Why same sex marriages can never be

[MemoriesThatKill]

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.

No, your point has nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is that marriage is defined as a man and a woman and that we would have to CHANGE the definition to fit homosexual marriages. If you wanted to go on about the degradation of the English language, you can make another thread. You tried to go off topic, which means you have no real response to my statement. Which means you, in fact, concede.

As my brother very aptly demonstrated as well, English is an evolving language. And America is a young and evolving country. Trying to complain about that fact is teardrops in the rain.

[Shiro-Jin]

OneWithDunamis

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.

So what exactly is your point here? That you think all words should have only one definition? Because if that's so, it would make it impossible for one to learn the language because of the sheer amount of words. It's hard enough as it is. Plus, it's impossible to keep a language's words from gaining multiple meanings anyways. You haven't taken the development of Slang into account.

Also, as an irrelevant sidenote to Lucien: I'm gonna make you another avatar art of epic win proportions (I hope). n.n

[OneWithDunamis]

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.

We just said the same thing. The state has the right to change definitions of terms, which causes mass confusion, making people acting stupid. When what we say no longer means only what we mean, communication breaks down. Perhaps one day "grab milk on the way home" means "I saw you milking that whore after work". There will be hell on earth, or worse. Because hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Or however the line goes.

[Digitalin]

I was beginning to wonder if anyone was going to realize that the OP is a griefer, and that there will be no validity to any arguments made within this thread. Alas, here we are 13 pages later.

[MemoriesThatKill]

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.

WOOOOOOW, you SO just proved Shiro-Jin and my point just there.

seriously.

/thread

[OneWithDunamis]

MemoriesThatKill

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.

No, your point has nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is that marriage is defined as a man and a woman and that we would have to CHANGE the definition to fit homosexual marriages. If you wanted to go on about the degradation of the English language, you can make another thread. You tried to go off topic, which means you have no real response to my statement. Which means you, in fact, concede.

As my brother very aptly demonstrated as well, English is an evolving language. And America is a young and evolving country. Trying to complain about that fact is teardrops in the rain.

Then you clearly misinterpreted the point of this thread. And since I'm the thread maker, I have the final say in what this thread is about, and I don't even have to change anything I've said in order to say that this thread is about ambiguity in a language leading to the destruction of societies.

Besides, I already acknowledged the fact that the definition I pulled out from my dictionary states specifically that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. If the current definition shows that a marriage can include homosexual couples or other varieties of couples, then I would fight against further changes to the word, which includes adding new meanings that don't replace old definitions. I'd rather see old meanings removed, because in that case there'd be less ambiguity.

[TheVoiceOfTheLobster]

OneWithDunamis

TheVoiceOfTheLobster

OneWithDunamis

TheVoiceOfTheLobster

OneWithDunamis

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.

Don't be silly. Everyone has a different definition for everything. There is no absolute truth, after all.

It's only when we refuse to respect other people's definitions do we incite hatred and destroy nations.

[OneWithDunamis]

MemoriesThatKill

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.

WOOOOOOW, you SO just proved Shiro-Jin and my point just there.

seriously.

/thread

I don't think you had a point against my argument.

[Nicole Ekishou]

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.

And what, exactly, is wrong with changing the definition of marriage?

I'm honestly curious about this.

[OneWithDunamis]

TheVoiceOfTheLobster

OneWithDunamis

TheVoiceOfTheLobster

OneWithDunamis

TheVoiceOfTheLobster

OneWithDunamis

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.

Don't be silly. Everyone has a different definition for everything. There is no absolute truth, after all.

It's only when we refuse to respect other people's definitions do we incite hatred and destroy nations.

Self contradiction.

[The Last Reminisce]

Nicole Ekishou

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.

And what, exactly, is wrong with changing the definition of marriage?

I'm honestly curious about this.

My wrench in your oily goodness between your 2 tire like mobile body parts.

[Digitalin]

What is the stance you carry on human-animal marriages? The marriage of a female goat to a male human, i.e.

[OneWithDunamis]

Shiro-Jin

OneWithDunamis

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.

So what exactly is your point here? That you think all words should have only one definition? Because if that's so, it would make it impossible for one to learn the language because of the sheer amount of words. It's hard enough as it is. Plus, it's impossible to keep a language's words from gaining multiple meanings anyways. You haven't taken the development of Slang into account.

Also, as an irrelevant sidenote to Lucien: I'm gonna make you another avatar art of epic win proportions (I hope). n.n

I never said I wasn't against slang. I'm just picking on one group that's prominent in society. Others are next.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

OneWithDunamis

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.

We just said the same thing. The state has the right to change definitions of terms, which causes mass confusion, making people acting stupid. When what we say no longer means only what we mean, communication breaks down. Perhaps one day "grab milk on the way home" means "I saw you milking that whore after work". There will be hell on earth, or worse. Because hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Or however the line goes.

What mass confusion? I never spoke to this. I am addressing the OP, which makes the argument that the government cannot re-define marriage because to do so causes chaos. Ignoring the chaos point, I addressed the idea that a government cannot do x because of effect y on the populous. I am saying that the government can do whatever it wishes to anything it creates, and the government created marriage, so it is free to do what it wills to it, regardless of the effects it has on the populous, provided it does so in accordance to the proper regulation and law.

It is incorrect to say that if I make product y I cant then change to call it product t if I so wish because I created product y; it is mine to do with as I wish. The government created marriage and, so long as it abides by the rules and regulations, it may define it as it wishes. To talk of chaos is merely irrelevant babble as it relates to the argument presented in the OP.

[OneWithDunamis]

vicidian

What is the stance you carry on human-animal marriages? The marriage of a female goat to a male human, e.g.

I don't think that's outlined in any reputable dictionaries, so I'd say no to that.