• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

definition of marriage

sawyerloggingon said:
Irrelevant to this subject.
Click to expand...

You certainly have no hesitation when it comes to completely changing the definition of the word "irrelevant", now, do you?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
"marriage" is a word that defines our very society and can't be compared to the word "gay".
Click to expand...

Right, society is built upon the family unit, and that family unit will still be there even if gays can get married. Gays make up around 3% of the population, that means 97% of the population will still be available to build your society on. Redefining marriage doesn't change heterosexual marriage.
 
spud_meister said:
See, I don't think word definitions are a big deal (I used to, but then I realised I'd never get "-phobia" to not mean hatred.:2mad:) It's the purpose of the institution of marriage that I believe is the important part, and marriage is for raising a family. Gays can raise a family, therefore they fulfill the purpose of marriage, rather than the dictionary definition.
Click to expand...

An incestuous brother and sister can raise a family, too. So can a soccer team. Hillary says that a village can raise a family. Marriage isn't for the purpose of legal custody. Legal custody is for the purpose of legal custody. The fact that someone can raise a child doesn't make their situation "marriage".
 
sawyerloggingon said:
This change could be, it chips away at the very foundation of our country.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with your approved, traditional definition. Your premise is failing, badly.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I am passing no judgment on a new definition being good or bad, just saying it is a huge deal not to be taken lightly.
Click to expand...
Is it a development to fear and discourage? Surely the totality of America can be encompassed by more than merely its conjugal format. If not, then that's a sad indictment.
 
spud_meister said:
Right, society is built upon the family unit, and that family unit will still be there even if gays can get married. Gays make up around 3% of the population, that means 97% of the population will still be available to build your society on. Redefining marriage doesn't change heterosexual marriage.
Click to expand...

Gays should get legal rights, partnership rights but being married has always been a union of a man and a woman and if that changes marriage changes for everybody.
 
NoC_T said:
Change is bad.
Click to expand...

Ave! :2wave:

I don't know that I would want to follow you on that. I prefer supermarkets to jungles for food.

But change the fundamentals of a complex model and very unexpected thing can happen. There have been a number of high cultures that found that out the hard way. I will have to look and see; do you know of any socioeconomic impact studies done on this?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Gays should get legal rights, partnership rights but being married has always been a union of a man and a woman and if that changes marriage changes for everybody.
Click to expand...

No it has not. Learn history.
 
NoC_T said:
Is it a development to fear and discourage? Surely the totality of America can be encompassed by more than merely its conjugal format. If not, then that's a sad indictment.
Click to expand...

Our American society is based on many constant values, a work ethic, home ownership and marriage being high on the list. Change any of these and you change America.
 
Papa bull said:
An incestuous brother and sister can raise a family, too. So can a soccer team. Hillary says that a village can raise a family. Marriage isn't for the purpose of legal custody. Legal custody is for the purpose of legal custody. The fact that someone can raise a child doesn't make their situation "marriage".
Click to expand...

Then what is the purpose of marriage that gays cannot fulfill? You cannot claim marriage must be a man and woman because marriage must be a man and woman, you must provide purpose for marriage to be so. Otherwise we're back at dictionary semantics, which isn't a particularly good argument.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Gays should get legal rights, partnership rights but being married has always been a union of a man and a woman and if that changes marriage changes for everybody.
Click to expand...

How? What changes in a heterosexual marriage because two gay guys on the other side of the country got married?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
If gays are allowed to get married they will change the very meaning of the word.

noun
noun: marriage; plural noun: marriages

  • 1.
    the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.

    Some people like to say that when blacks and women got the vote it didn't change the meaning of the word and allowing gays to marry won't change the meaning of that word either but I can't find any history of the word "vote" being linked to a sex or race in any dictionary so their argument falls flat. Allowing gays to marry redefines the institution of marriage, the word "marriage" and redefines our society. It is a huge step, look before you leap.

    vote


    /vōt/


    noun

    noun: vote; plural noun: votes



    1.



    a formal indication of a choice between two or more candidates or courses of action, expressed typically through a ballot or a show of hands or by voice.
Click to expand...



  • That's OUR definition, seeing as how the English dictionary was a European contrivance.

    Other countries define it differently.

    This is interesting - lots of resources to go to for info on how other countries view it. Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
joG said:
Ave! :2wave:

I don't know that I would want to follow you on that. I prefer supermarkets to jungles for food.

But change the fundamentals of a complex model and very unexpected thing can happen. There have been a number of high cultures that found that out the hard way. I will have to look and see; do you know of any socioeconomic impact studies done on this?
Click to expand...
YO! :2wave:

I don't. Luckily, I was being sarcastic. I can tell you that Elvis runs a barber shop in Wisconsin, however.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Our American society is based on many constant values, a work ethic, home ownership and marriage being high on the list. Change any of these and you change America.
Click to expand...
For the worse?
 
Aunt Spiker said:
That's OUR definition, seeing as how the English dictionary was a European contrivance.

Other countries define it differently.

This is interesting - lots of resources to go to for info on how other countries view it. Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

I don't care about other countries or other cultures, this issue is about America changing a law and thus a word that has defined the American culture since its inception.
 
spud_meister said:
Then what is the purpose of marriage that gays cannot fulfill? You cannot claim marriage must be a man and woman because marriage must be a man and woman, you must provide purpose for marriage to be so. Otherwise we're back at dictionary semantics, which isn't a particularly good argument.
Click to expand...

If the state feels that the purpose of marriage is to sanction the union of a man and a woman, then homosexual pairings won't qualify. It's that simple. Since "we the people" have defined and created the institution of marriage, what is and is not marriage is also our definition.

I think we're doing things right. If "the people" of a state feel that it serves the state's interests to change the definition of marriage, then they do that. If not, then they don't.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
That remains to be seen. as Biden famously said, "This is a big F***** deal".
Click to expand...
It does remain to be seen. Personally, I don't anticipate the annihilation of America, following such a change, given that society is so much more than a wedding ceremony. Either way, we won't have to wait much longer to find out.
 
NoC_T said:
It does remain to be seen. Personally, I don't anticipate the annihilation of America, following such a change, given that society is so much more than a wedding ceremony. Either way, we won't have to wait much longer to find out.
Click to expand...

Whatever the effect, it won't be Cataclysmic in nature and if it's deleterious, it will be slow and insidious. We won't know for a few generations. I suppose it's easier not to give a damn if you know the fallout won't happen in our lifetime. The national debt is proof of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom