 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Does gay marriage change the definition of marriage? |
| Yes. |
|
18% |
[ 8 ] |
| No. |
|
65% |
[ 28 ] |
| Maybe so. |
|
16% |
[ 7 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 43 |
|
| Author |
Message |
ford_prefects_kid
Deinonychus
Joined: Feb 18, 2008
Age: 22
Posts: 396
Location: CA: Los Angeles and Berkeley
|
 Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 11:14 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| oscuria wrote: | | ford_prefects_kid wrote: |
Oh, well that makes sense. The love you have for Moses Jesus and Muhammad is precisely the same kind of love as the kind I was referring to when I spoke of two people in a committed romantic relationship.
And since we've established that there is only one definition of love, I have to ask- since we all know that Jesus loves everyone, are you ok with that? Do you ever feel jealous sometimes? And how do you feel about our country not granting you the legal right to enter into the institution of marriage with all the individuals you mentioned above simultaneously? |
First off, your attempts are not going to work. Your insults are not going to cause me to react.
I never implied there was one definition of Love (or rather the forms of love), but there is one widely accepted and acknowledge definition of marriage.
How do you know that Jesus loves everyone? and What does love have to do with marriage? |
Oh please. Drop the higher ground act, you're the one that jumped on me with the all caps WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE ANIMALS?!? crap.
My point was that the definition of marriage has already changed, since it was once thought of as simply an institution and economic convenience, and women were not even considered equal partners. In our modern society, the current philosophy of what marriage is supposed to represent has much more to do with a higher form of mutual love, respect and commitment between two consenting adults.
These ideals could still be present between a couple of the same sex, but not between a man and his dog because a dog is not capable of that particular form of love.
The fact that I originally clarified to which kind of love I was referring, but you still responded by slating your love for various religious leaders and the kind of love that an animal can exhibit is irritating. It seems you are deliberately trying to misinterpret me, because I can't imagine that this is unclear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 2066
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ford_prefects_kid wrote: |
Oh please. Drop the higher ground act, you're the one that jumped on me with the all caps WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE ANIMALS?!? crap.
My point was that the definition of marriage has already changed, since it was once thought of as simply an institution and economic convenience, and women were not even considered equal partners. In our modern society, the current philosophy of what marriage is supposed to represent has much more to do with a higher form of mutual love, respect and commitment between two consenting adults.
These ideals could still be present between a couple of the same sex, but not between a man and his dog because a dog is not capable of that particular form of love.
The fact that I originally clarified to which kind of love I was referring, but you still responded by slating your love for various religious leaders and the kind of love that an animal can exhibit is irritating. It seems you are deliberately trying to misinterpret me, because I can't imagine that this is unclear. |
1) It is not a higher ground. You insulted me, and the Prophets as being homosexual. If you consider me being insulted by such accusations as being "high-ground", so be it.
2) You are explaining marriages in the western sense. How do you know that marriage throughout the world was not considered equal partner? You do not, because your experience is only with the west (more accurately american).
3) Marriage has nothing to do with love. People claim it to be. Using this as an argument for homosexuals to get marriage is just a plea to sympathy and emotions.
_________________
I'm no democRAT, I'm a republiCAN! |
|
| Back to top |
|
ford_prefects_kid
Deinonychus
Joined: Feb 18, 2008
Age: 22
Posts: 396
Location: CA: Los Angeles and Berkeley
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| oscuria wrote: | | 1) It is not a higher ground. You insulted me, and the Prophets as being homosexual. If you consider me being insulted by such accusations as being "high-ground", so be it. |
No, I was pointing out the fact that your love for them is of obviously a different kind, so trying to refute my point that you must know someone to love them (in a relationship sense) by slating your love for Jesus and friends is ridiculous. I kinda figured out on my own by now that you're not gay, believe it or not.
| oscuria wrote: | | 2) You are explaining marriages in the western sense. How do you know that marriage throughout the world was not considered equal partner? You do not, because your experience is only with the west (more accurately american). |
Actually I was going back to the ancient Greeks and the writings of Plato if you read my initial post, because they are generally considered to be the foundation of all Western culture. We're both living in one, and the post with a definition of marriage from Webster referred to marriage in western culture, so I see no need to personally expand the content of the debate.
