Why same sex marriages can never be

[xX..ibitsu..Xx]

Suzuku90

xX..ibitsu..Xx

"So give me something to believe..."

I've never really been a big fan of the "slippery slope" argument (mostly because it's crap), and that seems to be what you're using in your argument. An argument that also uses a fictitious story as evidence, I may add. But, back the point, I don't think it's for any government to decide or put into law who people are allowed to marry. It's right up there with allowing people to vote on separate but equal, back in the day. No one should be allowed to limit another persons rights.

However, on the basis that marriage is, in fact, a religious institution (at least in origin), I propose the following: Marriage in any form should not be recognized by the government. Religion has no place in government, law, etc. This way, each church may decide for itself whether or not it will marry two men or two women. Or hell, even three. Marriage can be whatever people need it to be, just like any religious practice these days. Now, for all those nice tax benefits and rights to your partner/spouse, there should be some sort of "civil union" contract available to everyone which would be recognized at legal level.

Now tell me, does this not solve everything aside from the actual underlying bigotry?

"...'Cause I am living just to breathe"

Oh, if the nearby church lets them, gay couples can marry religiously. The law just prevents them from signing a little piece of paper that gives them tons of benefits.

And civil unions don't give all the benefits of marriage; they're available to both homosexual and heterosexual couples.

"So give me something to believe..."

Yes, I know. Hence, some sort of "civil union"-like contract that would be recognized at state level and give all the benefits.

"...'Cause I am living just to breathe"

[Suzuku90]

xX..ibitsu..Xx

Suzuku90

xX..ibitsu..Xx

"So give me something to believe..."

I've never really been a big fan of the "slippery slope" argument (mostly because it's crap), and that seems to be what you're using in your argument. An argument that also uses a fictitious story as evidence, I may add. But, back the point, I don't think it's for any government to decide or put into law who people are allowed to marry. It's right up there with allowing people to vote on separate but equal, back in the day. No one should be allowed to limit another persons rights.

However, on the basis that marriage is, in fact, a religious institution (at least in origin), I propose the following: Marriage in any form should not be recognized by the government. Religion has no place in government, law, etc. This way, each church may decide for itself whether or not it will marry two men or two women. Or hell, even three. Marriage can be whatever people need it to be, just like any religious practice these days. Now, for all those nice tax benefits and rights to your partner/spouse, there should be some sort of "civil union" contract available to everyone which would be recognized at legal level.

Now tell me, does this not solve everything aside from the actual underlying bigotry?

"...'Cause I am living just to breathe"

Oh, if the nearby church lets them, gay couples can marry religiously. The law just prevents them from signing a little piece of paper that gives them tons of benefits.

And civil unions don't give all the benefits of marriage; they're available to both homosexual and heterosexual couples.

"So give me something to believe..."

Yes, I know. Hence, some sort of "civil union"-like contract that would be recognized at state level and give all the benefits.

"...'Cause I am living just to breathe"

I think I saw a headline somewhere about Washington passing that. So there's some progress.

[Nico Says Things]

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 your own personal definition. In some places, the definition of marriage is who bid money more for your daughter.

This thread is a complete fail. Anyone who actually spends time arguing this is just idiotic. The OP has no validity or support.

[xX..ibitsu..Xx]

"So give me something to believe..."

off-topic, but I like the quote in your signature ^-^

"...'Cause I am living just to breathe"

[The Ceiling Cat]

I can has proof of babble?

[Gho the Girl]

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.

Oh jolly.

Guess what? The language is constantly changing. Check with the constant revisions being done to the OED as words change and are created.

Do you know "Meatspace" is now a proper word?

Everyone's still communicating.

Either you're a troll, or stupid.

[L the strawberry lover]

If you have problems understanding new definitions of words, then you must have not been paying attention in elementary school. I learned how to use "context clues" when I was in like, 1st or 2nd grade. Context clues are the words around the word you do not understand that help you figure out what that word means. For example, I'll use 4 definitions of the word "b***h."

ex. 1
"The male dog must mount the b***h and successfully form a tie to ensure pregnancy." b***h in this sentence means female dog, and if you can't figure that out, you are stupid.

ex. 2
"Get in here b***h and fix my supper!" b***h in this sentence is a derogatory word for woman. If you can't figure that out you are stupid.

ex. 3
"John's b***h made him a new hat." b***h in this sentence means a significant other, again, if you can't figure it out you're stupid.

ex. 4
"He made Jim his b***h." b***h in this sentence means homosexual sex partner. Again, context saves us from stupidity.

Even if you hear a word you don't know, you can use context clues to figure out what it means, same as words you DO know that are being used in a way you are not familiar with.

This is not degradation of language, but the growth of language, and it has been happening since humans began to speak to each other. It will never stop, it will never create chaos and it will not destroy society. If society was so fixed on its words, then language wouldn’t change at all. England didn’t fall when words like “fourscore” and “wherefore” were replaced. Japan didn’t fall when “kitsu” stopped being used, or when “terebi” or “biru” were introduced. America didn’t fall when the meaning of f*****t was changed. Germany didn’t cease to exist when double ss’s were allowed to be written as ss instead of an ettsett.

