Why do people who push so-called "same-sex marriage" define it as between two people?

  • Thread starter Thread starter livingwordunity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
EviPolevhia said:
I said that which is common is not right because it is common. Are you actually disagreeing with that?
Click to expand...
Yes. If we are talking about long known moral goods then yes that is great evidence things should stay as they are. It is commonly held murder is wrong. Ought that be questioned?
 
fix said:
Yes. If we are talking about long known moral goods then yes that is great evidence things should stay as they are. It is commonly held murder is wrong. Ought that be questioned?
Click to expand...
It used to be common to own slaves. Thievery used to commonly be punished by lopping off someone’s hand. Something being common is not right simply because it’s common, that is my point.
 
EviPolevhia said:
It used to be common to own slaves. Thievery used to commonly be punished by lopping off someone’s hand. Something being common is not right simply because it’s common, that is my point.
Click to expand...
I mentioned moral goods, not evils.

Being common is not the only criteria, but it is not to be dismissed as unimportant.
 
EviPolevhia said:
Two is less arbitrary then the word dog. What are you talking about? :confused:
Click to expand...
If the term marriage does not mean the union of one man and one woman then it has no real meaning at all and can mean whatever we want it to mean. In that case saying that marriage is a union of two people is an arbitrary limitation. Why should it be only two people, why not three or any number at all? Certainly “two” is not an arbitrary term but limiting marriage to two people would be an arbitrary limit - if it was declared that marriage is an arbitrary term without specific meaning.

Ender
 
Ender said:
If the term marriage does not mean the union of one man and one woman then it has no real meaning at all and can mean whatever we want it to mean. In that case saying that marriage is a union of two people is an arbitrary limitation. Why should it be only two people, why not three or any number at all? Certainly “two” is not an arbitrary term but limiting marriage to two people would be an arbitrary limit - if it was declared that marriage is an arbitrary term without specific meaning.

Ender
Click to expand...
Oh, ok, that I agree with. At first I thought you were saying the word two is an arbitrary word. Nevermind! 🙂
 
rossum said:
It is “normal” for Israelite kings and in Saudi Arabia.

rossum
Click to expand...
Hmmm… I believe we were discussing social norms. Are we now having a discussion on whose social norms we should adopt? I’m guessing you do not want us to adopt the social norms in Saudi Arabia…
 
rossum said:
It is “normal” for Israelite kings and in Saudi Arabia.

rossum
Click to expand...
Being normal in some places and times is not the same as being a universal norm as the marriage of one man and one woman has always been.
 
I don’t get what the big deal is with the definition of marriage. Definitions can change, yes? Once, voter would have once been defined as a white male, but it changed for the better. It’s also good to note that the definition of marriage would vary depending on what country you’re in.
 
livingwordunity said:
Being normal in some places and times is not the same as being a universal norm as the marriage of one man and one woman has always been.
Click to expand...
There is no “universal norm”. Seth married his sister, so the current definition of marriage did not apply then, and hence cannot be universal. David married eight wives, so the current definition of marriage did not apply then, and hence cannot be universal. Nehemiah 13:25 forbade inter-communal marriage, so the current definition of marriage did not apply then, and hence cannot be universal.

All we have now is the current set of definitions of marriage, which vary among themselves, for example in their treatment of divorce.

Your “universal” does not exist, and has never existed.

rossum
 
Regular_Atheist said:
I don’t get what the big deal is with the definition of marriage. Definitions can change, yes? Once, voter would have once been defined as a white male, but it changed for the better. It’s also good to note that the definition of marriage would vary depending on what country you’re in.
Click to expand...
how often throughout history has marriage been between two same sex persons?
 
fix said:
how often throughout history has marriage been between two same sex persons?
Click to expand...
Dunno. Does it matter? Really?

And how often has voting been for females? I think you’ll find that even ancient Athens kept it for men only. I don’t see why we should copy the past.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top