 
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 |
slowmutant
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 8976
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
 Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 3:37 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 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ascan
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 23, 2005
Posts: 1723
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| peebo wrote: | | ... so, why then should gay people not be entitled to the same rights as straight people? |
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:
| Hector wrote: | | ... I'm willing to admit that it may at least change the legal definition... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
peebo
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
Posts: 718
Location: aberdeen
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yes, but if you included the rest of Hector's sentence the context would surely be in favour of the point i'm making.
| Hector wrote: |
...but I still don't see how that is relevant |
_________________
"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 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| peebo wrote: | yes, but if you included the rest of Hector's sentence the context would surely be in favour of the point i'm making.
| Hector wrote: |
...but I still don't see how that is relevant |
|
No it wouldn't. Hector's statement acknowledges definition is being discussed. Indeed, definition and marriage are in the thread title and we're only a few pages into it. Your statement regarding things moving on was just an attempt to get away from facts you feel uncomfortable with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
peebo
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
Posts: 718
Location: aberdeen
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
what facts do you think i feel uncomfortable with, ascan?
_________________
"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 |
|
srriv345
Velociraptor
Joined: Jul 19, 2006
Age: 21
Posts: 447
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Marriage is the "backbone of human civilization"? Nonsense! Humanity would continue to exist even if marriage suddenly disappeared, which it's not going to. There have been many societies which don't practice "marriage" in the sense that people here are insisting is the only true way.
If you are traumatized by the definition of marriage "changing" to include gay couples, that's your problem--not theirs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 6142
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| To some extent yes, and to another extent no. The fact that the law is being considered reflects that our views of marriage have changed enough where gay marriage is not a change but already included in our understanding of the fundamental nature of marriage. The laws will still have to change though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
slowmutant
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 8976
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| srriv345 wrote: | Marriage is the "backbone of human civilization"? Nonsense! Humanity would continue to exist even if marriage suddenly disappeared, which it's not going to. There have been many societies which don't practice "marriage" in the sense that people here are insisting is the only true way.
If you are traumatized by the definition of marriage "changing" to include gay couples, that's your problem--not theirs. |
Name a society or a culture with no concept of marriage. Find me an ethnic group or nationality somewhere on this planet to whom marriage is a foreign concept.
Traumatized? That's a bit much. But I'm defenitely an advocate of the traditional definition of marriage. No hesitation there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Thomas1138
Velociraptor
Joined: Apr 06, 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 478
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Does gay marriage change the definition of marriage? |
Yes it does. Anyone who says otherwise is factually wrong.
Which is why we should change the definition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
peebo
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
Posts: 718
Location: aberdeen
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
i disagree. there are myriad definitions of marriage, not all of which specifically refer to gender. if we are discussing legal definitions then perhaps.
_________________
"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 |
|
monty
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 05, 2007
Posts: 2518
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ascan wrote: | | 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. |
It's not a question of changing dictionary definitions - it is a question of changing culture. Culture can be a good thing; it can also suck. Consider the dictionary definition of miscegenation and the long conservative tradition of laws that were defined to prevent it:
| Quote: | Miscegenation is the intermarriage of people of different races. In the United States the term is primarily used to describe the marriage between a black person and a white person....
The enactment of antimiscegenation laws can be attributed to a variety of factors, including economic considerations and a desire on the part of some for the maintenance of so-called "racial purity." The first antimiscegenation statute appears to have been enacted in Maryland in 1661, in part for economic reasons. The statute forbidding interracial marriage in effect gave slave owners the ability to increase their number of slaves through birth. The statute deemed any child born of a free mother and slave father to be a slave of the father's master. The statute was designed to deter free white women from marrying black men. Before the statute, the freedom of a child was determined by her or his mother's free or enslaved status. If the mother was a free woman, the children would also be free. The 1661 statute changed this and increased the number of children born into slavery. The effect of the statute, however, was to increase forced interracial marriages because of the economic incentive for slave owners to force indentured white female servants to marry black male slaves to produce more slaves by birth from a slave father. Many other states in both the south and the north followed suit. America's first federal naturalization act, passed in 1790, limited the right to become citizens to "free white persons."
http://www.answers.com/topic/miscegenation
|
So marriage at one time was defined to promote the enslavement of people and to prevent mixing of the races. No surprise there - social institutions typically reflect the prevailing attitudes of society - historically, these attitudes have been racist and homophobic. Changing the legal definition of marriage doesn't magically eliminate racism or homophobia, but it will extend legal rights to groups that should have those rights, which makes it the right thing to do.
The nice thing about freedom is that giving freedom to people who are gay doesn't limit the freedom of people who are straight in any way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
slowmutant
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 8976
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 7:36 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.
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. |
That's because you are not religious. And what the hell do you know about marriage?!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
Bobby1933
Snowy Owl
![]()
Joined: Feb 25, 2008
Age: 75
Posts: 136
Location: Idaho, USA
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 11:45 am Post subject: Does "Gay marriage" redefine marriage? |
|
|
I answered maybe, but I should have said no!
A good anthropological definition of marriage is that it is a relationship between a woman and at least one other person in which children born within the rules of that relationship are considered "legitimate" in the culture and society where that relationship occurs.
Accepting that definition I would have to consider a "marriage" between two {or more} lesbians to be as real marriage while a "marriage" between two gay men would require a redefinition of marriage.
On second thought, I believe there are certain native American cultures (Lacota, I think is one) where certain males (without being labeled "women" or "homosexuals" were permitted (and even encouraged) to live a more "feminine" lifestyle (they take up traditionally "women's work" , dress, and mannerisms). These Wintkes ( I probably spelled that wrong) sometimes take husbands and thus would be "married" within the definition of Lakota society.
_________________
Nun: I believe I am God.
Meister Eckhart: Praise be to God! |
|
| Back to top |
|
peebo
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
Posts: 718
Location: aberdeen
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| slowmutant wrote: | | 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.
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. |
That's because you are not religious. And what the hell do you know about marriage?! |
as much as you do, i would suggest. or are you some sort of expert? and marriage is not only a religious thing, the majority of people getting married these days are not religious, or at least do not practice religion. so i don't see what that has to do with it anyway.
_________________
"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 |
|
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 2066
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| peebo wrote: |
as much as you do, i would suggest. or are you some sort of expert? and marriage is not only a religious thing, the majority of people getting married these days are not religious, or at least do not practice religion. so i don't see what that has to do with it anyway. |
I really wouldn't consider the majority of people in America religious. They only identify by name. |
|
| 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
|
|
|
