New word, "martinize"

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Douglas Cox

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 10:48:13 AM6/29/05
to
This is to propose a new word, "martinize"

Definition:
to martinize, v. Means to change or pervert the meaning of a word by
altering it to mean something else.

Examples of words that have been martinized are: gay, firmament, and
most recently, marriage.

At one time, gay was a respectable word meaning happy. Its meaning has
changed.

The word "firmament" was redefined as the rigid heaven in Jerome's
Latin translation of the Bible, called the Vulgate. He may not have
been the first to use it in this way, but his use of the word caused a
permanent change in its meaning. It was not used for the sky at all in
Old Latin, but referred to a support or prop, and "the strong point in
an argument".

The word martinize is suggested for altering the meaning of a word as
it seems appropriate, upon the passing of legislation allowing
same-sex marriage in Canada in June 2005, a bill promoted by Prime
Minister P. Martin.

Previous use of "martinize"
The word seems to have been used for a commercial process of
dry-cleaning in Oregon USA, that involves the use of a toxic toxic
solvent called perchloroethylene.

Related discussions:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/953064/posts
http://tinyurl.com/cxjc9

Doug

Noone Inparticular

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 11:02:27 AM6/29/05
to

Douglas Cox wrote:
> This is to propose a new word, "martinize"
>
> Definition:
> to martinize, v. Means to change or pervert the meaning of a word by
> altering it to mean something else.
>
> Examples of words that have been martinized are: gay, firmament, and
> most recently, marriage.
>
> At one time, gay was a respectable word meaning happy.

It is *still* a respectable word.

Perhaps we should coin a word which means "ignorant, hateful
expressions of an obnoxious jerk trying to look intelligent".

I propose "Coxian".

rich hammett

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 11:08:54 AM6/29/05
to
In talk.origins Douglas Cox <t...@sentex.net> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:

> This is to propose a new word, "martinize"

> Definition:
> to martinize, v. Means to change or pervert the meaning of a word by
> altering it to mean something else.

I don't care what you call it, as long as you can get it done
within an hour!

rich

> Examples of words that have been martinized are: gay, firmament, and
> most recently, marriage.

> At one time, gay was a respectable word meaning happy. Its meaning has
> changed.

> The word "firmament" was redefined as the rigid heaven in Jerome's
> Latin translation of the Bible, called the Vulgate. He may not have
> been the first to use it in this way, but his use of the word caused a
> permanent change in its meaning. It was not used for the sky at all in
> Old Latin, but referred to a support or prop, and "the strong point in
> an argument".

> The word martinize is suggested for altering the meaning of a word as
> it seems appropriate, upon the passing of legislation allowing
> same-sex marriage in Canada in June 2005, a bill promoted by Prime
> Minister P. Martin.

> Previous use of "martinize"
> The word seems to have been used for a commercial process of
> dry-cleaning in Oregon USA, that involves the use of a toxic toxic
> solvent called perchloroethylene.

> Doug


--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ Estragon: People are bloody ignorant apes.

chris.li...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 11:18:21 AM6/29/05
to

I think this is a load of santorum.

Chris

John Harshman

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 11:22:47 AM6/29/05
to
Douglas Cox wrote:

> This is to propose a new word, "martinize"

I think it's wonderfully self-referential that you have martinized
"martinize". Keep up the good work.

r norman

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 11:35:02 AM6/29/05
to
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 10:48:13 -0400, Douglas Cox <t...@sentex.net>
wrote:

Why pick on dry-cleaners? Do you know of a non toxic toxic (or even a
non toxic) alternative dry cleaning solvent? Do you realize that only
a few people have been injured or killed with dry cleaning solvents
compared with the enormous numbers who have died in contact with the
solvent used in wet cleaning?


unrestra...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 11:47:08 AM6/29/05
to

It is not limited to careless "mom and pop" light industries. Hydronium
hydroxide is linked to most poisonings, fatal or otherwise, and indeed,
many poisoning emergencies could not have occured without it, although
it is rarely implicated. Its industrial advocates seem to have
successfully silenced most critics in the mainstream news media.

See this link for more information:
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

Kermit

Dana Tweedy

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 11:50:06 AM6/29/05
to

<chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120058301.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
snipping and trimming crossposts

>
> I think this is a load of santorum.
>
> Chris

And we're already knee deep in gish.

DJT

>

Robert Weldon

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 11:49:07 AM6/29/05
to

"r norman" <rsn_@_comcast.net> wrote in message
news:iof5c15m9pgde7mup...@4ax.com...

Well, sure, but most people don't swim in perc.

And on a serious note, the main problem with perc and other dry cleaning
solvents isn't the worker exposure, although it does have some nasty
effects on human health; it is the groundwater contamination resulting in
spills and leaks from dry cleaning operations. Speaking as one who does
environmental engineering, most of the worst sites I have been involved with
have been dry cleaning operations, gasoline and waste oil leaks are much
easier to delineate and clean up.

Robert Weldon

Douglas Cox

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 11:53:02 AM6/29/05
to
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:22:47 GMT, John Harshman
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Douglas Cox wrote:
>
> > This is to propose a new word, "martinize"
>
> I think it's wonderfully self-referential that you have martinized
> "martinize". Keep up the good work.

Congratulations! You are the first to actually use the new word in a
real sentence!

John Harshman

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 12:19:42 PM6/29/05
to
Douglas Cox wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:22:47 GMT, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Douglas Cox wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This is to propose a new word, "martinize"
>>
>>I think it's wonderfully self-referential that you have martinized
>>"martinize". Keep up the good work.
>
>
> Congratulations! You are the first to actually use the new word in a
> real sentence!

And possibly the last.

