Gay marriage is adult's pretending

Discussion in 'Gay & Lesbian Rights' started by jrr777, Aug 20, 2015.

  1. jrr777

    jrr777 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2015
    Messages:
    6,983
    Likes Received:
    279
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Marriage is defined between a man and a woman. Anything else is false, fake, a lie. You can't change the definition of a word that has already been taught. If you want the same rights as a married couple (man and a woman) that's one thing, but to start redefining words to fit your needs is utterly ridiculous.
     
  2. Junkieturtle

    Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,838
    Likes Received:
    7,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, that's Holy Matrimony that you speak of. Marriage is a generic term, and the whole man/woman thing was purely religious to begin with. That's why religious folks can still have their Holy Matrimony untouched while the rest of us don't have to pretend we're upset over a word.
     
  3. jrr777

    jrr777 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2015
    Messages:
    6,983
    Likes Received:
    279
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No, marriage before the law was passed was defined as between a man and woman. They have already changed the definition in Webster's dictionary, which is why I said the previous. I am not upset over a word I am upset for changing the definition of a word just to benefit someone's need, could you imagine if we all started changing word's for our needs or in this matter sin.
     
  4. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,151
    Likes Received:
    30,617
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's a reason why the "Argument from Tradition" is a textbook logical fallacy.

    Besides, dictionary definitions are nothing more than account of popular and recent historical usage. That's all. "Punk" used to mean prostitute. Now it doesn't. Words change meaning all of the time. Languages existed before dictionaries ever came into being, and they can do very well without them.
     
  5. Perriquine

    Perriquine On hiatus Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,587
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Here's the thing about the definition of words - they derive that meaning from popular usage, not from someone trying to pretend that they (or their religious beliefs) are the arbiter of such. Dictionaries are not rulebooks, either. They merely report on popular usage, and because the usage of words is constantly evolving as society changes and people find new uses for existing words or invent new words, dictionaries are always behind and require regular updates.

    The definition of the word marriage, like that of any word, is also informed by context. For example, as a legal matter in the USA, marriage is no longer a union that requires spouses to be of opposite sexes.

    As the saying goes, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. So you are free to regard "anything else" as "false, fake, a lie". But no one else has to share that opinion, just because you say so.

    This is a false statement. As noted before, the meanings of words are constantly evolving. Well-accepted meanings tend to have a long life. Those that don't may come and go, or be limited in use to a small group of people. With regard to the word marriage, the plain fact is that the application of the word to spouses of the same-sex has reached a level of acceptance where their unions now qualify for legal status, your personal rejection of that usage notwithstanding.

    This statement paints a false picture of how those legal rights have come to be. No single person has the power to redefine a word. For example, if I make up a new word for chair, such as "mudgeflump", does that mean other people will be able to understand what I mean when I use that new word? Probably not; whether or not they can figure it out depends on the context in which I use it. If I point at the object and associate the word with it, they're even more likely to understand.

    However, consider this further example: If I use the new word "sitplace" to mean ‘chair’, people may figure out that I'm talking about a chair much faster, because they already have the concept of the verb "to sit", and the noun "place" in their vocabulary, as well as the common conversion of verbs to nouns and vice versa, along with the combining of two familiar words to form a new one. They already know that a chair is a place to sit, so “sitplace” isn’t as hard to understand as “mudgeflump”.

    The word marriage conveys something more than "a man and a woman"; it stands for the concept of a union. Thus we have an already accepted, secondary meaning for the word marriage - that of two things being joined or mixed together - as in the pleasant taste sensation created by the marriage of sweet and salty snacks. In other words, if I say that my hypothetical son just married his boyfriend last week, chances are you're going to know what I'm talking about, whether or not you approve of the idea. Thus the application of the word marriage to a same-sex union isn't a redefinition, the concept of a union already is part of our understanding of that word, and so a marriage between two people of the same sex merely expands that meaning. It’s not at all like saying a ‘dog’ is a ‘table’, for example.
     
  6. Channe

    Channe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Messages:
    14,961
    Likes Received:
    4,064
    Trophy Points:
    113
    lol the Bible says God was ok with Moses and his army murdering non virgin women of opposing tribes and raping the virgin girls as sex slaves. The Bible's opinion on marriage is meaningless.
     
  7. Perriquine

    Perriquine On hiatus Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,587
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    And now it's not. Complaining about that change after the fact isn't likely to accomplish much.

    Yes, I can. In fact, I don't have to imagine it at all. Words serve the need of people to communicate with each other. In this case, the meaning of the word marriage has expanded to communicate the legal union of two persons, regardless of the sex of either spouse.

    Your religious beliefs are your burden, not mine. I'm not obligated to limit my use of any word to comply with anyone's religious beliefs.
     
    robini123 and (deleted member) like this.
  8. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Worldwide history of polygamy makes your message "utterly ridiculous."

