 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Does gay marriage change the definition of marriage? |
| Yes. |
|
19% |
[ 8 ] |
| No. |
|
64% |
[ 27 ] |
| Maybe so. |
|
16% |
[ 7 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 42 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 7392
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
 Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 3:51 pm Post subject: Does gay marriage change the definition of marriage? |
 |
|
Especially when it's legalized?
I'm not asking for a debate, just a yes or no answer.
Does the legalization of gay marriage alter the definition of marriage?
This is, I believe, the most important question regarding gay marriage today,
even more important than whether or not it should be allowed.
I say this because I think it's critically important to the institution of marriage
to determine whether marriage has an adjustable definition, or a static one.
If it's adjustable, then, in far future times, we'll no doubt find ourselves marrying things we
cannot now realistically envisage.
_________________
Anyone who is interested in philosophy, the of meaning of life, and answers to our hardest questions, I suggest you check out the free, online mp3 archive of Ravi Zacharias at www.rzim.org.
Last edited by Ragtime on Fri May 16, 2008 4:54 pm; edited 7 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
jfrmeister
Velociraptor
Joined: Aug 11, 2007
Age: 38
Posts: 439
Location: #2309 WP'er
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, marrige is still a relationship between two consenting adult human beings.
_________________
"The christian god is a being of terrific character; cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust" - Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 7392
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jfrmeister wrote: | | No, marrige is still a relationship between two consenting adult human beings. |
Um... that's a change, the way you phrase it.
If we eventually legalize animal-human marriages, couldn't those
wishing to marry animals just as easily answer my question with:
"No. Marriage is still a relationship between two consenting lifeforms"?
(Any future legalization of animal-human marriages implies that consent has been redefined.)
_________________
Anyone who is interested in philosophy, the of meaning of life, and answers to our hardest questions, I suggest you check out the free, online mp3 archive of Ravi Zacharias at www.rzim.org.
Last edited by Ragtime on Fri May 16, 2008 4:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
Fred2670
Velociraptor
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Posts: 419
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How are we supposed to agree with you
if you wont tell us what your position is?
What brought this on anyway?
Are you engaged to a hairy steel worker?
_________________
ALT+F4=Life |
|
| Back to top |
|
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 1966
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I always thought marriage was between a man and a woman. Anything outside that wouldn't really constitute as a true marriage.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 3208
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: | | jfrmeister wrote: | | No, marrige is still a relationship between two consenting adult human beings. |
Um... that's a change, the way you phrase it.
If we eventually legalize animals marriages, couldn't those
wishing to marry animals just as easily answer my question with:
"No. Marriage is still a relationship between two consenting lifeforms"?
(Any future legalization of animal-human marriages implies that consent has been redefined.) |
Your argument is the same as those who opposed interracial marriages. Actually, given many of your views, I wouldn't be especially surprised if you were opposed to interracial marriage.
Now, my church does not recognize same-sex marriages. However, my church also does not issue legal marriage licenses. There really are two different types of marriage: those under the auspices of a church and also the legal document that constitutes a civic marriage. Many people get both. I see no issue with the state issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. I also support the freedom of any church to reject the validity of those marriages and/or to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for gays.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
greenblue
¸.·´´¯`··.¸.·´
Joined: Mar 26, 2007
Posts: 7303
Location: Home
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think this comes from the thought and belief that the original definition of marriage must have been that of a heterosexual couple, wether some think the definition can expand and some think it shouldn't.
However, a question I ask is: Does marriage has been always exclusively meant for heterosexual couples? Because I am actually uncertain, considering there has been polygamic marriages in history.
| wikipedia wrote: | In 2004, the American Anthropological Association released this statement:
"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies". |
_________________
We all dream; we do not understand our dreams, yet we act as if nothing strange goes on in our sleep minds, strange at least by comparison with the logical, purposeful doings of our minds when we are awake. -Erich Fromm |
|
| Back to top |
|
Phagocyte
Low-Functioning NT
Joined: Oct 16, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 1584
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, marriage is about the love of two adults. But injecting it with homophobia, you are basically cheapening the practice, IMO.
_________________
I am neurotypical - I just want to find out more about Asperger's Syndrome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 1966
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Phagocyte wrote: | | No, marriage is about the love of two adults. But injecting it with homophobia, you are basically cheapening the practice, IMO. |
 Marriage wasn't always about love. Run along with your 20th century belief. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 7392
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: | | Ragtime wrote: | | jfrmeister wrote: | | No, marrige is still a relationship between two consenting adult human beings. |
Um... that's a change, the way you phrase it.
