Does gay marriage change the definition of marriage?

Page 4 of 7 [ 112 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ascan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,194
Location: Taunton/Aberdeen

17 May 2008, 3:22 pm

peebo wrote:

yes, but if you included the rest of Hector's sentence the context would surely be in favour of the point i'm making.

Hector wrote:

...but I still don't see how that is relevant

No it wouldn't. Hector's statement acknowledges definition is being discussed. Indeed, definition and marriage are in the thread title and we're only a few pages into it. Your statement regarding things moving on was just an attempt to get away from facts you feel uncomfortable with.

peebo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

17 May 2008, 3:39 pm

what facts do you think i feel uncomfortable with, ascan?

_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith

srriv345
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 523

17 May 2008, 4:10 pm

Marriage is the "backbone of human civilization"? Nonsense! Humanity would continue to exist even if marriage suddenly disappeared, which it's not going to. There have been many societies which don't practice "marriage" in the sense that people here are insisting is the only true way.

If you are traumatized by the definition of marriage "changing" to include gay couples, that's your problem--not theirs.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

17 May 2008, 4:12 pm

To some extent yes, and to another extent no. The fact that the law is being considered reflects that our views of marriage have changed enough where gay marriage is not a change but already included in our understanding of the fundamental nature of marriage. The laws will still have to change though.

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

18 May 2008, 4:40 am

srriv345 wrote:

Marriage is the "backbone of human civilization"? Nonsense! Humanity would continue to exist even if marriage suddenly disappeared, which it's not going to. There have been many societies which don't practice "marriage" in the sense that people here are insisting is the only true way.

If you are traumatized by the definition of marriage "changing" to include gay couples, that's your problem--not theirs.

Name a society or a culture with no concept of marriage. Find me an ethnic group or nationality somewhere on this planet to whom marriage is a foreign concept.

Traumatized? That's a bit much. But I'm defenitely an advocate of the traditional definition of marriage. No hesitation there.

Thomas1138
Velociraptor

Joined: 5 Apr 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 470

18 May 2008, 5:25 am

Quote:

Does gay marriage change the definition of marriage?

Yes it does. Anyone who says otherwise is factually wrong.

Which is why we should change the definition.

peebo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

18 May 2008, 5:38 am

i disagree. there are myriad definitions of marriage, not all of which specifically refer to gender. if we are discussing legal definitions then perhaps.

_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith

monty
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

18 May 2008, 6:15 am

ascan wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

So, the definition of marriage is being changed by the advent of gay marriage...

That really is very obvious. The poll results so far reflect the way young people (who make up the bulk of the membership) have been indoctrinated by politically-correct liberals, leftists and others who wish to change language to suit their own selfish ends. I've looked at three dictionary definitions and they all mention a man and a woman; how anyone can assert that allowing two blokes to walk down the aisle doesn't change that definition is beyond me.

I'll just add that my comment doesn't stem from any religous bias as I'm atheist, or from any wish to discriminate against homosexuals, I just prefer to call a spade a spade, or a gay relationship a gay relationship, not marriage. Seems commonsense to me.

It's not a question of changing dictionary definitions - it is a question of changing culture. Culture can be a good thing; it can also suck. Consider the dictionary definition of miscegenation and the long conservative tradition of laws that were defined to prevent it:

Quote:

Miscegenation is the intermarriage of people of different races. In the United States the term is primarily used to describe the marriage between a black person and a white person....

The enactment of antimiscegenation laws can be attributed to a variety of factors, including economic considerations and a desire on the part of some for the maintenance of so-called "racial purity." The first antimiscegenation statute appears to have been enacted in Maryland in 1661, in part for economic reasons. The statute forbidding interracial marriage in effect gave slave owners the ability to increase their number of slaves through birth. The statute deemed any child born of a free mother and slave father to be a slave of the father's master. The statute was designed to deter free white women from marrying black men. Before the statute, the freedom of a child was determined by her or his mother's free or enslaved status. If the mother was a free woman, the children would also be free. The 1661 statute changed this and increased the number of children born into slavery. The effect of the statute, however, was to increase forced interracial marriages because of the economic incentive for slave owners to force indentured white female servants to marry black male slaves to produce more slaves by birth from a slave father. Many other states in both the south and the north followed suit. America's first federal naturalization act, passed in 1790, limited the right to become citizens to "free white persons."

http://www.answers.com/topic/miscegenation

So marriage at one time was defined to promote the enslavement of people and to prevent mixing of the races. No surprise there - social institutions typically reflect the prevailing attitudes of society - historically, these attitudes have been racist and homophobic. Changing the legal definition of marriage doesn't magically eliminate racism or homophobia, but it will extend legal rights to groups that should have those rights, which makes it the right thing to do.

The nice thing about freedom is that giving freedom to people who are gay doesn't limit the freedom of people who are straight in any way.

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

18 May 2008, 6:36 am

peebo wrote:

looking at the situation objectively, what difference does it make to any of you if gay people are allowed to get married or not? homosexuality will exist regardless, it has existed as long as creatures with genitalia have existed.

in my opinion, marriage is a nonsense anyway. if you love a person and decide to spend your life with them, why the need for a legally binding contract? the institution of marriage causes a lot of trouble for people. especially if you are not religious, i personally do not see the point of it.

