Does gay marriage change the definition of marriage?

Post Reply New Topic

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.

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.

If this is the definition of a real marriage then duration appears to be as important an element as which sexes it refers to.

In fact this isn't the real definition of marriage anymore.

After thousands of years of being a contract "for life" ( other than when wife is barren, when, even if it is husband's fault, she was often repudiated/abandoned/returned to sender), marriages have become instead a framework for relatively short -lived relationships, and are frequently entered into with no intention at all of having the unprotected sexual intercourse leading to childbearing which was the original sacred purpose of the bond.

One reason why the contract was "for life", apart from ensuring a period of stable child-rearing, was so that society would not become responsible for lots of old people's welfare whose children have "disowned" them because do not have the same close ties since parents divorced.

Since marriage became a contract for a period at one's own discretion it is no longer the same institution at all. What sex the partners are becomes a side issue.

That wasn't the question raised at the start of the thread. We are considering definition, and whether that's been, or is being, changed. Though I suspect it may cause you some distress to admit it, I reckon you most likely agree with the third sentence of the first paragraph of my previous post in this thread.

the sentence referring to the definition of marriage? its not really a sentence you can agree or disagree with, it's a definition from a dictionary. dictionary definitions are not the be all and end all, they are subject to change as society, and hence the use of language, also changes.

my opinion on the matter is relevant to the topic though, as basically i was inferring that the original question (in my opinion of course) is pointless.

but if you really want me to answer it then no, gay marriage does not affect the nature of marriage.

The thread is about the definition of a word, peebo. Any rational person wishing to do that with regard to a specific time would consult a dictionary published at that time. I suspect most dictionaries around at the moment in the US and UK state marriage involves a man and a woman. As my previous post indicated, three dictionaries I checked did just that. If we are going to start accepting men can marry men then clearly the definition has changed. If that's the case, it's likely that will be reflected in subsequent editions of a particular dictionary. That, however, would not represent any natural evolution of language, but political interference with it.

Now, come on peebo, be brave and admit that you know I'm correct.

Yes, our high technology, microwavable, instant brew coffee, fast-food, instant gratification, Western society does like things that don't last too very long...

But does what is done change that which ought to be done? Non credo.

I'm willing to admit that it may at least change the legal definition, but I still don't see how that is relevant. The only claim I've seen here so far that suggests it is relevant is that it may subsequently be extended to include marriage with animals or children, which is absurd. Just because women and blacks were being given the right to vote doesn't mean that children were about to be given the vote too.

Marriage is supposed to be the bond between a man and a woman. Not a man and another man or a woman and another woman. If an black man and a white woman get married for example that's still considered a regualr marriage because although they are a diffrent race they are still diffrent sexes. How long before it becomes legal to marry animals?

well not really. the definition of the word marriage varies depending on who you ask about it.

it seems most of the definitions google throws up don't mention gender.

http://www.google.com/search?client=saf ... 8&oe=UTF-8

and regardless, the nature of the discussion had progressed past a simple discussion of the definition of marriage. things move on, ascan. so stop antagonising me!

You tried that slippery slope argument only a few weeks ago:

So let's look at another slippery slope many societies stepped on last century, so we can see how far they have slid towards catastrophe:

You got the answer to your slippery slope argument on the first page of your previous thread on the same subject: adult humans are the only beings we know who are capable of consenting to marriage. Allowing another group of adult humans to marry is a minor change compared to allowing marriage with those who can't consent. The slippery slope exists only in the minds of those who want it to exist because they haven't got a better argument against homosexual marriage, and I am tired of repeating this to people who keep pretending not to understand it.

And I did notice this bit:

I might as well claim gravity is wearing out, my argument implying that gravity would be redefined. You can argue a lot of things if you assume a concept crucial to the argument will be redefined in the future to fit your argument.

I'm not disputing that, though I think the majority of people not indoctrinated by the current education system still believe it's a man and woman thing. Anyway, you may find if you dig deeper and access each link listed that many do mention that which you'd rather ignore. The ones that don't are evidence of that change of definition. Your google search provides current raw data from a number of sources of varying degrees of reliability. A dictionary definition provides an academically scrutinised reference of definition at the time it was published. I suspect most dictionaries will gradually drop the man and woman bit, but if you look at those published up until recently they do specifically state that it involves a man and woman.

You know, twenty years ago the only people who talked about men marrying men were comedians. To deny the huge change that's taken place is typical of the mentality of some of those on the left who seem to live in a parallel universe completely cut-off from reality. Even when the obvious is placed in front of them they deliberately obstruct and obfuscate like some creationist presented with a cladogram.

yes, but you see ascan, things change. homosexuality is a natural phenomenon that has been there since the start of history. it even occurs among animal species. i don't understand who is obstructing or obfuscating anything. i don't think anyone is denying a huge change has taken place, remember, that as recently as the 1950s homosexuality was illegal in the uk. but as i say, things change, and it is gradually becoming accepted as being a perfectly acceptable way of living. so, why then should gay people not be entitled to the same rights as straight people?

Marriage about not about homophobia, phagocyte. Marriage is about the union of man and woman, which really isn't such a bad idea. Marriage and family are the backbone of human civilization.

Marriage is what it is, for better or for worse.
I would not support any re-defining of marriage.

That's got nothing to do with the point I'm making. The thread sets-out to deal with whether there's been a change in definition and so that's the context in which my replies are set. Your response is typical of the obfuscation leftists use when anything like this is discussed. Moreover, you tell me the thread has moved on, despite evidence to the contrary:

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