Steve Schaffner

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 12:18:46 PM6/29/05
to
r norman <rsn_@_comcast.net> writes:

Perchloroethylene is much nicer than the things it replaced, like
carbon tetrachloride.

--
Steve Schaffner s...@broad.mit.edu
Immediate assurance is an excellent sign of probable lack of
insight into the topic. Josiah Royce

r norman

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 1:11:33 PM6/29/05
to

DMHO is not the real problem, contrary to that web site. The fact is
that DMHO spontaneously dissociates to form another product that is
lethal at concentrations of 1 part in 10 billion!

I shouldn't have glossed over so casually the true hazards of
chemicals like perc in the environment, as Robert Weldon points out.
Still, this particular choice of a word seems exceeding strange.


Douglas Cox

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 3:42:34 PM6/29/05
to
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:59:55 +0000 (UTC), bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu
(Bobby D. Bryant) wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, "Noone Inparticular" <unre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Douglas Cox wrote:
> >> This is to propose a new word, "martinize"
> >>
> >> Definition:
> >> to martinize, v. Means to change or pervert the meaning of a word by
> >> altering it to mean something else.
> >>
> >> Examples of words that have been martinized are: gay, firmament, and
> >> most recently, marriage.
> >>
> >> At one time, gay was a respectable word meaning happy.
> >
> > It is *still* a respectable word.
> >
> > Perhaps we should coin a word which means "ignorant, hateful
> > expressions of an obnoxious jerk trying to look intelligent".
> >
> > I propose "Coxian".
>

> After reading all the replies, I can only hope he didn't x-post to
> t.o. in the expectation of finding smypathy.

Oh no, it's to show sympathy, not to find it.

Doug
http://vinyl2.sentex.ca/~tcc/Noise.html

Greg G.

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 3:49:22 PM6/29/05
to

It's all the way up to our dembski.
>
> DJT
>
> >
--
Greg G.

Don't ever give up your ignorance.
You can never get it back.

Matthew Isleb

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 3:48:33 PM6/29/05
to
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:08:50 -0400, Lt. Kizhe Catson wrote:

>>>>The word "firmament" was redefined as the rigid heaven in Jerome's
>>>>Latin translation of the Bible, called the Vulgate. He may not have
>>>>been the first to use it in this way, but his use of the word caused a
>>>>permanent change in its meaning.
>>>

>>>St Jerome's erroneous use of words in no sense "redefined" them nor did
>>>it cause in any of them a "permanent change" of meaning. Nothing is
>>>permanent. Permanent once meant "motionless". Your point?
>>
>>
>> Lots of words change, but sometimes it is done because someone has an
>> agenda. This may require legislation, or the decree of a king, or
>
> The legal definition of "marriage" was changed to include same-sex
> unions. Some religious folks have their knickers in a knot because they
> think it has cosmic implications. Guess what? Legally, marriage is
> just a contract, mostly about property. The churches can (continue to)
> define marriage, in its sacremental aspects, anyway they want. It's
> always bneen obvious to me that these two parallel aspects existed, with
> no necessary connection between them. So I wish one of the objectors
> would explain to me why they're so hung up on the word "marriage".

It is symbolic of the decline of "morals" in our culture... or something
like that. I guess they think that if we just can repress homosexuality,
it won't exist. And I am sure many of them are trying this without their
own sexuality as we speak.

-matthew

loua...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 4:31:07 PM6/29/05
to
Well good lord, man, what are you waiting for? Run right out and vote
against him! Sounds like he richly deserves your thumbs down.

OTOH if you aren't a Canadian citizen, it appears to be none of your
business. If you are a Canadian citizen, voted against him, and a
majority of your fellow citizens voted for him, then you appear to be a
victim of democracy. When the Mounties turn up
to force you to marry some gay man, I'll be backing you with anything
including lethal force.

Oh, the law only _allows_ gay marriage instead of _requiring_ it? I
once again seem to be missing the part where this is your problem ...

Deadrat

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 4:41:54 PM6/29/05
to

<loua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120077067.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Well good lord, man, what are you waiting for? Run right out and vote
> against him! Sounds like he richly deserves your thumbs down.
>
> OTOH if you aren't a Canadian citizen, it appears to be none of your
> business. If you are a Canadian citizen, voted against him, and a
> majority of your fellow citizens voted for him, then you appear to be a
> victim of democracy. When the Mounties turn up
> to force you to marry some gay man, I'll be backing you with anything
> including lethal force.

But what if the Mountie is really, really cute?

Lt. Kizhe Catson

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 4:44:57 PM6/29/05
to
loua...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Well good lord, man, what are you waiting for? Run right out and vote
> against him! Sounds like he richly deserves your thumbs down.
>
> OTOH if you aren't a Canadian citizen, it appears to be none of your
> business. If you are a Canadian citizen, voted against him, and a
> majority of your fellow citizens voted for him, then you appear to be a

<nit> Actually they didn't -- only a plurality (I forget the exact
numbers). </nit>

> victim of democracy. When the Mounties turn up
> to force you to marry some gay man, I'll be backing you with anything
> including lethal force.
>
> Oh, the law only _allows_ gay marriage instead of _requiring_ it? I
> once again seem to be missing the part where this is your problem ...

From
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=841&e=1&u=/nm/20050629/wl_canada_nm/canada_marriage_col
=============
Conservative critics complain that the Liberals are using the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms -- designed to prevent discrimination against
minorities -- to impose minority beliefs on the majority, and say the
document gives too much power to the courts rather than to Parliament.

"We don't believe this is a good law or a just law for the nation of
Canada. It's a law that was imposed on a majority of Canadians," said
Reverend Tristan Emmanuel of the Equipping Christians for the Public
Square Center."
===============

Bah, I wish just one of these twits could explain how allowing someone
else to do something that doesn't affect you is an "imposition". It's
the ultimate in sticking one's nose in other people's business.