| oscuria wrote: | | 3) Marriage has nothing to do with love. People claim it to be. Using this as an argument for homosexuals to get marriage is just a plea to sympathy and emotions. |
Funny, but I've been to a fair amount of weddings and I coulda sworn I heard something about.. "love, honor and obey..." |
|
| Back to top |
|
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 2066
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ford_prefects_kid wrote: |
No, I was pointing out the fact that your love for them is of obviously a different kind, so trying to refute my point that you must know someone to love them (in a relationship sense) by slating your love for Jesus and friends is ridiculous. I kinda figured out on my own by now that you're not gay, believe it or not.
Actually I was going back to the ancient Greeks and the writings of Plato if you read my initial post, because they are generally considered to be the foundation of all Western culture. We're both living in one, and the post with a definition of marriage from Webster referred to marriage in western culture, so I see no need to personally expand the content of the debate.
Funny, but I've been to a fair amount of weddings and I coulda sworn I heard something about.. "love, honor and obey..." |
1) Saying I should marry them is an insult to me (as it implies homosexuality). I don't know your beliefs, but I'm going to assume it is a liberal approach and thus you won't understand why.
2) You do understand that there was love for men back then. Yes, I understand this as in Islamic cultures pederasty was admired. BUT they never married between males. They understood that marriage was between a man and a woman. Whatever union they had with a man was not marriage. They would return to their wives or to marry a woman.
3) Funny how "love, honor and obey" doesn't imply that the couple have to be in love first.
_________________
I'm no democRAT, I'm a republiCAN! |
|
| Back to top |
|
ford_prefects_kid
Deinonychus
Joined: Feb 18, 2008
Age: 22
Posts: 396
Location: CA: Los Angeles and Berkeley
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| oscuria wrote: | | 1) Saying I should marry them is an insult to me (as it implies homosexuality). I don't know your beliefs, but I'm going to assume it is a liberal approach and thus you won't understand why. |
It was not a literal suggestion, it was a reduction to the absurd. Sorta like when a kid says he loves power rangers, and his 6-year-old friend retorts by offering a similar solution.
| oscuria wrote: | | 2) You do understand that there was love for men back then. Yes, I understand this as in Islamic cultures pederasty was admired. BUT they never married between males. They understood that marriage was between a man and a woman. Whatever union they had with a man was not marriage. They would return to their wives or to marry a woman. |
Yes, but that was acceptable behavior within the institution of marriage at that time, based on what they defined the significance of marriage to be. This has changed in today's world. If you don't believe me, ask any conservative woman if she thinks returning to a girl to take care of your house and children, but openly loving and having sexual relations with a man is appropriate conduct within a marriage.
| oscuria wrote: | | 3) Funny how "love, honor and obey" doesn't imply that the couple have to be in love first. |
Well, expecting sparks to fly just because you both said the magic words at the ceremony is a little overly optimistic, dontcha think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 2066
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ford_prefects_kid wrote: | It was not a literal suggestion, it was a reduction to the absurd. Sorta like when a kid says he loves power rangers, and his 6-year-old friend retorts by offering a similar solution.
Yes, but that was acceptable behavior within the institution of marriage at that time, based on what they defined the significance of marriage to be. This has changed in today's world. If you don't believe me, ask any conservative woman if she thinks returning to a girl to take care of your house and children, but openly loving and having sexual relations with a man is appropriate conduct within a marriage.
Well, expecting sparks to fly just because you both said the magic words at the ceremony is a little overly optimistic, dontcha think? |
I am aware it was not a literal suggestion, but there is still the implication. You don't or rather wont understand, it's ok.
Only five countries allow same-sex marriages throughout to be performed. It doesn't seem like the rest of the world is ready to "modernize" or change its definition.
Arranged marriages?
_________________
I'm no democRAT, I'm a republiCAN! |
|
| Back to top |
|
slowmutant
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 8976
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| peebo wrote: | | i disagree. there are myriad definitions of marriage, not all of which specifically refer to gender. if we are discussing legal definitions then perhaps. |
More obfuscation.  |
|
| 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
|
|
|
