 
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 |
Apple_in_my_Eye
Snowy Owl
Joined: May 08, 2008
Age: 40
Posts: 158
Location: planet of improbable realities
|
 Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 7:15 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| oscuria wrote: |
I am assuming you have Western, and primarily American culture in mind. |
Yes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Averick
Calculateurre of Chaos
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Age: 29
Posts: 2170
Location: in the trenches..
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| No. Statistics speak for themselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ascan
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 23, 2005
Posts: 1723
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
peebo
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
Posts: 718
Location: aberdeen
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
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.
_________________
"Those who long ago began the critique of political economy by defining it as "the final denial of humanity" were not deceived. One still recognizes this trait in it."
Guy Debord |
|
| Back to top |
|
ouinon
chemical reaction
Joined: Jul 11, 2007
Posts: 3548
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| iamnotaparakeet wrote: | | 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. |
|
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.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
ascan
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 23, 2005
Posts: 1723
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
peebo
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
Posts: 718
Location: aberdeen
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
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.
_________________
"Those who long ago began the critique of political economy by defining it as "the final denial of humanity" were not deceived. One still recognizes this trait in it."
Guy Debord |
|
| Back to top |
|
ascan
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 23, 2005
Posts: 1723
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| peebo wrote: | | 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.. |
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
iamnotaparakeet
Alpha Parrot
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 23
Posts: 11784
Location: Domus Psittacorum
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ouinon wrote: | | iamnotaparakeet wrote: | | 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. |
|
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.
|
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.
_________________
Don't look back, because infinity is waiting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Hector
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 11, 2008
Age: 22
Posts: 1030
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
PunkyKat
Phoenix
Joined: May 15, 2008
Posts: 727
Location: Twlight Zone
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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? |
|
| Back to top |
|
peebo
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
Posts: 718
Location: aberdeen
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ascan wrote: | | peebo wrote: | | 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.. |
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. |
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=safari&rls=en-gb&q=define:marriage&ie=UTF-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! 
_________________
"Those who long ago began the critique of political economy by defining it as "the final denial of humanity" were not deceived. One still recognizes this trait in it."
Guy Debord |
|
| Back to top |
|
Gromit
Phoenix
![]()
Joined: May 20, 2006
Posts: 519
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: | 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"? |
You tried that slippery slope argument only a few weeks ago:
| Ragtime wrote: | | Delirium wrote: | | ANIMALS CANNOT CONSENT TO A MARRIAGE. TWO FULLY GROWN ADULT HUMANS CAN. Marriage should be between two consenting adults, regardless of gender. |
Okay, so that's one major change in the historic definition of marriage. Why, then, wouldn't another major change to the definition of marriage come along? My point is so simple, I'm tired of repeating it to people who keep pretending not to understand it.  |
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:
| Ragtime's spiritual grandfather wrote: | | If women get the vote, what's next? Dogs? Women getting the vote would be one major change in the historic definition of suffrage. Why, then, wouldn't another major change to the definition of suffrage come along? My point is so simple, I'm tired of repeating it to people who keep pretending not to understand it. |
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:
| Ragtime wrote: | | (Any future legalization of animal-human marriages implies that consent has been redefined.) |
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ascan
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 23, 2005
Posts: 1723
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| peebo wrote: | ...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... |
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
peebo
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
Posts: 718
Location: aberdeen
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ascan wrote: |
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?
_________________
"Those who long ago began the critique of political economy by defining it as "the final denial of humanity" were not deceived. One still recognizes this trait in it."
Guy Debord |
|
| 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
|
|
|