    Legally recognized by government "marriage" is whatever the government says it the word means.

    A person's own belief to him/herself or what "marriage" means is whatever he/she believes it means.

    Both are blatantly obvious truisms.
     
  9. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63



    Marriage is defined as two people choosing to live one life. That's how the priest defined it at the last eight weddings I went to.





     
  10. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sin? Polygamy is authorized in the Bible. You've never read the word "wives" in the Bible? Government marriage doesn't even exist in the Bible.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Between people marriage is whatever they say it is. That is why so many wedding officiants and ministers allow couples to write their own marriage vows - nor does government have any requirements as to what is in those vows, does it?
     
  11. Junkieturtle

    Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,838
    Likes Received:
    7,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's what legal marriage was and the dictionary definition reflected it's common usage in our society. However, that was not the only definition of the word and I don't see why we now need a new word to describe the exact same thing. Last I checked, nobody owns the rights to the word "marriage". Words are just sounds and combinations of letters that we write to describe ideas. The idea behind marriage, the legal joining of two people, hasn't changed even if the restrictions as to who gets to have one have been lifted for gender. I mean, if we were to get rid of the drinking age, would we have to come up with a new word for alcohol that people under 21 would have to use when they talked about drinking? Or, since people under 21 can't buy guns, but can still use them for hunting and shooting sports, should we come up with a separate term for "gun" that those people must use, just so that the people over 21 don't get their feelings hurt?

    It just doesn't make any sense. Make up your own word if you want and that can be your word. But you don't own language.
     
  12. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63


    The legal status 'married' is just the way the law accommodates two people living one life, in a society where the law is mostly structured to treat people as individuals. The choice to marry and significance of that merger is entirely up to the couple.




     
  13. jrr777

    jrr777 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2015
    Messages:
    6,983
    Likes Received:
    279
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You actually made my argument for me thank you. The legal joining of two people huh. It has never been said "I now pronounce you man and man" until modern times, don't act like it has. The fact that the law had to be changed is my point exactly. The definition of alcohol has nothing to do with the laws attached. I'm talking about the actual definition of a word.

    The legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which one man and one woman, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of Husband and Wife in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship.

    Marriage is a legally sanctioned contract between a man and a woman. Entering into a marriage contract changes the legal status of both parties, giving husband and wife new rights and obligations. Public policy is strongly in favor of marriage based on the belief that it preserves the family unit. Traditionally, marriage has been viewed as vital to the preservation of morals and civilization.
     
  14. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,531
    Likes Received:
    1,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why are you bringing this up again? The fight is over, your side lost, get over it. Definitions of words always have and always will change. Marriage in the U.S. and many places in Europe is now between any two, consenting, adults. In the future that may change, but for now, that is what it is.
     
  15. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63



    Maybe because before modern times it had to be made clear about which party was legally obliged to "love, honor, and obey."




     
  16. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's just drivel.

    They didn't say "I now pronounce you man and woman," did they? Nor did they say "husband and wife." They said "man and wife."

    "Legally" marriage is whatever government says it is.

    Traditionally, people of other races, clans and ethnicities were killed or enslaved, generally taking the women as sex slaves. You certainly support that for the tradition of it, correct?

    Of itself, "tradition" has no value whatsoever and certainly isn't a moral code.

    Nor is your message even rational or accurate. The "traditional" definition of marriage is the rejection of promiscuity. It can be monogamous or polygamous, but sex restricted to the "marriage" either way.

    I gather you are urging sexual promiscuity rather than monogamy among homosexuals. Explain why you favor promiscuity for homosexuals, but monogamy for heterosexuals as your "morality" and way to protect civilization? You can't claim preservation of the species. Promiscuity produces more children than monogamy and gays are not sterile.

    That is the bottomline question you have to answer. Why do you advocate homosexual promiscuity?
     
  17. jrr777

    jrr777 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2015
    Messages:
    6,983
    Likes Received:
    279
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Do you not care what the city of Jabesh Gilead did. You only read the part of Moses' army and what they did, like they did it for no reason. Well if you ever read that part sounds to me like God judged them accordingly.
     
  18. robini123

    robini123 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    13,614
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Says who and by what authority?

    Apparently you can as it has been done. Marriage is a legal concept and laws change all the time.

    And it happens all the time. Take for example the word gay. When I was a kid to be gay was to be happy, but today the word has a very different meaning. Words are not universally static and often can and do change over time. It has been this way since the dawn of humanity.
     
  19. robini123

    robini123 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    13,614
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As luck would have it America is not a straight up democracy where the majority are free to subjugate the minority. In America the minority is protected from the majority. We as a Nation have not always lived up to this ideal but over time we have finally started to get it right by ending slavery, allowing women to vote, ending segregation, and now by allowing same sex marriage.

