Nobody mentioned the dictionary meaning of the word 'marriage'. I argue that a marriage is LEGALLY defined as a union between a MAN and a WOMAN. Therefore, a union between people of the same sex cannot be called a marriage, and theres no reason it should be. Give it a different name please, but dont call it a marriage, because a marriage it ain't.ghettoperson wrote:
I love how the strongest argument against gay marriage is that the dictionary says otherwise and that it makes people feel that their marriage is somehow less special. Did marriage not exist before dictionaries?
I literally rofl'd when i saw the ads that were being thrown up by the thread:

Someone please take the test and post your results. Cookies will be distributed as a reward.

Someone please take the test and post your results. Cookies will be distributed as a reward.
Last edited by adam1503 (2008-01-16 14:06:55)
Precisely - call it "union" (I think they tried that)adam1503 wrote:
Nobody mentioned the dictionary meaning of the word 'marriage'. I argue that a marriage is LEGALLY defined as a union between a MAN and a WOMAN. Therefore, a union between people of the same sex cannot be called a marriage, and theres no reason it should be. Give it a different name please, but dont call it a marriage, because a marriage it ain't.ghettoperson wrote:
I love how the strongest argument against gay marriage is that the dictionary says otherwise and that it makes people feel that their marriage is somehow less special. Did marriage not exist before dictionaries?
-konfusion
Marriage wasn't legally defined that way until people cared so much for their own that they needed to stipulate that fact (man and a woman). Before it was ambiguous; People with your train of thought changed it to mean what they wanted it to.konfusion wrote:
Precisely - call it "union" (I think they tried that)adam1503 wrote:
Nobody mentioned the dictionary meaning of the word 'marriage'. I argue that a marriage is LEGALLY defined as a union between a MAN and a WOMAN. Therefore, a union between people of the same sex cannot be called a marriage, and theres no reason it should be. Give it a different name please, but dont call it a marriage, because a marriage it ain't.ghettoperson wrote:
I love how the strongest argument against gay marriage is that the dictionary says otherwise and that it makes people feel that their marriage is somehow less special. Did marriage not exist before dictionaries?
-konfusion
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-01-16 14:29:13)
Maybe not, but Im sure it says somewhere in the Bible that a marriage is between a man and a woman.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Marriage wasn't legally defined that way until people cared so much for their own that they needed to stipulate that fact (man and a woman). Before it was ambiguous; People with your train of thought changed it to mean what they wanted it to.
The bible shouldn't be the guiding force behind our country and/or morals.adam1503 wrote:
Maybe not, but Im sure it says somewhere in the Bible that a marriage is between a man and a woman.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Marriage wasn't legally defined that way until people cared so much for their own that they needed to stipulate that fact (man and a woman). Before it was ambiguous; People with your train of thought changed it to mean what they wanted it to.
but they cant bump uglies !! they can rub uglies and have sword fight uglies but no bumping .
Someone might go around obeying the 10 commandments and society would fall apart.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The bible shouldn't be the guiding force behind our country and/or morals.adam1503 wrote:
Maybe not, but Im sure it says somewhere in the Bible that a marriage is between a man and a woman.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Marriage wasn't legally defined that way until people cared so much for their own that they needed to stipulate that fact (man and a woman). Before it was ambiguous; People with your train of thought changed it to mean what they wanted it to.
The reason gay marriage shouldn't be allowed is because under the law married couples get tax breaks aimed at those who will procreate and generate the tax paying and pension supporting citizens of tomorrow. Last I heard gay men don't have wombs and gay women don't have testes. So why on earth should taxpayers money give a couple breaks to ease the burden of supporting a family when the couple can't have kids?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-16 15:24:34)
I agree only partly with that, because i do think there is still a lot of relevance in the lessons of the bible. And Im an Atheist.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The bible shouldn't be the guiding force behind our country and/or morals.
But dont forget that the whole idea of marriage is a concept born out of religious beliefs. Theres no escaping the huge influence the Bible has had on the development of western morals.
Last edited by adam1503 (2008-01-16 15:25:51)
That is the most Republican thing I think I have ever heard you say. It is quite possible I may be aroused.CameronPoe wrote:
The reason gay marriage shouldn't be allowed is because under the law married couples get tax breaks aimed at those who will procreate and generate the tax paying and pension supporting citizens of tomorrow. Last I heard gay men don't have wombs and gay women don't have testes. So why on earth should taxpayers money give a couple breaks to ease the burden of supporting a family when the couple can't have kids?
Malloy must go
Yeah, a law making it illegal to covet your neighbors wife or use god's name in vain is totally practical.Stingray24 wrote:
Someone might go around obeying the 10 commandments and society would fall apart.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The bible shouldn't be the guiding force behind our country and/or morals.adam1503 wrote:
Maybe not, but Im sure it says somewhere in the Bible that a marriage is between a man and a woman.
Regardless of what shaped our morals up to now, it is obvious certain aspects of religious thought popular 2000, 1500, 1000, 500 years ago have changed - it is not bible-induced morals changing people over time, it is people changing previous morals and the religious thought adapting to the changes.adam1503 wrote:
I agree only partly with that, because i do think there is still a lot of relevance in the lessons of the bible. And Im an Atheist.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The bible shouldn't be the guiding force behind our country and/or morals.
But dont forget that the whole idea of marriage is a concept born out of religious beliefs. Theres no escaping the huge influence the Bible has had on the development of western morals.
