 
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 |
Fred2670
Velociraptor
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Posts: 419
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 5:53 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| greenblue wrote: |
What about lesbians? |
Lesbos are coo
_________________
ALT+F4=Life |
|
| Back to top |
|
iamnotaparakeet
Alpha Parrot
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 23
Posts: 11784
Location: Domus Psittacorum
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes,
| Noah Webster in 1828 Anno Domini wrote: | Marriage
MAR'RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.
Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Heb 13
1. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.
The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage for his son. Mat 22.
2. In a scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace. Rev 19. |
Allowing homosexuality to have "marriages" will redefine the term "marriage" to mean whatever the heck they want it to, as evidenced by the above posts.
BTW, I'm not a homophobe, I'm a hetrophile... 
_________________
Don't look back, because infinity is waiting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Hector
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 11, 2008
Age: 22
Posts: 1029
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| How far do you think the definition could be extended? It'd be impossible for humans to marry animals because the animal would not be able to definitively express consent to marry. So I'm curious to see what people are afraid of in this case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
greenblue
¸.·´´¯`··.¸.·´
Joined: Mar 26, 2007
Posts: 7907
Location: Home
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| iamnotaparakeet wrote: | | BTW, I'm not a homophobe, I'm a hetrophile... |
Not quite sure about the definition, would that mean attracted to heterosexual men?
_________________
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. ~Einstein. |
|
| Back to top |
|
iamnotaparakeet
Alpha Parrot
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 23
Posts: 11784
Location: Domus Psittacorum
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| greenblue wrote: | | iamnotaparakeet wrote: | | BTW, I'm not a homophobe, I'm a hetrophile... |
Not quite sure about the definition, would that mean attracted to heterosexual men? |
Nope. Hetero=different (in this case, the opposite sex) Philia= love, like, et cetera.
_________________
Don't look back, because infinity is waiting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
iamnotaparakeet
Alpha Parrot
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 23
Posts: 11784
Location: Domus Psittacorum
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hector wrote: | | How far do you think the definition could be extended? It'd be impossible for humans to marry animals because the animal would not be able to definitively express consent to marry. So I'm curious to see what people are afraid of in this case. |
Is it possible for an animal to want sex with/from/using/etc a human?
_________________
Don't look back, because infinity is waiting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Hector
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 11, 2008
Age: 22
Posts: 1029
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Actually, I voted "maybe so" because there evidently seem to be people who define marriage as a union (with the required properties) specifically between a man and a woman. And possibly in the law as well. Yes, that definition would have to change. But language and the law have both shown themselves to be malleable enough to accommodate such changes, as they have for example with the concept of universal suffrage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Hector
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 11, 2008
Age: 22
Posts: 1029
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| iamnotaparakeet wrote: | | Hector wrote: | | How far do you think the definition could be extended? It'd be impossible for humans to marry animals because the animal would not be able to definitively express consent to marry. So I'm curious to see what people are afraid of in this case. |
Is it possible for an animal to want sex with/from/using/etc a human? |
I wouldn't quite rule it out, but at least with present technology it would be impossible to definitively gauge consent from an animal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
iamnotaparakeet
Alpha Parrot
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 23
Posts: 11784
Location: Domus Psittacorum
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hector wrote: | | Actually, I voted "maybe so" because there evidently seem to be people who define marriage as a union (with the required properties) specifically between a man and a woman. And possibly in the law as well. Yes, that definition would have to change. But language and the law have both shown themselves to be malleable enough to accommodate such changes, as they have for example with the concept of universal suffrage. |
So, is Susan being denied her right to vote the same situation as Joe and Curly wanting to have "sex" with each other claiming they have a right to do so?
_________________
Don't look back, because infinity is waiting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Fred2670
Velociraptor
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Posts: 419
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I do not condone sleeping with animals
I had a girlfriend once who used to sleep with her dog, I dont mean at the foot of her bed either. It would snuggle up next to her under the sheets. I explained to her that I felt it was unnatural. She said that she had always slept with her dog ever since it was a puppy and that she really didnt mind all the shedding. I knew there wasnt anything sexual about it, but it was still just too creepy for me to handle. We remained friends over the years and I was not at all surprised to learn that when the animal died, she burried it in a cemetary.
_________________
ALT+F4=Life |
|
| Back to top |
|
Hector
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 11, 2008
Age: 22
Posts: 1029
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| iamnotaparakeet wrote: | | Hector wrote: | | Actually, I voted "maybe so" because there evidently seem to be people who define marriage as a union (with the required properties) specifically between a man and a woman. And possibly in the law as well. Yes, that definition would have to change. But language and the law have both shown themselves to be malleable enough to accommodate such changes, as they have for example with the concept of universal suffrage. |
So, is Susan being denied her right to vote the same situation as Joe and Curly wanting to have "sex" with each other claiming they have a right to do so? |
It's another example of the institutions being changed for the sake of granting a benefit to people who were unfairly denied it before. If anything gay marriage is a far more innocuous benefit to give, and even now you don't see animals and children being given the right to vote. Even the economic consequences would be quite small. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Apple_in_my_Eye
Snowy Owl
Joined: May 08, 2008
Age: 40
Posts: 158
Location: planet of improbable realities
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 6:57 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.
