People, please read this... (re: Same sex mariage)

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

What is the blue or green equivalent of "pink"?

---

​

Cornflower?

---

That's not a color term. It's a reference to an object. I mentioned others in my post. Didn't you read it? "Sky blue," "baby blue," "powder blue." Besides, you abbreviated it. The full term is "cornflower blue."Nobody says, "pink red."

quote:

---

Seriously, don't you have a box of crayons at your house?

---

That's what my computer is for. But you're ignoring the point. It isn't that we don't have ways to describe light blue. It's that the only way we can do it is to either refer to an object ("turquoise") or put an adjective in front of the color term ("cornflower blue").Notice that we don't have any color terms for darker shades (the closest English has is "grey" which is more a middle term for black and white rather than a "dark" white.) "Pink" is a pure color term for a light shade of red, but what is the complement for dark shades? We don't have any. We have to modify the original term: "Blood red," "Navy blue," "forest green," "royal purple."My point in bringing this up is that our society organizes the world in certain ways. That attitude is reflected in our language. It isn't that we cannot ever conceive of it but that the only way we can is to do so via roundabout methods.If Ancient Hebrew is going to be referring to gay people, it's going to have to do it in a roundabout fashion because there simply weren't any words in the language to do it. They didn't organize the world that way.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

NosyNed writes:

quote:

---

I think that echinacea is corn flower.

---

No, Bachelor's Buttons (Centaurea cyanus) are cornflowers...at least, with regard to the idea of "cornflower blue."Corn Cockles (Agrostemma githago) are the other definition of cornflowers, but they're purple-red.Ironically, the "corn cockle" version of cornflowers are variants of the flowers known as pinks.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zealot writes:

quote:

---

You describe homosexuality. Shall we try with 'Man inserting his penis into another man's anus'.

---

Nope. No good. Most gay men don't do that.And just because one does that does not mean one is gay.Try again.

quote:

---

Eventually we can write an entire chapter in the Bible about what type of homosexual acts are sin, but is that really neccesary ?

---

Yes, it is. If you think that homosexuality is nothing more than physics, then you need to be very specific about what physical machinations must be carried out in order to justify a claim of homosexuality.But what if homosexuality isn't the way you describe it?

quote:

---

They knew about all those.. but not homosexuality

---

Not the way we understand it, no.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!