Why same sex marriages can never be

[OneWithDunamis]

Vercingetorix VII

Why on Earth would you want to freeze society exactly where it is? That does an immense disservice to everyone, especially future generations.

This thread is dumb.

I kinda wish we were back to stone age times, when you ate what you hunted, and the women went around gathering fruits. Look at us now. We sit at home and order pizza, and we have difficulties getting up from our seats because we're so fat. And all the unnatural junk food is giving us scaly problem skin, so when girls see us they want to throw up.

[OneWithDunamis]

Riku Yomiko

Society is falling apart and no one can stop it. Just deal with these things and let them be.

I'm always seeing this on the first page. : /
This thread gets too much attention.

I love you dearly, but you're supposed to be on my side.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Marriage, as it pertains to the discussion of gay marriage recognition in the law, is a state-created entity. If it be so created, then there ought be no reason the term necessarily remains defined as between a man and a woman. That is why previous states have had to pass referendums to define it as such legally in their state.

[MemoriesThatKill]

The slippery slope idea is nul. It can be used with any and every advance in society. I'm sure the KKK used the same arguement for Black people back in the day.

[Riku Yomiko]

OneWithDunamis

Riku Yomiko

Society is falling apart and no one can stop it. Just deal with these things and let them be.

I'm always seeing this on the first page. : /
This thread gets too much attention.

I love you dearly, but you're supposed to be on my side.

I can't be on your side for everything, you know. Even though there's nothing for others to be gained from same sex marriages, it just brings two people who love each other together. Same sex or not.

[OneWithDunamis]

Riviera de la Mancha

Marriage, as it pertains to the discussion of gay marriage recognition in the law, is a state-created entity. If it be so created, then there ought be no reason the term necessarily remains defined as between a man and a woman. That is why previous states have had to pass referendums to define it as such legally in their state.

So what you're saying is the state, which is meant to function for the betterment of society, is in fact leading the destruction. It's done so subtly too, since it's clear from most people's opinions here that language is not a big issue when it most definitely is.

[AngelandStickmen]

OneWithDunamis

Missynx

From reading others in this thread, I've found one answer to a question you didn't answer.
The 1997 edition of a Merriam-Webster dictionary. It's an interesting choice to use a source that's over a decade removed from recent events. Though, I do like using older dictionaries at times. My version is from the 1950's. However, for recent events, the most recent definition is often best.

Another discovery is that you don't have hard evidence do you? You're basing your arguments from over generalized opinions.

Read the thread more carefully. Those answers are there.

I have read the thread more carefully. I found few nuggets in your argumentation that were interesting, however none were supported with anything but conjecture and generalization. Which basically means if you were trying to write about any topic in the manner that you've presented your argument here, you wouldn't make it through a month of University studies with anything but student loans to show for it.

Studies exist partially to solidify claims and have heated and intelligent debates. They are not crutches, but tools assuming they're used properly. They seem to be tools that evade you, so, I shall seek someone capable of debate elsewhere.

Cheers

[OneWithDunamis]

Riku Yomiko

OneWithDunamis

Riku Yomiko

Society is falling apart and no one can stop it. Just deal with these things and let them be.

I'm always seeing this on the first page. : /
This thread gets too much attention.

I love you dearly, but you're supposed to be on my side.

I can't be on your side for everything, you know. Even though there's nothing for others to be gained from same sex marriages, it just brings two people who love each other together. Same sex or not.

They can just be co-occupants of the same dwelling place. I hesitate to say "family" lest I destroy another precious word.

[OneWithDunamis]

Missynx

OneWithDunamis

Missynx

From reading others in this thread, I've found one answer to a question you didn't answer.
The 1997 edition of a Merriam-Webster dictionary. It's an interesting choice to use a source that's over a decade removed from recent events. Though, I do like using older dictionaries at times. My version is from the 1950's. However, for recent events, the most recent definition is often best.

Another discovery is that you don't have hard evidence do you? You're basing your arguments from over generalized opinions.

Read the thread more carefully. Those answers are there.

I have read the thread more carefully. I found few nuggets in your argumentation that were interesting, however none were supported with anything but conjecture and generalization. Which basically means if you were trying to write about any topic in the manner that you've presented your argument here, you wouldn't make it through a month of University studies with anything but student loans to show for it.

Studies exist partially to solidify claims and have heated and intelligent debates. They are not crutches, but tools assuming they're used properly. They seem to be tools that evade you, so, I shall seek someone capable of debate elsewhere.

Cheers

I'll inject a bit of truth here. I graduated with a BA with Honors from a professional writing program. So my logic is academically proven to be brilliant.

When one is too focused on studies and facts, they lose sight of the bigger picture, which many of you have done on this thread.

[MemoriesThatKill]

Also, if you know anything about dictionaries and how to read them, a word when used, only has to meet one of the criteria to be acceptable.

Also, marriage means several different things. They don't have to CHANGE the definition, they can simply add a number.

marriage
-noun

1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
8. Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage.
9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.


One of them already can be interperated as such. It's considered a marriage. Notice how as our language evolved, more numbers get put on the list.

[AngelandStickmen]

OneWithDunamis

Missynx

OneWithDunamis

Missynx

From reading others in this thread, I've found one answer to a question you didn't answer.
The 1997 edition of a Merriam-Webster dictionary. It's an interesting choice to use a source that's over a decade removed from recent events. Though, I do like using older dictionaries at times. My version is from the 1950's. However, for recent events, the most recent definition is often best.

