Same sex marriage does not redefine marriage

[CriticalThought]

I think political opponents of same sex marriage who choose to argue that it "redefines" marriage are using meaningless, loaded language when they use the term "redefine".

Fist off, marriage is not redefined by same sex marriage any more than voting was redefined by laws granting African Americans and women the right to vote.

Second, marriage has historically meant many different things and same sex marriage has existed throughout human history in many different cultures around the world.

To argue that allowing same sex couples to marry in any way affects or changes the marriages of heterosexual couples is absurd. How does allowing a same sex couple to marry in any way change marriage for a married heterosexual couple?

So how does allowing same sex marriage "redefine" marriage? The statement is pointless and ridiculous. In fact, it was same sex marriage opponents who acted to enshrine a definition of marriage into law. They were the ones who pushed for Constitutional amendments and referendums that would define marriage as "between one man and one woman." They did so in order to keep same sex couples from being able to obtain legal recognition for their relationships. It was effectively same sex marriage opponents who actually redefined marriage.

However, the true motive of this debate is exposed when you challenge the term "redefine" because virtually all same sex marriage opponents who use that term will reveal they believe that their deity defined marriage as between a man and a woman. In other words, it is religious theocracy. It is a veiled attempt to impose a particular religious view. It has no basis in fact or logic, only an emotional appeal to a theistic belief. In that fashion same sex marriage opponents redefine marriage in law in order to oppress same sex couples by legally designating their relationships as inferior and unworthy of public recognition or protection. It is nothing more than religious tyranny and an attempt to trespass upon the dignity of gays and lesbians by using the government to deny them rights and responsibilities inherent in one of the oldest institutions on the planet.

 

[gmeyers1944]

One thing about liberal that really irks me is that if they don't like the meaning of a word, they change the deffinition. Same sex marriage does redefine marriage. I have a Funk and Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary copyrighted 1980. It defines marriage this way.

mar-riage (mar'ij) n. 1. The state of being married; a legal contract, entered into by a man and a woman, to live together as husband and wife; wedlock.

I added the underline.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

One thing about liberal that really irks me is that if they don't like the meaning of a word, they change the deffinition. Same sex marriage does redefine marriage. I have a Funk and Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary copyrighted 1980. It defines marriage this way.

mar-riage (mar'ij) n. 1. The state of being married; a legal contract, entered into by a man and a woman, to live together as husband and wife; wedlock.

I added the underline.

One thing about some conservatives that really irks me is that they don't seem to understand that things and concepts often change with a changing society.

 

[gmeyers1944]

One thing about some conservatives that really irks me is that they don't seem to understand that things and concepts often change with a changing society.

Which is beside the point. This thread claimed that same sex marriage does not redifine marriage. I proved that it did.

 

[Pinkie]

I'd go to the mat for same sex marriage rights, just as I would for the basic civil rights of any other minority in the US currently suffering oppression. "Marriage" in our political life is not defined in a dictionary anymore than it is in a bible. It's defined in our laws.

IMO, there will be a period of adjustment needed to bring (mostly arcane) laws into the 21st century once SSM is the law of the land. For example, many states recognize a widow's right to evade a dead husband's will and claim a third of his estate. Husbands, by contrast, have no such rights as against the wills of dead wives.

I can think of a few others; my guess is, there'll be much busywork in legislatures, the IRS, courts and so forth for about a decade or so before all the kinks are worked out.

But this is completely irrelevant to the issue of legalizing SSM, and certainly no reason to deny any American their civil rights.

Hell, I'd say it's an argument in favor of it, as this will create jobs!

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Which is beside the point. This thread claimed that same sex marriage does not redifine marriage. I proved that it did.

Since my point is that a concept such as marriage is not a rigid construct, no redefining has occurred. Evolving would be a more accurate term.

 

[Pinkie]

Which is beside the point. This thread claimed that same sex marriage does not redifine marriage. I proved that it did.

You actually proved nothing. You did claim you have access to a 1980 Funk and Wagnall's dictionary, and that you quoted it correctly. A book which (if we believe you) is now 32 years out of date.

Why on earth would anyone find this in the least relevant, nevermind persuasive?

I have some old books myself....shall I start quoting random passages from them as well? We can at least play word games.

 

[gmeyers1944]

Since my point is that a concept such as marriage is not a rigid construct, no redefining has occurred. Evolving would be a more accurate term.

That is nonsense.

 

[Pinkie]

Since my point is that a concept such as marriage is not a rigid construct, no redefining has occurred. Evolving would be a more accurate term.