    And how well has that worked out in a country with a 50% divorce rate populated by a Christian majority? I come from a large Christian conservative family where I know of only one couple in the family who married and never divorced. Also as a person who is tech support for my Christian friends and family, you may be shocked by what can be found on the hardrive of a good God fearing Christian. So much for marriage preserving Morality.
     
  20. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, it's tolerated in the Bible, just like every other sin has been tolerated - at least for a time - from the beginning.

    Everyone with a lick of sense.

    What authority do you figure I need to call a spade a spade?

    That is secondary to its true essence, just as the conceptualization of gravity by scientists is secondary to the reality of gravity.
     
  21. Perriquine

    Perriquine On hiatus Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,587
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    That's a strange reading of the responses here, as they seem to have pretty much contradicted your assumptions with facts.

    Irrelevant. None of this controls the definition of the word 'marriage'.

    If that was your point, then I have to ask why you think it's necessary to state the obvious, which isn't in dispute.

    I disagree. You seem to be talking about the way you wish the definition of 'marriage' had stayed the way that you want it to be. But why should we care? You don't own the word, so why should we give your opinion any weight, or abandon our own opinions to adopt yours? Spouting that you think the definition of marriage should only be "one man/one woman" isn't by itself very persuasive. Neither are the appeals to history and tradition.

    As for the "actual definition of a word", this has already been sufficiently explored, but apparently requires repetition. A definition doesn't dictate the meaning of the word. The definition is a result of people being able to successfully use a word to communicate with each other concerning some concept. Agreement as to the meaning of a word doesn't require unanimous approval by every speaker of a given language. It only requires popular usage. As previously stated, popular usage as brought us to a situation where the word 'marriage' no longer has the restrictive definition you seemingly wish to enforce. Your wishes in the matter are irrelevant, as no one has any obligation to indulge your desire to restrict usage to a prior definition that you prefer.

    The letters c-h-a-i-r are not the object they represent. If we all agreed to start using "sitplace" instead of "chair", it would still be the same object; we wouldn't have altered its properties one bit by using a different word. Similarly, other languages have different words for the thing we designate as a 'chair' in English.

    The word marriage is something of a different case, as it doesn't represent a physical object, but a concept (union), and a legal status (something which is itself a human construct). Even so, the admission of same-sex couples into the institution of legal marriage doesn't change the core concept behind the word (union). It expands the legal definition of marriage.

    So talking about the "actual definition" of a word is pretty much meaningless, as it asks us to make the error of thinking that the definition of the word can't change (it can), and that the concept of a marital union can't be expanded (it has).

    You're essentially playing a losing word game.

    What do you intend the foregoing to prove? Observe:

    Marriage is now the legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract between two adults, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship as each other's spouse in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship.

    Marriage is a legally sanctioned contract between two adults. Entering into a marriage contract changes the legal status of both parties, giving each spouse new rights and obligations. Public policy is strongly in favor of marriage based on the belief that it preserves the family unit. Traditionally, marriage has been viewed as vital to the preservation of morals and civilization.

    I really don't see how posting that was particularly informative; as demonstrated above, it can easily be updated to reflect the new reality of same-sex couples having the legal ability to marry. That fact doesn't change the history of marriage, but that history doesn't control the present.
     
  22. robini123

    robini123 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    13,614
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What constitutes having "a lick of sense" to you?

    Your own authority. Calling a spade a spade is a judgment that says more about the judge than the judged.

    Gravity is a physical force while marriage is an ideological concept. In most of the observable universe gravity follows the laws of physics but as marriage is just an ideal it is relative to the society where it takes place.
     
  23. Perriquine

    Perriquine On hiatus Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,587
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I don't care, nor will I be reading about any of it, as I don't share your beliefs about this God or what it did. It doesn't interest me, and you haven't explained its relevance to the topic at hand, so you haven't given me a reason to care. Moreover, if it's about trying to use your God to scare me, I'm not frightened.

    Try something else.
     
  24. Junkieturtle

    Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,838
    Likes Received:
    7,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Marriage is a generic term in this usage as well. It's because when you use it to describe a legal marriage, you're actually describing the entire legal institution of marriage. The word marriage isn't frozen in time. In this country the institution of marriage no longer has a restriction on gender, so now that's what marriage is. It didn't change from marriage to notmarriage. It's still just marriage. The man/woman part doesn't even have to be removed. You can just add man/man and woman/woman to the description. That way, it remains a contract that specifically states it as a man and a woman which seems to meet your requirements, but also includes the other combinations as well.
     
  25. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's what people have before they buy into "social conscience".

    So what's the problem?

    Certainly when Jesus called the pharisees a bunch of snakes it said something about Him. Why it would say more about Him than about the pharisees, or what value there is in quantifying it, I have no idea.

    No more so than gravity.

    No, the God-given laws which govern marriage work the same everywhere, just like gravity.
     

Share This Page