This has nothing to do with who uses a word. It has everything to do with what that word means when anyone uses it.
I should have said “the majority (period)”
Whichever side wins this debate, that side will be imposing their beliefs on the others, so don’t try to characterize this as such an asymmetrical debate in the sense that one side wants to impose beliefs on the other side and not vice versa.
Indeed. One step at a time.
Your first step is a misstep I’m afraid. A homosexual relationship may be either two men or two women. Making an elementary error like that loses you credibility. Strike one.
Your second step is a misstep as well. Read Deuteronomy Deuteronomy 21:15. How many wives did Solomon or David have? What are the laws in Saudi Arabia? What do Fundamentalist Mormons do in the US? Strike two.
You are obviously confused about some things, but there is a difference. The question is whether or not the difference is legally important.
There are many different things that are “heterosexual marriage”:
Fair enough DrTaffy, however, I believe it’s only fair to now take what you have said here and apply it to your definition of marriage being between two people, if the definition of marriage is arbitrary, than really, unless you legalise every union someone at any whim or fancy wishes to call a marriage, than I believe you yourself are also subject to what you have said here.Why shouldn’t they call it marriage?
It looks like marriage to me, and has been called that in the past, so what right do you have to forbid us from calling it that?
Do you claim to own the word ‘marriage’?
ThinkingSapien offers a list of what societies have recognised as ‘marriage’ before, so I would like to ask you DrTaffy the same question I asked him, is there a definition of marriage? or were all those definitions just as valid as the other?
Thank you for reading
NO! rainbow union or any other name is not equal to the word marriage.
Just repeating the assertion does not make it true. Cherry picking one quote of Plato does not prove anything about marriage customs throughout the very diverse city states of Greece. Indeed other quotes of Plato’s could be chosen to give the opposite impression.
But in Rome it is worse - we have numerous explicit reports of same sex marriages, and no reference to them being not legally recognised. Indeed Cicero argues that one ‘Curio the Elder’ is legally liable for the debts of his son’s husband - how is that possible if such marriages have no legal standing?
For that matter, on three reported occasions one of the same sex couple was the Emperor, a man who’s word was law. How could that relationship not be legally recognised?
Again, just repeating the assertion does not make it true. Marriage has historically included same sex couples in many cultures.
Since we know exactly what is meant by two men or two women marrying, there is no problem with the meaning of same sex marriage. Rather you seem to be trying to force everyone else to use only your restrictive definition of ‘marriage’.
It is asymmetrical.
Where do I violate what I claim here? Do I, for example, try to prevent anyone else from using the word ‘marriage’?
Those were examples of marriage. If you want to define marriage, then given that the word ‘marriage’ must include all those things, so must the definition.
Noone is suggesting that heterosexual sex be banned, so of course you can use your genitalia that way. But is that therefore the only you can use them? Are you not, for example, allowed to use them to urinate? Or must each and every use of the genitalia involve both functions?
Well said Dr. Taffy!Since we know exactly what is meant by two men or two women marrying, there is no problem with the meaning of same sex marriage. Rather you seem to be trying to force everyone else to use only your restrictive definition of ‘marriage’.
It is asymmetrical.
You are not being forced to enter into a same sex marriage. You won’t have to attend one. You can even insist on using scare quotes when referring to same sex couples as ‘married’ if you don’t mind being considered rude.
In contrast you are trying to prevent same sex couples from getting married, and are trying to force everyone to use your definition of ‘marriage’.
amen & amen!
It is not about whether we can understand each other’s misuse of a word. It is about what that word will mean in law when applied to society as a whole. And words must be restrictive in meaning if they are to have any meaning at all. We might as well do away with the restrictive definition of apples, oranges, and tomatoes, and call them all kumquats. All definitions are restrictive to some extent, which is as it should be.
Citing what I am not being forced to do only distracts from what I am being forced to do under same-sex marriage laws. The most offensive of them being that we are forced to have our children be taught in public school that sex between people of the same sex is socially acceptable. When weighed against the inconveniences of gays having to live their sinful lives without the benefit of social approval, I think the greater damage is done by granting same sex marriage.
You are playing the language to great advantage, which is a credit to your academic background. “Getting married” sounds like something two people do, and therefore why can’t they just be left alone so they can do it? But in fact the term has two aspects. There is the aspect that the two people do. This could properly be described as “getting married”. Then there is the aspect that involves the society’s response to their action, which you would like to downplay. That would more properly be described as “having your marriage legally recognized”. This second aspect is not an action on the part of the couple. It is an action and a responsibility on the part of the rest of society. And that is the aspect that is the source of all the debate. So please be honest and stop pretending that same sex marriage is all about letting people do their thing without interference. It is just as much interference in the lives of those who object to same sex marriage as the prohibition against it would be for those who want that recognition. If you would just use the word recognition more often in talking about same sex marriage you would realize that you are asking something of society - something more than just to be left alone.
When Christians (or others) try to close the debate by insisting that marriage is defined as one man and one woman, so ‘same sex marriage’ is intriniscally nonsense, then yes it is indeed about what the words mean, and have meant historically.
Now that is an absurd strawman, and I am convinced that you know it. Your lot are trying to restrict the existing word to something far more limited that what it has meant in the past, apparently purely to avoid having to justify their arguments against same sex marriage.
You are not actually being forced to do anything, with a few exceptions such as those employed by the state to register marriages.