Another discovery is that you don't have hard evidence do you? You're basing your arguments from over generalized opinions.

Read the thread more carefully. Those answers are there.

I have read the thread more carefully. I found few nuggets in your argumentation that were interesting, however none were supported with anything but conjecture and generalization. Which basically means if you were trying to write about any topic in the manner that you've presented your argument here, you wouldn't make it through a month of University studies with anything but student loans to show for it.

Studies exist partially to solidify claims and have heated and intelligent debates. They are not crutches, but tools assuming they're used properly. They seem to be tools that evade you, so, I shall seek someone capable of debate elsewhere.

Cheers

I'll inject a bit of truth here. I graduated with a BA with Honors from a professional writing program. So my logic is academically proven to be brilliant.

When one is too focused on studies and facts, they lose sight of the bigger picture, which many of you have done on this thread.

Interesting. I'm disappointed.
One who only tries seeing a bigger picture while over generalizing often misses the target completely. Which is what you have been doing. General statements are interesting things to consider, I agree, but they don't provide the basis for a sound argument.

[OneWithDunamis]

MemoriesThatKill

Also, if you know anything about dictionaries and how to read them, a word when used, only has to meet one of the criteria to be acceptable.

Also, marriage means several different things. They don't have to CHANGE the definition, they can simply add a number.

marriage
-noun

1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
8. Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage.
9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.


One of them already can be interperated as such. It's considered a marriage. Notice how as our language evolved, more numbers get put on the list.

Which is a largely undetected sign of destruction of society. Not only are we killing more trees to define one simple word, there'll come a point in time when each word has 20 meanings and one sentence of, say, 3 words can be interpreted 20 ways. Then, you can only speak and understand a language you yourself speak, because no one will comprehend as you intend, and with legitimate reasons, too.

[OneWithDunamis]

Missynx

OneWithDunamis

Missynx

OneWithDunamis

Missynx

From reading others in this thread, I've found one answer to a question you didn't answer.
The 1997 edition of a Merriam-Webster dictionary. It's an interesting choice to use a source that's over a decade removed from recent events. Though, I do like using older dictionaries at times. My version is from the 1950's. However, for recent events, the most recent definition is often best.

Another discovery is that you don't have hard evidence do you? You're basing your arguments from over generalized opinions.

Read the thread more carefully. Those answers are there.

I have read the thread more carefully. I found few nuggets in your argumentation that were interesting, however none were supported with anything but conjecture and generalization. Which basically means if you were trying to write about any topic in the manner that you've presented your argument here, you wouldn't make it through a month of University studies with anything but student loans to show for it.

Studies exist partially to solidify claims and have heated and intelligent debates. They are not crutches, but tools assuming they're used properly. They seem to be tools that evade you, so, I shall seek someone capable of debate elsewhere.

Cheers

I'll inject a bit of truth here. I graduated with a BA with Honors from a professional writing program. So my logic is academically proven to be brilliant.

When one is too focused on studies and facts, they lose sight of the bigger picture, which many of you have done on this thread.

Interesting. I'm disappointed.
One who only tries seeing a bigger picture while over generalizing often misses the target completely. Which is what you have been doing. General statements are interesting things to consider, I agree, but they don't provide the basis for a sound argument.

No no, I assure you I'm the one who's disappointed, for it seems the audience continues to miss the bigger picture presented here. But I shall perhaps blame the medium and not the message in this case.

[Shiro-Jin]

Well, I was cyberstalking Lucien and lurking in these threads, but I felt a need to speak out on this.

Marriage, as defined by the Random House Dictionary, not only includes (1) the joining of a man and woman in a social partnership. It also is defined as (2) a piece of antique furniture created by the merging of two separate pieces into one. It is defined also as, (3) "the meld of a king and queen in a suit [of cards], as in pinochle." It can also be defined as (4) the merging of two elements into one or (5) the merging of two companies into one.

I have just listed five meanings for the word marriage. How can you possibly "destroy" a language by adding another meaning to a word that already has more than one meaning?

This is not an issue of word and language definition. It is an issue of rights. Barring homosexual marrige is a direct violation of the First Ammendment of the United States Constitution. I would think that our Constitution is a tad bit important, no? It's what protects your right to voice your opinion, so I think it would be pretty importnt to you specifically.

[MemoriesThatKill]

OneWithDunamis

MemoriesThatKill

Also, if you know anything about dictionaries and how to read them, a word when used, only has to meet one of the criteria to be acceptable.

Also, marriage means several different things. They don't have to CHANGE the definition, they can simply add a number.

marriage
-noun

1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
8. Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage.
9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.


One of them already can be interperated as such. It's considered a marriage. Notice how as our language evolved, more numbers get put on the list.

Which is a largely undetected sign of destruction of society. Not only are we killing more trees to define one simple word, there'll come a point in time when each word has 20 meanings and one sentence of, say, 3 words can be interpreted 20 ways. Then, you can only speak and understand a language you yourself speak, because no one will comprehend as you intend, and with legitimate reasons, too.

That isn't the point though. I gave you logical and legitimate reasoning that directly contradicts your OP. Trying to go on to a different point is off topic, and irrelevant. You lose.

/thread