contain something like 'cell phone' but wonder what words it would have for many of the things that are now commonplace that didn't exist in 1957.

If you like dictionaries then i highly recommend 'the professor and the madman'. it's a very interesting look at how the dictionary came to be and why words have certain definitions (or certain expansive definitions) and from a very unlikely source.

 

[ignerntbend]

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"?
Do you correct him? Awful means Bad or Terrible, does he want to say that about God? Well, he wouldn't call him bad but he would call God Terrible because he is terrible.
You argue with him that he's confusing awful with awesome.
No no! He insists that he knows what words mean because he has dictionaries from the late sixteenth through the eighteenth centuries. Awful means worthy of the greatest reverence. And, of course, he's right. He's just living in the past, not that there's anything wrong with that.

Legitimate question: When does the language stop developing and changing? When you were eleven years old? Is that when it was?

 

[DavidMcmillan]

"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?

 

[donner]

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?

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).

 

[gerhard1]

"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.

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.

If the media (and yes; I must) had not portrayed the civil rights movement as they had, and had ignored the fire hoses and police dogs and instead, concentrated on depicting Blacks as criminals then the movement would have not gotten nearly as far, nearly as fast.

Take another issue--that of guns. Do you think the media is not trying to influence the public against people like us with their constant fear-mongering about concealed carry? They could see that the results of states enacting RTC laws was nothing like what they routinely portrayed. Where are the people taking the law into their own hands or the gunfights at every fender-bender over every disputed parking spacer. Granted this has happened a few times, and one time is too many, but they are nowhere near as prevalent as the gun-control advocates and their media allies said they would be. The VPC folks predicted a rise in the level of violence of RTC passed in the years since it started the homicide rate has dropped.

Or take he AWB that the Democrats want so badly. Every time a mass shooting with a semi-auto happens the media is three alongside the Democrats, backing them up. These rifles are portrayed as the worst thing that America is facing, in spite of the fact that homicides from any long gun are less that 1000 annually. They are trying to frighten the public and they are succeeding here, even if they are failing on guns in general. Another area is with UBC's. this is an idea that looks good on paper but the only way for it to have any effect at all is with universal registration. They constantly propagandize the public about the 'gun show loophole' and how gun shows are 'bazaars for criminals' and gloss over the usual result of registration: confiscation.

Don't kid yourself, my friend. Each of these movements (civil rights, gay rights, and gun control) is dependent upon a sympathetic media. They know that media support is vital for them to achieve their goals.

 

[gerhard1]

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).

I never said that the media 'created' these issues; only that they promoted them.

 

[DavidMcmillan]

Just what is the problem in supporting the age old concept of marriage. That is the basis of society. Now, instead, we have folks that cannot determine their own gender, even standing in front of their mirror. Thank you media for creating such a confused society.

 

[MacFromOK]

Marriage is a noun; a thing; a centuries old institution involving a man and a woman.

Why don't we declare a sandpile to be one of the great pyramids?

When you drastically change the ingredients of a recipe, the results will not be the same. In this case, they're not even close.

Again, just my 2¢...