-- Kizhe

Jitze Couperus

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 5:14:09 PM6/29/05
to
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 20:03:04 +0100, "Mike Lyle"
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>My first reaction to the word was that it sounded like something one
>of Kipling's adored subalterns might have said his chaps had done to
>the P'thans. "Well, then we commanded the nullah, and rather
>Martinised them, don't ye know?" A voice put in, "Dashed unsporting,
>wasn't it, when he only had jezails?" The face, old beyond its years,
>turned gravely to the last speaker: "Well, you see, the men had seen
>what their women had done to O'Brien's wounded after what the headman
>had sworn was a truce, and I'm afraid there wasn't much holding them
>after that."
>

For those who might not grok the reference here "...and rather
Martinised them, ...

This is a reference to one of the main artefacts that enabled
the British Empire to expand into places like Africa

"I am inclined to think, that the first experience of the
Martini-Henrys will be such a surprise to the Zulus that
they will not be formidable after the first effort"

Lord Chelmsford, 23 November 1878

Some details I gleaned from the web to refresh my
memory

The Martini-Henry Rifle is a weapon of Empire. Unlike the
Snider-Enfield it replaced, it was England's first service
rifle designed from the ground up as a breechloading metallic
cartridge firearm. It protected and served the British
Empire and her colonies for over 30 years. This robust
weapon utilized a falling block, self-cocking, lever operated,
single-shot action designed by Friedrich von Martini of
Switzerland. The barrel used the Henry Rifling System, designed
by Alexander Henry. Henry Peabody, an American, was actually
the father of the Martini action. His design utilized an
external hammer to strike a firing pin for cartridge ignition.

Mr. Martini's refinement of the design basically consisted of
conversion to an internal coiled spring activated striker.
Martini's improved design flourished and Mr. Peabody's is nearly
forgotten. Later in the British Martini's career, other rifling
patterns such as the Metford System and even a system devised at
Enfield were adopted. It is therefore common to hear these weapons
also referred to as Martini-Enfields or Martini-Metfords. The first

Martini adopted for service in the British Army was the M-H Mark I,

which entered service in June of 1871

Unfortunately, these early rifles tended to fall eventually into
the hands of the bad guys, and surface many years later
when the natives got restless.

During my illustrious military career, we ran into some unpleasantness
from Shifta rebels who were armed with old Martinis. We vastly
out-gunned them because we had much more recent Lee-Enfields
which were fully 30 years more advanced.

Jitze

Raymond Griffith

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 5:10:42 PM6/29/05
to
in article iof5c15m9pgde7mup...@4ax.com, r norman at
rsn_@_comcast.net wrote on 6/29/05 11:35 AM:

Dihydrogen monoxide is lethal for the vast majority of those who breathe it.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, "during 2001, a total of 3,372
persons suffered fatal" injestion of the substance in the USA. "Nonfatal and
fatal injury rates were highest for children aged <4 years and for males of
all ages", the report continues.

An attempt was made several years ago to ban the substance. However, the
economic impact of this was deemed too costly.

This substance, used in most under-the-counter cleaning products, is found
in large quantities in your drinking water -- and filters let it through. It
is found in the air.

Email your congressman about controlling this deadly substance!

Regards,

Raymond E. Griffith

Matthew Isleb

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 5:04:26 PM6/29/05
to

errr *with* their own sexulaity.

Raymond Griffith

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 5:23:43 PM6/29/05
to
in article d9uqpc$p0a$3...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu, Bobby D. Bryant at
bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu wrote on 6/29/05 2:54 PM:

> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Douglas Cox <t...@sentex.net> wrote:
>
>> This is to propose a new word, "martinize"
>>
>> Definition:
>> to martinize, v. Means to change or pervert the meaning of a word by
>> altering it to mean something else.
>>
>> Examples of words that have been martinized are: gay, firmament, and
>> most recently, marriage.
>>
>> At one time, gay was a respectable word meaning happy. Its meaning has
>> changed.
>>
>> The word "firmament" was redefined as the rigid heaven in Jerome's
>> Latin translation of the Bible, called the Vulgate. He may not have
>> been the first to use it in this way, but his use of the word caused a
>> permanent change in its meaning. It was not used for the sky at all in
>> Old Latin, but referred to a support or prop, and "the strong point in
>> an argument".
>>
>> The word martinize is suggested for altering the meaning of a word as
>> it seems appropriate, upon the passing of legislation allowing
>> same-sex marriage in Canada in June 2005, a bill promoted by Prime
>> Minister P. Martin.
>

> Byoo, hjoo.
>
> Now let's talk about 'martiniize'...

Shaken, not stirred.

Raymond E. Griffith

Pip R. Lagenta

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 5:39:07 PM6/29/05
to
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:54:37 +0000 (UTC), bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu
(Bobby D. Bryant) wrote:

>On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Douglas Cox <t...@sentex.net> wrote:
>

>> This is to propose a new word, "martinize"
>>
>> Definition:
>> to martinize, v. Means to change or pervert the meaning of a word by
>> altering it to mean something else.
>>
>> Examples of words that have been martinized are: gay, firmament, and
>> most recently, marriage.
>>
>> At one time, gay was a respectable word meaning happy. Its meaning has
>> changed.
>>
>> The word "firmament" was redefined as the rigid heaven in Jerome's
>> Latin translation of the Bible, called the Vulgate. He may not have
>> been the first to use it in this way, but his use of the word caused a
>> permanent change in its meaning. It was not used for the sky at all in
>> Old Latin, but referred to a support or prop, and "the strong point in
>> an argument".
>>
>> The word martinize is suggested for altering the meaning of a word as
>> it seems appropriate, upon the passing of legislation allowing
>> same-sex marriage in Canada in June 2005, a bill promoted by Prime
>> Minister P. Martin.
>

>Byoo, hjoo.
>
>Now let's talk about 'martiniize'...