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. |
And for thousands of years marriage was about family wealth, power, and status -- historically, haven't arranged marriages the norm? Personal choice at all is a relatively recent development.
Since marriage is a social-personal construct that can't be clearly "defined" (and I don't think it's supposed to be). Gay people IMO ought to have a say in the construction, as other groups who had been historically excluded have (interracial couples) over time.
I think the argument about marrying animals is silly, though. Since the construct is social (IOW, has other people involved in what is means) there will be adequate resistance to change which will keep things from flopping over into people marrying animals or somesuch. But, I don't find absolute social rigidity to be desirable either.
Slavery used to be the norm, and our views now would probably seem like "marrying dogs" to them. So throwing things out that "work" is sometimes not a bad thing (despite what your sig says  ). I.e. like that slavery didn't inherently lead to problems that caused it to end "naturally," so societally speaking, it "worked" fine. But a new attitude tword it arose and it was socially decided not to be ok.
To beat a head horse some more: with interracial marriage it was socially decided to be wrong, then not wrong. What marriage means is is made-up; it was just decided.
Count me on the side that thinks gay people ought to be able to get married.
Without getting into a whole other topic, I actually wonder if gay marriage could help straight marriage . Seems like gay people get to work out and create their relationship roles with more freedom than straight people (who have centuries of socially laid out patterns to conform to). Roles in the USA have always seemed cartoonish to me, but maybe that's the autism talking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 2066
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Apple_in_my_Eye wrote: | | 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.
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. |
And for thousands of years marriage was about family wealth, power, and status -- historically, haven't arranged marriages the norm? Personal choice at all is a relatively recent development.
Since marriage is a social-personal construct that can't be clearly "defined" (and I don't think it's supposed to be). Gay people IMO ought to have a say in the construction, as other groups who had been historically excluded have (interracial couples) over time.
I think the argument about marrying animals is silly, though. Since the construct is social (IOW, has other people involved in what is means) there will be adequate resistance to change which will keep things from flopping over into people marrying animals or somesuch. But, I don't find absolute social rigidity to be desirable either.
Slavery used to be the norm, and our views now would probably seem like "marrying dogs" to them. So throwing things out that "work" is sometimes not a bad thing (despite what your sig says ). I.e. like that slavery didn't inherently lead to problems that caused it to end "naturally," so societally speaking, it "worked" fine. But a new attitude tword it arose and it was socially decided not to be ok.
To beat a head horse some more: with interracial marriage it was socially decided to be wrong, then not wrong. What marriage means is is made-up; it was just decided.
Count me on the side that thinks gay people ought to be able to get married.
Without getting into a whole other topic, I actually wonder if gay marriage could help straight marriage . Seems like gay people get to work out and create their relationship roles with more freedom than straight people (who have centuries of socially laid out patterns to conform to). Roles in the USA have always seemed cartoonish to me, but maybe that's the autism talking. |
I am assuming you have Western, and primarily American culture in mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 7895
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| iamnotaparakeet wrote: | Yes,
| Noah Webster in 1828 Anno Domini wrote: | Marriage
MAR'RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.
Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Heb 13
1. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.
The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage for his son. Mat 22.
2. In a scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace. Rev 19. |
Allowing homosexuality to have "marriages" will redefine the term "marriage" to mean whatever the heck they want it to, as evidenced by the above posts.
BTW, I'm not a homophobe, I'm a hetrophile... |
So, the definition of marriage is being changed by the advent of gay marriage. That referrence confirms it without a doubt!
Therefore, the statement repeated several times earlier arguing that, no, marriage has not changed, it's always been a relationship between consenting adults is proved patently false! (Did I just call someone a liar? )
Ah, historical documents... What would we do without 'em? (Answer: We'd listen to liberals!)
(And I'm a rabid heterophile myself.  ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
Apple_in_my_Eye
Snowy Owl
Joined: May 08, 2008
Age: 40
Posts: 158
Location: planet of improbable realities
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fred2670 wrote: | | greenblue wrote: |
What about lesbians? |
Lesbos are coo |
LOL. I always wonder why this reaction itself doesn't cause gay marriage to be legalized immediately. 
Unbeatable slogan: "let gays marry, it might up how often you get to see chicks making out!" |
|
| 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
|
|
|
