Why same sex marriages can never be

[TheVoiceOfTheLobster]

OneWithDunamis

Because by definition a marriage is the union between a man and a woman. If they change the definition of this word, what other words will they change next? Communication will break down and everything becomes ambiguous. Look at the Tower of Babel. They couldn't communicate with each other and an entire nation of people was scattered.

Don't be selfish. Think of the greater good of society, if you intend to stay with the society you're familiar with.

That's exactly what people were saying about interracial couples back in the 60's.

[Vercingetorix VII]

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.

Writing isn't related to logic. So this argument is dumb.

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.

I'll take my 75 year life expectancy, my higher education, and my low likelihood of being killed by a wild animal or a rival caveman, thanks.

Although this is kind of ironic given how recent an invention monogamy is.

[OneWithDunamis]

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.

Not that important if you have no society remaining by the end of it. Do you let a man have his right to smoke when he's trapped in a box with non-smokers?

As well I've already stated that I'm aware words already have multiple meanings. One commenter noted that perhaps a new word should be introduced to mean unions of same sex couples, which I agreed was a great idea.

[OneWithDunamis]

TheVoiceOfTheLobster

OneWithDunamis

Because by definition a marriage is the union between a man and a woman. If they change the definition of this word, what other words will they change next? Communication will break down and everything becomes ambiguous. Look at the Tower of Babel. They couldn't communicate with each other and an entire nation of people was scattered.

Don't be selfish. Think of the greater good of society, if you intend to stay with the society you're familiar with.

That's exactly what people were saying about interracial couples back in the 60's.

If back then marriage was defined as a union between two people of the same race, then they had every right to fight the change.

[OneWithDunamis]

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

I didn't get off point. You refused to acknowledge my response. Ergo you concede. Which is expected because I'm right and cannot be refuted.

[Digitalin]

But, what about the marriage of man and machine? Without that, the world will never see its Mega Man! sad

[TheVoiceOfTheLobster]

OneWithDunamis

TheVoiceOfTheLobster

OneWithDunamis

Because by definition a marriage is the union between a man and a woman. If they change the definition of this word, what other words will they change next? Communication will break down and everything becomes ambiguous. Look at the Tower of Babel. They couldn't communicate with each other and an entire nation of people was scattered.

Don't be selfish. Think of the greater good of society, if you intend to stay with the society you're familiar with.

That's exactly what people were saying about interracial couples back in the 60's.

If back then marriage was defined as a union between two people of the same race, then they had every right to fight the change.

What's so different about it now? Gays and lesbians are people too.

[Shiro-Jin]

OneWithDunamis

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.

Not that important if you have no society remaining by the end of it. Do you let a man have his right to smoke when he's trapped in a box with non-smokers?

As well I've already stated that I'm aware words already have multiple meanings. One commenter noted that perhaps a new word should be introduced to mean unions of same sex couples, which I agreed was a great idea.

English is a great thing. Singular words have multiple meanings. Multiple words have singular meanings, they're called synonyms, and we who speak English use them a lot.

Yes, there is a term for it. It's called Homosexual Marriage.

EDIT: Also, to answer your question, yes. It is his right to smoke if he wants to. However, smoking is scientifically proven to be harmful to the human body and harmful to others. It puts others (nonsmokers) at risk, which is why it has been banned in several areas. Last I checked, Homosexuality isn't hurting anyone.

[OneWithDunamis]

Vercingetorix VII

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.

Writing isn't related to logic. So this argument is dumb.

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.

I'll take my 75 year life expectancy, my higher education, and my low likelihood of being killed by a wild animal or a rival caveman, thanks.

Although this is kind of ironic given how recent an invention monogamy is.

Actually the point is that I DID get through university and the program was essay based, so you just failed to understand the implications of that statement. That's fine. I don't expect much intellect on Gaia, even if it's the ED.

You can still be killed by a wild animal or a rival caveman. Of course, where you live would determine the probability of that. And you can substitute caveman with ghetto dweller with a shank, if that's more applicable for you.