"Martiniize"? Is that the ice that you put into a Martini?

--
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌

-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)

Pip R. Lagenta

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 5:44:56 PM6/29/05
to
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 10:48:13 -0400, Douglas Cox <t...@sentex.net>
wrote:
>This is to propose a new word, "martinize"
>
>Definition:
>to martinize, v. Means to change or pervert the meaning of a word by
>altering it to mean something else.
>
>Examples of words that have been martinized are: gay, firmament, and
>most recently, marriage.
>
>At one time, gay was a respectable word meaning happy. Its meaning has
>changed.
>
>The word "firmament" was redefined as the rigid heaven in Jerome's
>Latin translation of the Bible, called the Vulgate. He may not have
>been the first to use it in this way, but his use of the word caused a
>permanent change in its meaning. It was not used for the sky at all in
>Old Latin, but referred to a support or prop, and "the strong point in
>an argument".
>
>The word martinize is suggested for altering the meaning of a word as
>it seems appropriate, upon the passing of legislation allowing
>same-sex marriage in Canada in June 2005, a bill promoted by Prime
>Minister P. Martin.
[snip]

So, if it is martinized, then it should be kept in the closet?

John Wilkins

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 5:57:58 PM6/29/05
to
No, that's Martini-ice. What Dean Martin used to do...

--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122

Greg G.

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 5:57:33 PM6/29/05
to

Pip R. Lagenta wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:54:37 +0000 (UTC), bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu
> (Bobby D. Bryant) wrote:
>

snippage


> >
> >Now let's talk about 'martiniize'...
>
> "Martiniize"? Is that the ice that you put into a Martini?

Isn't that what Dean looks at a martini with?

--
Greg G.

I'm going down to the liquor store for their "Try Before You Buy" sale
and back home before they find out about it.

Jeffrey Turner

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 5:55:37 PM6/29/05
to
Lt. Kizhe Catson wrote:

> Poet Fury wrote:


>
>>On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:08:54 -0000, rich hammett wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>In talk.origins Douglas Cox <t...@sentex.net> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>>>
>>>
>>>>This is to propose a new word, "martinize"
>>>
>>>>Definition:
>>>>to martinize, v. Means to change or pervert the meaning of a word by
>>>>altering it to mean something else.
>>>
>>>I don't care what you call it, as long as you can get it done
>>>within an hour!
>>
>>

>>Feeling a bit shirty?
>
>
> He's panting, and pressing to get it done soon.

I think we can tailor a solution to the distress.

--Jeff

--
The shepherd always tries to persuade
the sheep that their interests and
his own are the same. --Stendhal

loua...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 6:06:17 PM6/29/05
to
<lt.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

>loua...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Well good lord, man, what are you waiting for? Run right out and vote
>> against him! Sounds like he richly deserves your thumbs down.
>>
>> OTOH if you aren't a Canadian citizen, it appears to be none of your
>> business. If you are a Canadian citizen, voted against him, and a
>> majority of your fellow citizens voted for him, then you appear to be a
>
><nit> Actually they didn't -- only a plurality (I forget the exact
>numbers). </nit>

Must ... not ... make... Florida 2000 ... joke....

Louann

Douglas Cox

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 6:15:18 PM6/29/05
to
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:08:50 -0400, "Lt. Kizhe Catson"
<lt.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Douglas Cox wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:34:04 +0100, "John Dean"
> > <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:


> >
> >
> >>Douglas Cox wrote:
> >>
> >>>This is to propose a new word, "martinize"
> >>>
> >>>Definition:
> >>>to martinize, v. Means to change or pervert the meaning of a word by
> >>>altering it to mean something else.
> >>>

> >>>Examples of words that have been martinized are: gay, firmament, and
> >>>most recently, marriage.
> >>>
> >>>At one time, gay was a respectable word meaning happy. Its meaning has
> >>>changed.
> >>

> >>At one time, "happy" was a respectable word meaning "fortuitous". Its
> >>meaning has changed. Your point?
> >>And "gay" was used to mean "brightly coloured, showy" earlier than it
> >>was used to mean "happy". Your point?


> >>
> >>
> >>>The word "firmament" was redefined as the rigid heaven in Jerome's
> >>>Latin translation of the Bible, called the Vulgate. He may not have
> >>>been the first to use it in this way, but his use of the word caused a
> >>>permanent change in its meaning.
> >>

> >>St Jerome's erroneous use of words in no sense "redefined" them nor did
> >>it cause in any of them a "permanent change" of meaning. Nothing is
> >>permanent. Permanent once meant "motionless". Your point?
> >
> >
> > Lots of words change, but sometimes it is done because someone has an
> > agenda. This may require legislation, or the decree of a king, or
>
> The legal definition of "marriage" was changed to include same-sex
> unions. Some religious folks have their knickers in a knot because they
> think it has cosmic implications. Guess what? Legally, marriage is
> just a contract, mostly about property. The churches can (continue to)
> define marriage, in its sacremental aspects, anyway they want. It's
> always bneen obvious to me that these two parallel aspects existed, with
> no necessary connection between them. So I wish one of the objectors
> would explain to me why they're so hung up on the word "marriage".

It is about the pollution of language. Language is made up of words,
and changing the meaning of words can have major effects. In all
countries, there was once a clear meaning attached to the word
marriage, that becomes lost when the word is applied to same-sex
unions. So now, when one reads that a person is married, one may need
to ask, "does this mean married in the Canadian sense, or in the
non-Canadian sense?" or "does it mean married in a pre-2005 Canadian
sense, or in a post-2005 Canadian sense?" The word "married" is no
longer unambiguous in its meaning, as it once was, and from a
philosophical point of view, this is unfortunate, as it is a bit like
other kinds of pollution, there is a price.

