In response to:

Gay Marriage and the Definition of Words

RayTheAnarchoCapitalist Wrote: May 13, 2012 3:17 PM
Language isn't stable, though. As evidence I point to the fact that you don't communicate in Old English. There's easily a dozen words in your post that were borrowed from other languages into English.
inkling_revival Wrote: May 13, 2012 3:49 PM
But language usually changes by drift; and in fact, it's usually mistakes that cause the drift. Case in point: people today use "begs the question" to mean "raises the question," when "begs the question" used to mean "argues in a circle." That's a change being brought about by ignorance.

In this case, thought, we're watching a deliberate, systematic assault on language to change it in order to gain political and legal advantage. They want to change existing law by changing the meanings of words. If that is permitted, what law is safe from a similar attack? And how can our liberties, which are protected solely by our equality before the law, be protected anymore, if the meanings of laws can be altered by systematic, political assault?

Gay marriage is an issue most Americans simply don’t care about. We have opinions on it, but it simply doesn’t register, especially at a time of high unemployment. But President Obama shoehorned it into the forefront this week because he can’t talk about the economy, jobs, his record, the massive debt he racked up or anything he’s done since assuming office except ordering the raid against bin Laden. And that party was last week, so a new distraction from reality was needed.

To be clear, what the president said means nothing. It won’t change any law anywhere. And the...