If we eventually legalize animals marriages, couldn't those
wishing to marry animals just as easily answer my question with:
"No. Marriage is still a relationship between two consenting lifeforms"?
(Any future legalization of animal-human marriages implies that consent has been redefined.) |
Your argument is the same as those who opposed interracial marriages. |
...No... 
I'm not saying that gays aren't human, or that they are a sub-species, or that they come from
cultural backgrounds too radically different than straight people's backgrounds,
nor do I think these things, so I don't get your comparison.
Interracial marriages functioned, and still function, precisely the way non-interracial marriages did, and do.
(I would know; my wife is Hispanic.)
| Orwell wrote: |
Actually, given many of your views, I wouldn't be especially surprised if you were opposed to interracial marriage. |
Hold your tongue for longer until you get to know me and my views,
and you won't make this type of incorrect snap-judgment in the future.
I love my brown wife very, very much.
_________________
Anyone who is interested in philosophy, the of meaning of life, and answers to our hardest questions, I suggest you check out the free, online mp3 archive of Ravi Zacharias at www.rzim.org. |
|
| Back to top |
|
CityAsylum
Venio. Exeunt omnes.
Joined: Jan 08, 2008
Posts: 3477
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Marriage is a business arrangement that has evolved to include legal benefits such as health insurance, health proxies, ownership of property, and survivorship.
This is separate from the optional sacrements an organization of worship may bestow upon it, and it is important to keep the two separate.
Human beings, gay or not, should have equal rights to these legal benefits.
Bringing animals into it is just silly, and echoes the idiocy of conservative dimwits such as Rick Santorum, the well-known Man-on-Dog sex specialist. 
_________________
I'm as puzzled as a newborn child
2nd Sin: Gluttony |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 7392
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CityAsylum wrote: |
Bringing animals into it is just silly, and echoes the idiocy of conservative dimwits such as Rick Santorum, the well-known Man-on-Dog sex specialist. |
Historically, many things which have been silly in one era
often enough become the norm in the next.
And trends can indicate such a transition, even if it's a slow one.
If marriage has been defined as heterosexual for thousands of years,
and now it's not,
that represents an extremely notable change in the course of human history.
To be sure, there are many things going on in the world today that are silly,
but that doesn't mean they can't or don't effect us, and require responses from us.
Last edited by Ragtime on Fri May 16, 2008 6:58 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
Fred2670
Velociraptor
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Posts: 419
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In my opinion it doesnt change the definition of
the word, but merely cheapens the act. It seems
this is just another way that fags are trying to
imitate normal people. I guess I would feel sorry
for them if I valued their existance.
Dont get me wrong, I do my best to be tolerant
of others but I believe the only thing worse than
allowing fags to get married is be to allow them
to adopt children.
I also believe they should all be castrated and have
the word "HOMO" tattooed across their foreheads.
_________________
ALT+F4=Life |
|
| Back to top |
|
greenblue
¸.·´´¯`··.¸.·´
Joined: Mar 26, 2007
Posts: 7303
Location: Home
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fred2670 wrote: | In my opinion it doesnt change the definition of
the word, but merely cheapens the act. It seems
this is just another way that fags are trying to
imitate normal people. I guess I would feel sorry
for them if I valued their existance.
Dont get me wrong, I do my best to be tolerant
of others but I believe the only thing worse than
allowing fags to get married is be to allow them
to adopt children.
I also believe they should all be castrated and have
the word "HOMO" tattooed across their foreheads. |
What about lesbians?
_________________
We all dream; we do not understand our dreams, yet we act as if nothing strange goes on in our sleep minds, strange at least by comparison with the logical, purposeful doings of our minds when we are awake. -Erich Fromm |
|
| Back to top |
|
Fred2670
Velociraptor
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Posts: 419
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: |
Historically, many thing which have been silly in one era
often enough become the norm in the next.
And trends can indicate such a transition, even if it's a slow one.
If marriage has been defined as heterosexual for thousands of years,
and now it's not,
that represents an extremely notable change in the course of human history.
|
Nothing in Califronia could ever be significant enough
to represent even a mild transition in human history.
_________________
ALT+F4=Life |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