Just as the right to vote has evolved. Etc.

 

[Jerry]

Fist off, marriage is not redefined by same sex marriage any more than voting was redefined by laws granting African Americans and women the right to vote.

Those laws actually did redefine voting. That civil right went from being one held only by land owners to one held by every citizen regardless of assets or class. Good or bad, those laws did change the definition of that right.

Second, marriage has historically meant many different things and same sex marriage has existed throughout human history in many different cultures around the world.

It's taken many different forms, definitely, but marriage has always been about the raising and socializing of children; just like language is always about communication and funerals are always about marking the end of life, regardless of their varying appearances.

To argue that allowing same sex couples to marry in any way affects or changes the marriages of heterosexual couples is absurd. How does allowing a same sex couple to marry in any way change marriage for a married heterosexual couple?

The rub is that gays don't seem particularly interested in raising and socializing children, which is the universal purpose of marriage. Whereas heteros marry to produce a family as a matter of course, gays raising children strongly appears to be in the minority. SSM is primarily about validating a sexual identity, which is not the purpose of marriage.

However, the true motive of this debate is exposed when you challenge the term "redefine" because virtually all same sex marriage opponents who use that term will reveal they believe that their deity defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

God's need not enter into the discussion. This is basic sociology. "Cultural Universal"; marriage is about the raising and socializing of children.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

That is nonsense.

It's reality. Like it or not.

 

[Pinkie]

That is nonsense.

Wow..that was brutal.

*Sarcastic tone*

Listen up, gmeyers, you are "married" if (and ONLY if) the law of your state says you are, which almost always requires a suitable ceremony, witnesses, a license, filing a certificate, etc. That's it; if you haven't followed these laws, you are still single as a matter of law.

You remain married until the laws of your state have been satisified and your union is annulled, you are divorced or the state regards your spouse as deceased. Again, black and white. You are, or you aren't.

You can assemble all the bible thumpers, lexiographers, and bigots you want to a hoe down of massive size and conduct whatever ceremony you like -- but unless you adhere to the law of the land, such a gathering will not affect your LEGAL status as married or not married one damned bit.

This is the beginning, middle and end of the entire discussion -- so once the laws have all been changed to allow SSM, those married couples are and will be legally indistinguishable from you (if you are married).

 

[CriticalThought]

One thing about liberal that really irks me is that if they don't like the meaning of a word, they change the deffinition. Same sex marriage does redefine marriage. I have a Funk and Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary copyrighted 1980. It defines marriage this way.

mar-riage (mar'ij) n. 1. The state of being married; a legal contract, entered into by a man and a woman, to live together as husband and wife; wedlock.

I added the underline.

Websters shows the current definition to include same sex couples. They didn't have to change the definition of marriage. They only added another definition. That is what same sex marriage does. It adds another definition, it does nothing to change the current one.

The idea of arguing that people are "redefining" marriage is simply what same sex marriage opponents argue so that they can pretend they are protecting something. But they aren't protecting anything. Same sex marriage does not change or affect marriage in any way for people who are married. It is no different than arguing that allowing women to vote "redefines" voting. I'm sure you could find a dictionary definition from an 18th century dictionary that defines voting as "an individual's act by which he expresses support or preference for a certain motion". That would be the definition of the time since traditionally women were not allowed to vote. But nobody argues now that allowing women to vote changed the definition of voting. That would be absurd. Allowing women to vote had no affect on men's ability to vote. Allowing women to vote meant nothing more than allowing women to possess a valuable civil right.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Websters shows the current definition to include same sex couples. They didn't have to change the definition of marriage. They only added another definition. That is what same sex marriage does. It adds another definition, it does nothing to change the current one.

The idea of arguing that people are "redefining" marriage is simply what same sex marriage opponents argue so that they can pretend they are protecting something. But they aren't protecting anything. Same sex marriage does not change or affect marriage in any way for people who are married. It is no different than arguing that allowing women to vote "redefines" voting. I'm sure you could find a dictionary definition from an 18th century dictionary that defines voting as "an individual's act of voting, by which he expresses support or preference for a certain motion". That would be the definition of the time since traditionally women were not allowed to vote. But nobody argues now that allowing women to vote changed the definition of voting. That would be absurd. Allowing women to vote had no affect on men's ability to vote. Allowing women to vote meant nothing more than allowing women to possess a valuable civil right.

Just like I said. The definition evolves... just like lots of other definitions. Kinda like the definition of a person in the US evolved after the Civil War, the definition of a voter evolved after 1920, etc...

 

[Pinkie]

Critical Thought wrote in part:

It's taken many different forms, definitely, but marriage has always been about the raising and socializing of children; just like language is always about communication and funerals are always about marking the end of life, regardless of their varying appearances.

This is ridiculous. Infertile people have every bit as much right to marry as anyone else. So do fertile people who have no desire to reproduce. Granted, children are an integrally related matter where marriage is concerned in the minds of most people, but you have a constitutional right to marry without the government first determining whether or not you will make good breed stock.

 

[CriticalThought]

Those laws actually did redefine voting. That civil right went from being one held only by land owners to one held by every citizen regardless of assets or class. Good or bad, those laws did change the definition of that right.

It certainly did not change what voting was, only who was allowed to do it. That did not change the definition in any way. The ability of men to vote was not changed simply because women were allowed to vote.

It's taken many different forms, definitely, but marriage has always been about the raising and socializing of children; just like language is always about communication and funerals are always about marking the end of life, regardless of their varying appearances.

Not at all. In fact, as has been said before, at least 5 states in our country allow marriage between cousins provided they can demonstrate they are unable to have children. If marriage has always been just about children, then why would those states have such laws? Furthermore, why are infertile couples and elderly couples allowed to marry given that they cannot have children? Why are gay couples who adopt children or who use surrogacy to have children not given the right to marriage? You argument does not even withstand the most basic test of logic.

The rub is that gays don't seem particularly interested in raising and socializing children, which is the universal purpose of marriage. Whereas heteros marry to produce a family as a matter of course, gays raising children strongly appears to be in the minority. SSM is primarily about validating a sexual identity, which is not the purpose of marriage.

You know very well that is factually wrong. I have demonstrated over and over that a vast number of same sex couples have children and that number is growing every year. You are in denial at this point. If your views require that you ignore reality, then there is nothing I can say or do to convince you otherwise.

God's need not enter into the discussion. This is basic sociology. "Cultural Universal"; marriage is about the raising and socializing of children.

As I already managed to do, I disproved your so called "cultural universal" definition.

 

[spud_meister]

You have no idea how pissed off I was when they redefined marriage to just one woman.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

You have no idea how pissed off I was when they redefined marriage to just one woman.

They did? WHY WASN'T I INFORMED?!!!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Genuine marriage is based on an unalterable biological fact—it takes a man and a woman to produce a child. Two men cannot do it, neither can two women, nor can one do it alone. It takes a man and a woman.

Marriage is about uniting that man and woman, along with whatever children they may or may not produce, in order to form a family, which is the basis of any stable society.

Not only does the idea of “same sex marriage” create a sick, vulgar mockery of genuine marriage, but it is a pointed attack against the very foundation of a stable society.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Genuine marriage is based on an unalterable biological fact—it takes a man and a woman to produce a child. Two men cannot do it, neither can two women, nor can one do it alone. It takes a man and a woman.

Marriage is about uniting that man and woman, along with whatever children they may or may not produce, in order to form a family, which is the basis of any stable society.

Not only does the idea of “same sex marriage” create a sick, vulgar mockery of genuine marriage, but it is a pointed attack against the very foundation of a stable society.

Marriage is not defined, in any way, by procreation.

That was easy.

 

[American]

Marriage is not defined, in any way, by procreation.

That was easy.

Oh come on, CC.

That is why a man will leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife, and they will become one flesh.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Oh come on, CC.

I don't see procreation, there. I see sex. Sex does not always lead to children.

Beyond that, biblical definitions are trumped by the fact that we do not issue marriage licenses only to people who guarantee that they will reproduce.

 

[ChuckBerry]

There has never been a test prior to mariage for fertility because it is extraordinarily rare for a man and a woman who want to get married to be infertile. It was simply unnecessary, and it's a very weak argument in favor of opening the definition of marriage to include same sex couples.

 

[American]

I don't see procreation, there. I see sex. Sex does not always lead to children.

Beyond that, biblical definitions are trumped by the fact that we do not issue marriage licenses only to people who guarantee that they will reproduce.

This was always the primary reason for marriage for thousands of years. In fact biblically, the only reason for marriage is to remove the sin from sex. 1 Corinthians 7

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

This was always the primary reason for marriage for thousands of years. In fact biblically, the only reason for marriage is to remove the sin from sex. 1 Corinthians 7

That's the NT. I don't do the NT. Secondly, as I said in this very thread, definitions evolve. Procreation is not a requirement for marriage.