>
> > something similar. In the case of Jerome's use of 'firmament', it was
> > a translation of 'stereoma' in the LXX, which in turn was a
> > translation of the Hebrew word 'raqia'. The meaning of that word was
> > changed in the Bible to promote the geocentric cosmology and religion
> > of the Greeks, in the time of Antiochus IV, a Seleucid king of Syria
> > in the 2nd century BC. There were numerous other cosmological changes
> > made as well, which had unfortunate consequences for scholars and
> > leaders of the Church in the time of Galileo. There is still a lot of
> > confusion about the meaning of 'firmament' to this day.
>
> ...but trust our Douglas to tie this issue in with his favorite obsession.
>

Doug


Craig T

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 6:38:25 PM6/29/05
to
Warn me before it gets to our Cox!

Mike Lyle

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 6:43:16 PM6/29/05
to
Jitze Couperus wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 20:03:04 +0100, "Mike Lyle"
> <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> My first reaction to the word was that it sounded like something
one
>> of Kipling's adored subalterns might have said his chaps had done
to
>> the P'thans. "Well, then we commanded the nullah, and rather
>> Martinised them, don't ye know?" [...]

>
> For those who might not grok the reference here "...and rather
> Martinised them, ...
>
> This is a reference to one of the main artefacts that enabled
> the British Empire to expand into places like Africa
>
> "I am inclined to think, that the first experience of the
> Martini-Henrys will be such a surprise to the Zulus that
> they will not be formidable after the first effort"
>
> Lord Chelmsford, 23 November 1878

As the Welsh Borderers may or may not have said, "Oops!"
Assay-you-guys!

> Some details I gleaned from the web to refresh my
> memory
>
> The Martini-Henry Rifle is a weapon of Empire. Unlike the
> Snider-Enfield it replaced, it was England's first service
> rifle designed from the ground up as a breechloading metallic
> cartridge firearm. It protected and served the British
> Empire and her colonies for over 30 years. This robust
> weapon utilized a falling block, self-cocking, lever operated,
> single-shot action designed by Friedrich von Martini of

> Switzerland. [...]

Way back, we had a very solid .22 Martini-action target rifle. Made
by Vickers, I seem to remember, and as good as anything if one wasn't
positively anal-retentive on the subject.

--
Mike.


John Dean

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 7:18:33 PM6/29/05
to
Douglas Cox wrote:
>
> In all
> countries, there was once a clear meaning attached to the word
> marriage, that becomes lost when the word is applied to same-sex
> unions.

Nope. Always been confusing. A man may have several wives according to
the law of the country where he married them. Each woman will answer
"Yes" to the question "Are you married?" wherever it is asked, but in
many parts of the world that answer is not valid. The situation only
becomes clear when a more complicated question is asked. And if the more
complicated question was carefully framed, it will work equally well in
the case of same sex marriages.
The Catholic church's view on divorce may also require someone to answer
"Yes" to the marriage question while the person who made the vows with
them answers "No". In the Church's eyes, one of them is right. In the
State's eyes, one of them is right. And the one who's right is probably
not the same person in the eyes of Church and State.
--
John Dean
Oxford

Deadrat

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 7:24:36 PM6/29/05
to

"Matthew Isleb" <mis...@onshore.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.06.29....@onshore.com...

I'm sure some of them would rather do without.

Deadrat

Deadrat

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 7:41:11 PM6/29/05
to

"Douglas Cox" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
news:ph66c11g5d87u62c1...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:08:50 -0400, "Lt. Kizhe Catson"
> <lt.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Douglas Cox wrote:
> > > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:34:04 +0100, "John Dean"
> > > <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
<snip>

>.... So I wish one of the objectors


> > would explain to me why they're so hung up on the word "marriage".
>
> It is about the pollution of language. Language is made up of words,
> and changing the meaning of words can have major effects. In all
> countries, there was once a clear meaning attached to the word
> marriage, that becomes lost when the word is applied to same-sex
> unions. So now, when one reads that a person is married, one may need
> to ask, "does this mean married in the Canadian sense, or in the
> non-Canadian sense?" or "does it mean married in a pre-2005 Canadian
> sense, or in a post-2005 Canadian sense?" The word "married" is no
> longer unambiguous in its meaning, as it once was, and from a
> philosophical point of view, this is unfortunate, as it is a bit like
> other kinds of pollution, there is a price.
>

"Bad" now sometimes has the connotation of "good." A gangbanger was
once a gang raper and is now just a gang member. Language changes all
the time. Why not just be honest with yourself (and us) and admit that you
can't stand the idea of giving gay people an equal and ordinary place in
society?

It really doesn't have anything to do with the purity of language. Go
ahead.
Admit your homophobia. I promise to think less of you for it.

Deadrat


<snip>
Doug
>
>

Jitze Couperus

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 8:14:11 PM6/29/05
to
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:43:16 +0100, "Mike Lyle"
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:


>
>As the Welsh Borderers may or may not have said, "Oops!"
>Assay-you-guys!
>

Their RSM changed his name to Nobby Clark so as
to hide his Irish origins. He was originally Knob Kerry.

Jitze


Greg G.

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 8:34:26 PM6/29/05
to

Noone Inparticular wrote:
> Douglas Cox wrote:
> > This is to propose a new word, "martinize"
> >
> > Definition:
> > to martinize, v. Means to change or pervert the meaning of a word by
> > altering it to mean something else.
> >
> > Examples of words that have been martinized are: gay, firmament, and
> > most recently, marriage.
> >
> > At one time, gay was a respectable word meaning happy.
>

> It is *still* a respectable word.

But does it get the respect it deserves? As someone whose last name is
Gay, I have to tell you that it does not.

--
Greg G.

My next house will have a secret passage behind a bookcase.

Greg G.

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 8:34:14 PM6/29/05
to

John Dean

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 2:00:14 PM6/29/05
to
Douglas Cox wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:22:47 GMT, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Douglas Cox wrote:
>>
>>> This is to propose a new word, "martinize"
>>
>> I think it's wonderfully self-referential that you have martinized
>> "martinize". Keep up the good work.
>
> Congratulations! You are the first to actually use the new word in a
> real sentence!

Sadly, you are over 400 years too late to claim that, as you are to
insist on the immutability of meaning.
From OED:

1591 Greene Farew. Folly Ded., Wks. (Grosart) IX. 228, I cannot
Martinize, sweare by my faie in a pulpit, and rap out gogs wounds in a
tauerne.

--
John Dean
Oxford

Bobby D. Bryant

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 2:54:37 PM6/29/05
to
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Douglas Cox <t...@sentex.net> wrote:

> This is to propose a new word, "martinize"
>

> Definition:
> to martinize, v. Means to change or pervert the meaning of a word by
> altering it to mean something else.
>
> Examples of words that have been martinized are: gay, firmament, and
> most recently, marriage.
>

> At one time, gay was a respectable word meaning happy. Its meaning has
> changed.


>
> The word "firmament" was redefined as the rigid heaven in Jerome's
> Latin translation of the Bible, called the Vulgate. He may not have
> been the first to use it in this way, but his use of the word caused a

> permanent change in its meaning. It was not used for the sky at all in
> Old Latin, but referred to a support or prop, and "the strong point in
> an argument".
>
> The word martinize is suggested for altering the meaning of a word as
> it seems appropriate, upon the passing of legislation allowing
> same-sex marriage in Canada in June 2005, a bill promoted by Prime
> Minister P. Martin.

Byoo, hjoo.

Now let's talk about 'martiniize'...

--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

John Dean

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 1:34:04 PM6/29/05
to
Douglas Cox wrote:
> This is to propose a new word, "martinize"
>
> Definition:
> to martinize, v. Means to change or pervert the meaning of a word by
> altering it to mean something else.
>
> Examples of words that have been martinized are: gay, firmament, and
> most recently, marriage.
>
> At one time, gay was a respectable word meaning happy. Its meaning has
> changed.

At one time, "happy" was a respectable word meaning "fortuitous". Its


meaning has changed. Your point?
And "gay" was used to mean "brightly coloured, showy" earlier than it
was used to mean "happy". Your point?

>


> The word "firmament" was redefined as the rigid heaven in Jerome's
> Latin translation of the Bible, called the Vulgate. He may not have
> been the first to use it in this way, but his use of the word caused a
> permanent change in its meaning.

St Jerome's erroneous use of words in no sense "redefined" them nor did


it cause in any of them a "permanent change" of meaning. Nothing is
permanent. Permanent once meant "motionless". Your point?


--
John Dean
Oxford

Poet Fury

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 2:31:18 PM6/29/05
to
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:08:54 -0000, rich hammett wrote:

> In talk.origins Douglas Cox <t...@sentex.net> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:

>> This is to propose a new word, "martinize"
>
>> Definition:
>> to martinize, v. Means to change or pervert the meaning of a word by
>> altering it to mean something else.
>

> I don't care what you call it, as long as you can get it done
> within an hour!

Feeling a bit shirty?

--
http://www.newvague.com/tdis/index.html
Of course it's music. It has notes in it, doesn't it?

John Harshman

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 3:17:17 PM6/29/05
to
Lt. Kizhe Catson wrote:

> Douglas Cox wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:34:04 +0100, "John Dean"
>><john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>

>>Lots of words change, but sometimes it is done because someone has an
>>agenda. This may require legislation, or the decree of a king, or
>
>
> The legal definition of "marriage" was changed to include same-sex
> unions. Some religious folks have their knickers in a knot because they
> think it has cosmic implications. Guess what? Legally, marriage is
> just a contract, mostly about property. The churches can (continue to)
> define marriage, in its sacremental aspects, anyway they want. It's
> always bneen obvious to me that these two parallel aspects existed, with

> no necessary connection between them. So I wish one of the objectors

> would explain to me why they're so hung up on the word "marriage".
>
>

>>something similar. In the case of Jerome's use of 'firmament', it was
>>a translation of 'stereoma' in the LXX, which in turn was a
>>translation of the Hebrew word 'raqia'. The meaning of that word was
>>changed in the Bible to promote the geocentric cosmology and religion
>>of the Greeks, in the time of Antiochus IV, a Seleucid king of Syria
>>in the 2nd century BC. There were numerous other cosmological changes
>>made as well, which had unfortunate consequences for scholars and
>>leaders of the Church in the time of Galileo. There is still a lot of
>>confusion about the meaning of 'firmament' to this day.
>
>
> ...but trust our Douglas to tie this issue in with his favorite obsession.

Ask him about the Tarim Basin some time.

Mike Lyle

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 3:03:04 PM6/29/05
to

My first reaction to the word was that it sounded like something one


of Kipling's adored subalterns might have said his chaps had done to
the P'thans. "Well, then we commanded the nullah, and rather

Martinised them, don't ye know?" A voice put in, "Dashed unsporting,
wasn't it, when he only had jezails?" The face, old beyond its years,
turned gravely to the last speaker: "Well, you see, the men had seen
what their women had done to O'Brien's wounded after what the headman
had sworn was a truce, and I'm afraid there wasn't much holding them
after that."

--
Mike.


Douglas Cox

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 2:33:46 PM6/29/05
to
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:34:04 +0100, "John Dean"
<john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:

Lots of words change, but sometimes it is done because someone has an


agenda. This may require legislation, or the decree of a king, or

something similar. In the case of Jerome's use of 'firmament', it was
a translation of 'stereoma' in the LXX, which in turn was a
translation of the Hebrew word 'raqia'. The meaning of that word was
changed in the Bible to promote the geocentric cosmology and religion
of the Greeks, in the time of Antiochus IV, a Seleucid king of Syria
in the 2nd century BC. There were numerous other cosmological changes
made as well, which had unfortunate consequences for scholars and
leaders of the Church in the time of Galileo. There is still a lot of
confusion about the meaning of 'firmament' to this day.

Doug

http://vinyl2.sentex.ca/~tcc/Noise.html


Lt. Kizhe Catson

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 3:08:50 PM6/29/05
to

The legal definition of "marriage" was changed to include same-sex

unions. Some religious folks have their knickers in a knot because they
think it has cosmic implications. Guess what? Legally, marriage is
just a contract, mostly about property. The churches can (continue to)
define marriage, in its sacremental aspects, anyway they want. It's
always bneen obvious to me that these two parallel aspects existed, with
no necessary connection between them. So I wish one of the objectors
would explain to me why they're so hung up on the word "marriage".

> something similar. In the case of Jerome's use of 'firmament', it was


> a translation of 'stereoma' in the LXX, which in turn was a
> translation of the Hebrew word 'raqia'. The meaning of that word was
> changed in the Bible to promote the geocentric cosmology and religion
> of the Greeks, in the time of Antiochus IV, a Seleucid king of Syria
> in the 2nd century BC. There were numerous other cosmological changes
> made as well, which had unfortunate consequences for scholars and
> leaders of the Church in the time of Galileo. There is still a lot of
> confusion about the meaning of 'firmament' to this day.

...but trust our Douglas to tie this issue in with his favorite obsession.

-- Kizhe

Bobby D. Bryant

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 2:59:55 PM6/29/05
to
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, "Noone Inparticular" <unre...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Douglas Cox wrote:
>> This is to propose a new word, "martinize"
>>
>> Definition:
>> to martinize, v. Means to change or pervert the meaning of a word by
>> altering it to mean something else.
>>
>> Examples of words that have been martinized are: gay, firmament, and
>> most recently, marriage.
>>
>> At one time, gay was a respectable word meaning happy.
>

> It is *still* a respectable word.
>

> Perhaps we should coin a word which means "ignorant, hateful
> expressions of an obnoxious jerk trying to look intelligent".
>
> I propose "Coxian".

After reading all the replies, I can only hope he didn't x-post to
t.o. in the expectation of finding smypathy.

Lt. Kizhe Catson

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 2:38:11 PM6/29/05
to
Poet Fury wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:08:54 -0000, rich hammett wrote:
>
>
>>In talk.origins Douglas Cox <t...@sentex.net> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>>
>>>This is to propose a new word, "martinize"
>>
>>>Definition:
>>>to martinize, v. Means to change or pervert the meaning of a word by
>>>altering it to mean something else.
>>
>>I don't care what you call it, as long as you can get it done
>>within an hour!
>
>
> Feeling a bit shirty?

He's panting, and pressing to get it done soon.

-- Kizhe

chris.li...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 29, 2005, 10:18:50 PM6/29/05
to
Matthew Isleb wrote:

snip

> >
> > It is symbolic of the decline of "morals" in our culture... or something
> > like that. I guess they think that if we just can repress homosexuality,
> > it won't exist. And I am sure many of them are trying this without their
> > own sexuality as we speak.
>
> errr *with* their own sexulaity.

Well if you're sexcluding the religious orders, I guess you mean all
those sexular humanists.

Chris

Bill Hudson

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 2:21:18 AM6/30/05
to

The sexular humanists could use a sexulaity. I mean, why else would
you call them a "lay"-person?

Bill Hudson

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 2:23:15 AM6/30/05
to

ew, sorry for the x-post. I failed to check the headers. followups set
to talk.origins only.

Owain

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 7:17:12 AM6/30/05
to
Greg G. wrote:
>>>At one time, gay was a respectable word meaning happy.
>>It is *still* a respectable word.
> But does it get the respect it deserves? As someone whose last name is
> Gay, I have to tell you that it does not.

Would you rather be a Smellie? Or even a Goodwillie?

Just be grateful your parents named you Greg, not Randolph ;-)

Owain


Owain

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 7:13:37 AM6/30/05
to
Deadrat wrote:
>>... When the Mounties turn up to force you to marry some gay man,
>> I'll be backing you with anything including lethal force.
> But what if the Mountie is really, really cute?

They say a Mountie always gets his man!

Owain

Greg G.

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 8:02:40 AM6/30/05
to

Before my brother was born, my great-aunt asked me and my cousin (her
grandson) what Mom and Dad were planning to name him. We told her
"Benjamin Hyphen". She didn't get it and, after the birth, asked Mom
how little Ben was doing.

--
Greg G.

Soooo analgesic retentive!

Stephen Poley

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 8:28:24 AM6/30/05
to
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:10:42 -0400, Raymond Griffith
<tiffirg...@ctc.net> wrote:

>in article iof5c15m9pgde7mup...@4ax.com, r norman at
>rsn_@_comcast.net wrote on 6/29/05 11:35 AM:
>
>> Why pick on dry-cleaners? Do you know of a non toxic toxic (or even a
>> non toxic) alternative dry cleaning solvent? Do you realize that only
>> a few people have been injured or killed with dry cleaning solvents
>> compared with the enormous numbers who have died in contact with the
>> solvent used in wet cleaning?
>
>Dihydrogen monoxide is lethal for the vast majority of those who breathe it.

Fortunately only true above a certain threshold level. I have survived
breathing small quantities [1] on numerous occasions. Mainly while
reading t.o. ...