There may be relevance to lessons in the bible, but it is not an exclusive source of thought - nothing you could not find anywhere else.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-01-16 15:36:04)
What about lesbian marriages.
It aint a problem
"My girl got a girlfriend"
Appropriate spam is appropriate.
And if you want even more DAST in this post.....the main singer (T-Pain) is.......Muslim!
It aint a problem
"My girl got a girlfriend"
Appropriate spam is appropriate.
And if you want even more DAST in this post.....the main singer (T-Pain) is.......Muslim!
Last edited by Mek-Izzle (2008-01-16 15:31:59)
Let's marry people to their horses now.
To be honest I would have no problem with that. Who cares - it affects me in no way.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Let's marry people to their horses now.
I have no problem with it. Not sure why so many people do. Marriage is all fucked up these days between men and women anyway.
Thank you, that is a main reason. They don't benefit society therefore, should not get the same incentives that a straight couple would get for joining forces.CameronPoe wrote:
The reason gay marriage shouldn't be allowed is because under the law married couples get tax breaks aimed at those who will procreate and generate the tax paying and pension supporting citizens of tomorrow. Last I heard gay men don't have wombs and gay women don't have testes. So why on earth should taxpayers money give a couple breaks to ease the burden of supporting a family when the couple can't have kids?
I agree with you in that we have to update our morals to reflect the diversity of modern-day life, but I dont think that means we shouldnt take any influence from the Bible: after all, it appeals to our moral core. The concept of marriage is at the heart of our society, and to change its meaning is to change what our society is based on.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Regardless of what shaped our morals up to now, it is obvious certain aspects of religious thought popular 2000, 1500, 1000, 500 years ago have changed - it is not bible-induced morals changing people over time, it is people changing previous morals and the religious thought adapting to the changes.
There may be relevance to lessons in the bible, but it is not an exclusive source of thought - nothing you could not find anywhere else.
Im not saying that updating and altering our morals is bad, but I am saying that extending the meaning of 'marriage' to include a partnership between same-sex couples betrays what our society is based on.
That is sad but true No one has any respect for marriage anymore.usmarine2005 wrote:
I have no problem with it. Not sure why so many people do. Marriage is all fucked up these days between men and women anyway.
-konfusion
Well in this case its more like letting people marry their ass.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Let's marry people to their horses now.
lmao nice pun, i see wut u did there. Id +1 you for that but ive run out for todayPug wrote:
Well in this case its more like letting people marry their ass.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Let's marry people to their horses now.
Last edited by adam1503 (2008-01-16 15:57:37)
Your initial argument was -
What is our society based on?
When I pointed out that the law was previously ambiguous and is being changed now to the definition you use, you switched toadam1503 wrote:
I argue that a marriage is LEGALLY defined as a union between a MAN and a WOMAN. Therefore, a union between people of the same sex cannot be called a marriage, and theres no reason it should be. Give it a different name please, but dont call it a marriage, because a marriage it ain't.
The point is that the definition of marriage was recently extended to be less ambiguous as to what it (marriage) exactly defined.adam1503 wrote:
Im not saying that updating and altering our morals is bad, but I am saying that extending the meaning of 'marriage' to include a partnership between same-sex couples betrays what our society is based on.
What is our society based on?
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-01-16 16:07:37)
Convenience. Works for this topic too, no matter what side you're on.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
What is our society based on?
QFT *faints*CameronPoe wrote:
The reason gay marriage shouldn't be allowed is because under the law married couples get tax breaks aimed at those who will procreate and generate the tax paying and pension supporting citizens of tomorrow. Last I heard gay men don't have wombs and gay women don't have testes. So why on earth should taxpayers money give a couple breaks to ease the burden of supporting a family when the couple can't have kids?
My thoughts from another thread patched together ...
The gay movement, not any religious person or church, brought this issue to the forefront. The gay couples I know don't have any desire to get married and they're embarrassed by the fuss the radical gay movement is making. The majority of churches and religions do not recognize or morally approve of gay marriages, so gay activists sought government approval under a clever smokescreen. This made the defense of marriage acts that have been voted on so necessary. Gay activists claim marriage is the only way they can gain the right to make medical and financial decisions for their partners. This is completely false. Even married couples need to set up medical and durable power of attorney in order to have legal power to make medical or financial decisions for their spouse. Any family member could contest their decisions without such legal standing.
The fact is gay activists seek moral approval of their lifestyle and since they will never receive it from the church, they seek an equivalent from the government to gain societal approval. The question of gay marriage is not about rights, it is about a concerted effort to demand everyone approve of their lifestyle choice and to level criticism at anyone who dares oppose them. Marriage is a moral approval of a relationship by a church or religion, hence no gay marriage as homosexuality is considered immoral by most religions.
...okay, that IS pretty funny.Pug wrote:
Convenience. Works for this topic too, no matter what side you're on.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
What is our society based on?
Anyway, my thought is taking the religious part out from the civil part. I think that any two people can enter into a civil union. They should be given the same rights, benifits, and restrictions no matter if it be one man, one woman, two women, or even two men. For that matter, I (personally) do not think anything against group marriages.
Now, on the religious side (and this is where most people bristle at the thought), I think whether you can be married as a part of the church is up to your personal faith. If Catholics will not allow gay marriage, then you have a gay marriage in a catholic church or by a catholic priest. But if the Lutheran faith allows it, then why the hell not?
Being married in the eyes of God and the Church is different than being married in the eyes of the state.