[OneWithDunamis]

TheVoiceOfTheLobster

OneWithDunamis

TheVoiceOfTheLobster

OneWithDunamis

Because by definition a marriage is the union between a man and a woman. If they change the definition of this word, what other words will they change next? Communication will break down and everything becomes ambiguous. Look at the Tower of Babel. They couldn't communicate with each other and an entire nation of people was scattered.

Don't be selfish. Think of the greater good of society, if you intend to stay with the society you're familiar with.

That's exactly what people were saying about interracial couples back in the 60's.

If back then marriage was defined as a union between two people of the same race, then they had every right to fight the change.

What's so different about it now? Gays and lesbians are people too.

I just said there's no difference.

[OneWithDunamis]

vicidian

But, what about the marriage of man and machine? Without that, the world will never see its Mega Man! sad

Personally I prefer Astroboy, but you knowing that my p***s could get caught in the cogs makes me reject the very notion of it.

[OneWithDunamis]

Shiro-Jin

OneWithDunamis

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.

Not that important if you have no society remaining by the end of it. Do you let a man have his right to smoke when he's trapped in a box with non-smokers?

As well I've already stated that I'm aware words already have multiple meanings. One commenter noted that perhaps a new word should be introduced to mean unions of same sex couples, which I agreed was a great idea.

English is a great thing. Singular words have multiple meanings. Multiple words have singular meanings, they're called synonyms, and we who speak English use them a lot.

Yes, there is a term for it. It's called Homosexual Marriage.

EDIT: Also, to answer your question, yes. It is his right to smoke if he wants to. However, smoking is scientifically proven to be harmful to the human body and harmful to others. It puts others (nonsmokers) at risk, which is why it has been banned in several areas. Last I checked, Homosexuality isn't hurting anyone.

I never said homosexuality per se hurt anybody. If you read previous posts you would see that if marriages were defined as unions between homosexuals only and heterosexuals wanted to be recognized as married as well, I'd fight against that instead.

[TheVoiceOfTheLobster]

OneWithDunamis

TheVoiceOfTheLobster

OneWithDunamis

TheVoiceOfTheLobster

OneWithDunamis

Because by definition a marriage is the union between a man and a woman. If they change the definition of this word, what other words will they change next? Communication will break down and everything becomes ambiguous. Look at the Tower of Babel. They couldn't communicate with each other and an entire nation of people was scattered.

Don't be selfish. Think of the greater good of society, if you intend to stay with the society you're familiar with.

That's exactly what people were saying about interracial couples back in the 60's.

If back then marriage was defined as a union between two people of the same race, then they had every right to fight the change.

What's so different about it now? Gays and lesbians are people too.

I just said there's no difference.

I apologise, I misread what you said.

So basically you don't approve of people devoting themselves to each other if they don't meet that society's definition of commitment. Is that what you're saying?

[Riviera de la Mancha]

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.

No, not at all. Read with attention.

What I am saying is that the current debate over gay marriage is centered on the discussion of marriage not as a ceremony, but as a state-created creature. Marriage is an institution, for the purposes of gay rights, that the government created and got into the business of establishing with particular benefits. As it is created by the state, where state means government, the state may define it as it so wishes, and can change it at any time.

Therefore, there is nothing within the word 'marriage', that binds it exclusively to man and woman, for the purposes of the present political debate.

[OneWithDunamis]

TheVoiceOfTheLobster

OneWithDunamis

TheVoiceOfTheLobster

OneWithDunamis

TheVoiceOfTheLobster

OneWithDunamis

Because by definition a marriage is the union between a man and a woman. If they change the definition of this word, what other words will they change next? Communication will break down and everything becomes ambiguous. Look at the Tower of Babel. They couldn't communicate with each other and an entire nation of people was scattered.

Don't be selfish. Think of the greater good of society, if you intend to stay with the society you're familiar with.

That's exactly what people were saying about interracial couples back in the 60's.

If back then marriage was defined as a union between two people of the same race, then they had every right to fight the change.

What's so different about it now? Gays and lesbians are people too.

I just said there's no difference.

I apologise, I misread what you said.

So basically you don't approve of people devoting themselves to each other if they don't meet that society's definition of commitment. Is that what you're saying?

I don't approve of people changing words' definitions, because that breaks down communication, which destroys nations.