That is not something you do, nor are you forced to accept it. You can home school your kids, or send them to private schools that teach whatever falsehoods you wish. Or just teach those falsehoods yourself after school hours.
If you can show damage done by same sex marriage, you might have an argument. Until then you are just demanding that the State actively discriminate against a whole section of society based on your prejudices.
Rubbish.
Where Biblically or Traditionally are monogamous, consenting same sex relationships of a sexual nature considered a blessing, please source and cite
Look at the etymology of “apple”. It was a term that was used to refer to any fruit generically. We don’t use it that way any more. The meaning of words changes over time based on how people use them. While we often turn to a dictionary to find the definition of our word, our word usage (As a group) also impacts the definitions in the dictionary. I mentioned this in another thread, but because of how it has been frequently used (or misused) the word “literally” also has a definition that is synonymous with “virtually” (similar to figuratively) in Merriam Webster’s 2013 edition.
Oooops! Excuse me! I thought the term for a gay relationship between two women was a LESBIAN relationship.
I don’t care how many wives a man has or how many husbands a woman has.
I am pleased that you agree that there is a difference. And Yes, that difference is legally important. A re-definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage is beyond the competence of the state, because marriage both precedes the state and is a necessary condition for the continuation of the state.
Actually all the above are similar in that they include both sexes. That is THE BIG difference from a same sex union.
“Has been in the past”? The few instances that you have cited in the ancient world and in native American tribes and elsewhere do not constitute a significant historical tradition world-wide that would be deserving of adoption by every culture. If you are arguing from the point of view of “let’s keep what we have” vs. “let’s try something different”, the same-sex marriage advocates are clearly more on the side of “let’s try something different” than those that are opposed to same-sex marriage. Therefore one would think they have the greater burden of proof that their proposal is proper.
As I have just showed, it is not so much a continuation as an initiation.
Arguments to this end have been put forth many times in this forum, including the one that I mentioned which you casually dismissed, regarding the teaching of children.
It is incorrect to assume that I would only be concerned about my own children. I can be concerned about all children, whether I have children or not. You seem to be concerned about the welfare of every Andy and Bob, even if you have never met them. So you must allow that people can be concerned about their posterity in general, not only their strict descendents.
And that is exactly the “truth” that is being questioned in this debate.
Your propaganda - my propaganda - let’s not use loaded words unless the load has been established. But let’s consider an analogy (not a strawman, but an analogy, meant to enlighten more than to prove anything). Is it proper for the public schools to teach that murder is socially unacceptable? It is propaganda aimed at promoting discrimination of the group of murders. But the majority of the society is in agreement that murder is not acceptable. However this agreement is not unanimous. For example, there are subcultures where murder in the form of honor killings (among some Muslims) is considered acceptable. But if the majority of people agree that this is not acceptable, it is entirely within their rights to oppose it by force of law.
Unless we agree what constitutes “damage”, there is no hope of proving that point or its opposite.
The discrimination is not against any section of society. It is only against certain behaviors.
How do you know how much I contribute to society? Maybe I am a lazy sluggard who just spends all day typing drivel in forums? Should I be denied a marriage license because I do not contribute to society? If that is the standard, there are a lot of people whose marriages should cease being legally recognized.
Well, at the risk of being labelled appallingly arrogant and self centered, I do claim that the legal recognition of same-sex marriage is going to place obligations of all sorts on the rest of society, especially the obligation accept same sex sex as good and proper.
Well, if you want to look at it that way, then all women (= female humans) are also men (= humans). The English language is sometimes ambiguous with respect to sex. Latin was clearer, using homo (=human) and vir (=male human) for the two categories.
Yes. The “homo” element is from the Greek, not the Latin. You can find it in “homogeneous”, “homonym” and “homo(i)ousion”. It means “same”, not “human”.
False. Infertile men and women can marry. Women past the menopause can marry. There is no fertility bar to marriage.
So, all older couples, where the woman can no longer conceive, are automatically divorced. Better let the Pope know.
Marriage in general is not being redefined. Civil marriage is being redefined. Civil marriage did not exist before the state, obviously, and is defined by the laws of the state. The state has the competence to redefine civil marriage. Different states already define civil marriage differently: age limits, first cousin marriage etc. can differ.
Look again at your post I was responding to:
You were incorrect. Historically marriage has often not been “a man and a woman”. The definition of marriage is not fixed. It has changed in the past. It is changing now. It will change in the future. A lot of things change; civil marriage is one of them.
Because I cannot find any…unions and relationships…YES…but nothing defining a same sex relationship as a marriage.
Perhaps this analogy will help. Consider smoking. As an activity it is generally recognized to be harmful to those who do it and to those around them. But most societies tolerate smoking, with certain restrictions. Now suppose all those smokers got it into their heads that they were going to take a page from the gay playbook and form a “Smokers Rights” campaign. Suppose they began to lobby for “full equality” with non-smokers. Suppose they held “Smoker Pride” marches, and insisted that smoking stop being looked down upon. Most people would think they were way out of line. Yet isn’t that just what the gay pride movement is all about? If Bob and Andy can put up with having to go outside their workplace to smoke in the winter, like second class citizens, why can’t they put up with accepting that society does not want to condone their gay sex behavior either? Why are smokers able to put up with the enormous imposition that society places on their activities, as you claim that denying marriage rights to same sex couples would do? It seems that smokers are able to put up with a lot more inconvenience than gay people. Why is that?