[1] At approx 60 degrees C, suffused with substances extracted from a
tropical plant.

--
Stephen Poley
Barendrecht, Holland

r norman

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 9:19:06 AM6/30/05
to

Those substances are secondary compounds, specifically selected by
evolution to be highly toxic to the animal that ingests them! The
best way to offset the effect is to add the waste product produced by
fungal anaerobic fermentation of the mono and disaccharides in grain.


Lt. Kizhe Catson

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 9:30:46 AM6/30/05
to
Douglas Cox wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:08:50 -0400, "Lt. Kizhe Catson"
> <lt.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> It is about the pollution of language. Language is made up of words,
> and changing the meaning of words can have major effects. In all
> countries, there was once a clear meaning attached to the word
> marriage, that becomes lost when the word is applied to same-sex
> unions. So now, when one reads that a person is married, one may need
> to ask, "does this mean married in the Canadian sense, or in the
> non-Canadian sense?" or "does it mean married in a pre-2005 Canadian
> sense, or in a post-2005 Canadian sense?" The word "married" is no
> longer unambiguous in its meaning, as it once was, and from a
> philosophical point of view, this is unfortunate, as it is a bit like
> other kinds of pollution, there is a price.

Oh, the Pollution Of Language is a terrible thing, I couldn't agree more
(why, it's almost as bad as mucking with our Precious Bodily Fluids).
But you seem to have missed a much earlier (and in the scheme of things,
far more significant) example of such pollution. Referring to your use
of the word "person" in the preceding paragraph: did you mean that in
the pre-1929 Canadian sense, or the post-1929 Canadian sense? If you
don't know what I refer to, look here:
http://www.albertasource.ca/aspenland/eng/society/activism_rights_persons.html

Now, doesn't that make you feel so confused -- not knowing whether
"person" is supposed to include women or not? Does it make you feel
devalued to know that, when you are referred to as a "person", it also
refers to women? Damn those Privy Councillors, polluting the language
that way!

BTW, Doug: I'm married. The identity of my spouse is none of your
business, unless I choose to make it so. Is this a problem for you?

er...@swva.net

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 9:34:42 AM6/30/05
to
Douglas Cox wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:08:50 -0400, "Lt. Kizhe Catson"
> <lt.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It is about the pollution of language.

The term "pollution" with respect to language has no scientific
meaning, and if it did, it would mean something that rendered a study
inaccurate by affecting the responses ao f a native speaker.

> Language is made up of words,
> and changing the meaning of words can have major effects. In all
> countries, there was once a clear meaning attached to the word
> marriage, that becomes lost when the word is applied to same-sex
> unions.

How do you figure? I find the use of the word "marriage" for gay
unions incongruous, and would prefer a civil union with all the rights
of marriage, but that's based on my sense of esthetics. If a state
wants to call gay unions "marriages" I may think it's clumsy
linguisticall, but there is no basis for opposing on linguistic
grounds.

> So now, when one reads that a person is married, one may need
> to ask, "does this mean married in the Canadian sense, or in the
> non-Canadian sense?" or "does it mean married in a pre-2005 Canadian
> sense, or in a post-2005 Canadian sense?"

Why would any of that matter? It would just mean that they were
already married, so don't put the moves on one of them, if you don't
want a black eye or worse.

> The word "married" is no
> longer unambiguous in its meaning, as it once was, and from a
> philosophical point of view, this is unfortunate, as it is a bit like
> other kinds of pollution, there is a price.

It doesn't resemble pollution in any sense.

Eric Root

rja.ca...@excite.com

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 10:06:16 AM6/30/05
to

Douglas Cox wrote:
> This is to propose a new word, "martinize"
>
> Definition:
> to martinize, v. Means to change or pervert the meaning of a word by
> altering it to mean something else.
>
> Examples of words that have been martinized are: gay, firmament, and
> most recently, marriage.

"Marry" already meant other things besides.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marry

George R. Welch

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 10:23:02 AM6/30/05
to
In article <112013127...@ersa.uk.clara.net>,

Isn't that why they're called "mount"ies?

--George
--
George R. Welch
// Send $2 to P.O. Box 904; Latexo, TX 75849 for a copy of Grand Mothers
// tremendous southern cornbread recipe! Easy to follow and the best I
// have ever tasted. Don't forgit to include your address.

Mark Isaak

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 1:17:54 PM6/30/05
to
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 10:48:13 -0400, Douglas Cox <t...@sentex.net>
wrote:

>This is to propose a new word, "martinize"
>
>Definition:
>to martinize, v. Means to change or pervert the meaning of a word by
>altering it to mean something else.
>
>Examples of words that have been martinized are: gay, firmament, and
>most recently, marriage.

Yeah. It's horrible how the fundamentalist so-called Christians are
trying to redefine marriage to make it based on hate, by outlawing
love-based marriage and making bigotry and prejudice an essential part
of it. I will never get married where that is what marriage means.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering

Andrew Arensburger

unread,
Jun 30, 2005, 2:07:01 PM6/30/05
to
In talk.origins Matthew Isleb <mis...@onshore.com> wrote:
> I guess they think that if we just can repress homosexuality,
> it won't exist.

You mean, the same way that homosexuality didn't exist at any
time during the past six millennia, until some hippies invented it in
the 1960s? Or the way that pornography didn't exist until Hugh Hefner
founded Playboy? Or the way that Richard Nixon hadn't done anything
wrong until Woodward and Bernstein exposed Watergate? (And presumably,
since the press didn't say anything about JFK's affairs, he's
blameless as well.)
By that logic, I suppose that benzene or lead in drinking
water isn't toxic until some EPA snoop starts making a fuss about it.

--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
If you can wave a fan, and you can wave a club, can you wave a fan club?