That's because you are not religious. And what the hell do you know about marriage?! :roll:

:roll:

Bobby1933
Snowy Owl

Joined: 24 Feb 2008
Age: 90
Gender: Male
Posts: 129
Location: Idaho, USA

18 May 2008, 10:45 am

I answered maybe, but I should have said no!

A good anthropological definition of marriage is that it is a relationship between a woman and at least one other person in which children born within the rules of that relationship are considered "legitimate" in the culture and society where that relationship occurs.

Accepting that definition I would have to consider a "marriage" between two {or more} lesbians to be as real marriage while a "marriage" between two gay men would require a redefinition of marriage.

On second thought, I believe there are certain native American cultures (Lacota, I think is one) where certain males (without being labeled "women" or "homosexuals" were permitted (and even encouraged) to live a more "feminine" lifestyle (they take up traditionally "women's work" , dress, and mannerisms). These Wintkes ( I probably spelled that wrong) sometimes take husbands and thus would be "married" within the definition of Lakota society.

_________________
Nun: I believe I am God.
Meister Eckhart: Praise be to God!

peebo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

18 May 2008, 11:07 am

slowmutant wrote:

peebo wrote:

looking at the situation objectively, what difference does it make to any of you if gay people are allowed to get married or not? homosexuality will exist regardless, it has existed as long as creatures with genitalia have existed.

in my opinion, marriage is a nonsense anyway. if you love a person and decide to spend your life with them, why the need for a legally binding contract? the institution of marriage causes a lot of trouble for people. especially if you are not religious, i personally do not see the point of it.

That's because you are not religious. And what the hell do you know about marriage?! :roll:

:roll:

as much as you do, i would suggest. or are you some sort of expert? and marriage is not only a religious thing, the majority of people getting married these days are not religious, or at least do not practice religion. so i don't see what that has to do with it anyway.

_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith

oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

18 May 2008, 3:32 pm

peebo wrote:

as much as you do, i would suggest. or are you some sort of expert? and marriage is not only a religious thing, the majority of people getting married these days are not religious, or at least do not practice religion. so i don't see what that has to do with it anyway.

I really wouldn't consider the majority of people in America religious. They only identify by name.

LeKiwi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,444
Location: The murky waters of my mind...

18 May 2008, 3:53 pm

No. Marriage is something that exists and has existed in a number of different forms throughout history - arranged, non-arranged, for love, for money, for wealth, for politics, for dowry, for family ties, for all sorts of reasons. So any 'definition' will change with the times.

But the way it is commonly practised now in our Western culture - for love - won't be changed whether the people are gay or straight. Love is love, it knows no bounds, and it can't be confined to our simple, physical form. Why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry? Who are you to deny them that right? And surely love should be encouraged and helped along in any way possible, given the sheer amount of hatred in the world today and the devastation it's wreaking on the planet?

Love is love, who are we to judge...

_________________
We are a fever, we are a fever, we ain't born typical...

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

18 May 2008, 5:03 pm

LeKiwi wrote:

Why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry?

Because apparently some don't want them to.

Quote:

Who are you to deny them that right?

A disinterested voter who has been vested with some power to impact that.

Quote:

And surely love should be encouraged and helped along in any way possible, given the sheer amount of hatred in the world today and the devastation it's wreaking on the planet?

Why? Couldn't we say that the real problem is lacking economic equality, or rule of law, or certain perverse opinions? I mean, it isn't as if hatred were suddenly invented by modern society.

Quote:

Love is love, who are we to judge...

People who judge on things. You have certainly judged. Love is love, despite all other features to it. Isn't that a judgment like any other?

LeKiwi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,444
Location: The murky waters of my mind...

18 May 2008, 5:09 pm

I suppose a judgement in its simplest form. Why complicate something as simple as love? Two people love each other - awesome, let them be in love and celebrate it however they like. It's not hurting anyone else, it's not affecting anyone else, it's just more love to keep the balance... why deny them their right to show the world how much they care? I just don't really see why it's such a big issue.

_________________
We are a fever, we are a fever, we ain't born typical...

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

18 May 2008, 5:13 pm

LeKiwi wrote:

I suppose a judgement in its simplest form. Why complicate something as simple as love? Two people love each other - awesome, let them be in love and celebrate it however they like. It's not hurting anyone else, it's not affecting anyone else, it's just more love to keep the balance... why deny them their right to show the world how much they care? I just don't really see why it's such a big issue.

Why not complicate it? Who says that it is simple? Technically it does affect other people if these individuals are not in a vacuum, especially if it is to show the world. Now, these appearances can cause displeasure. I can understand that last sentence though... and there are some reasons, but you would rightly disagree with all of them I am afraid and I would dislike them too.

Page 4 of 7 [ 112 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Jump to:

Similar Topics

Greece Has Legalized Same-Sex Marriage

in News and Current Events

16 Feb 2024, 11:04 am

Autistic people and marriage

in Love and Dating

11 Mar 2024, 3:26 pm

definition of numbers

in Random Discussion

05 Mar 2024, 12:29 am