[ZechsK]

Nico Says Things

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 your own personal definition. In some places, the definition of marriage is who bid money more for your daughter.

This thread is a complete fail. Anyone who actually spends time arguing this is just idiotic. The OP has no validity or support.

Then I suppose you would say that because in some places it's not considered murder to kill your daughter to protect the family honour because she had pre-martial sex.

No, you wouldn't. You'd still call it murder, and you'd call them extremists, all according to your western definitions of what makings killing someone justifiable and hence not murder, and you'd be thankful that you live in western society.

Oh s**t! Did I let the key out of the bag? rolleyes Our definitions are going according to western society.It's a given. That "other places" excuse is bullshit because what "other places" do has no bearing on us.

[ZechsK]

I_Have_Teh_Death_Goo

If you have problems understanding new definitions of words, then you must have not been paying attention in elementary school. I learned how to use "context clues" when I was in like, 1st or 2nd grade. Context clues are the words around the word you do not understand that help you figure out what that word means. For example, I'll use 4 definitions of the word "b***h."

ex. 1
"The male dog must mount the b***h and successfully form a tie to ensure pregnancy." b***h in this sentence means female dog, and if you can't figure that out, you are stupid.

ex. 2
"Get in here b***h and fix my supper!" b***h in this sentence is a derogatory word for woman. If you can't figure that out you are stupid.

ex. 3
"John's b***h made him a new hat." b***h in this sentence means a significant other, again, if you can't figure it out you're stupid.

ex. 4
"He made Jim his b***h." b***h in this sentence means homosexual sex partner. Again, context saves us from stupidity.

Even if you hear a word you don't know, you can use context clues to figure out what it means, same as words you DO know that are being used in a way you are not familiar with.

This is not degradation of language, but the growth of language, and it has been happening since humans began to speak to each other. It will never stop, it will never create chaos and it will not destroy society. If society was so fixed on its words, then language wouldn’t change at all. England didn’t fall when words like “fourscore” and “wherefore” were replaced. Japan didn’t fall when “kitsu” stopped being used, or when “terebi” or “biru” were introduced. America didn’t fall when the meaning of f*****t was changed. Germany didn’t cease to exist when double ss’s were allowed to be written as ss instead of an ettsett.

Sometimes words are ambiguous when you need clear meanings, and sometimes what you think is the clear meaning from reading something is not what someone else thinks is the clear meaning. This is why my friend is suffering through a class on legal drafting and interpretation, all of which teaches you how to properly draft legislation so that there is as little ambiguity when people read it.

Using general examples like that is fine and dandy in a social context, but in an academic or working context it can be detrimental.

There is also the whole little thing about being precise. Why on earth are we striving to NOT be as precise as possible? George Orwell would be having a fit right now and if you don't know why google 1- Politics and the English Language, and 2- Newspeak.

[Kaosgirl]

ZechsK

Kaosgirl

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?

You speak like it hasn't happened before or something.

Besides, Webster Online's already changed the definition to include same-sex marriage. You're too late on this horse.

No offence but screw Webster, the best English dictionary is Oxford hands down. (Oxford specifies marriage as between man and woman but that's beside the point)

Suuuuuure it is.

ZechsK

red]
Point is one dictionary does not a definition change. If I published Zechsk's dictionary, as I very well could, it doesn't mean it's going to be accepted. The second point is that you should use the most credible dictionary for the purpose, and in this case for an english language dictionary that's Oxford.

Nah, I'll just do what everyone else does: grab the source that supports my point, and piss on the source that doesn't. Oxford's credibility for me has failed on many accounts anyway.
(Actually, all dictionaries have failed as infallible final sources at some point or another, but that's beside the point as well.)

[Kaosgirl]

ZechsK

Nico Says Things

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 your own personal definition. In some places, the definition of marriage is who bid money more for your daughter.

This thread is a complete fail. Anyone who actually spends time arguing this is just idiotic. The OP has no validity or support.

Then I suppose you would say that because in some places it's not considered murder to kill your daughter to protect the family honour because she had pre-martial sex.

Probably not. I try to avoid sentence fragments.

ZechsK

Oh s**t! Did I let the key out of the bag? rolleyes Our definitions are going according to western society.It's a given. That "other places" excuse is bullshit because what "other places" do has no bearing on us.

Oh hai, I live in Canada where we've already accepted same-sex marriage. When are you backwards Americans going to catch up?

[Alloflifedecays]

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.

This kind of thing is why America is a laughing stock amongst other countries - you come up with stuff like this to deprive people in love of the same rights as the rest of the population, and view their love for each other as worth less.

Firstly, you don't seem to get how language works. In the modern world, long distance communication and wide-range media means that dialect and difference in regional vocabulary has vastly decreased, and even without that, you seem to be under the assumption that different languages don't exist. We live in a place where there is a communication barrier. It doesn't bring the world to an end. Your hypothetical situation where ever-so-slightly changing the definition of one word destroys civilisation is not only ridiculous, but it ignores the very principles of human communication.

Second. THAT DOESN'T MATTER. It doesn't matter that it involves changing the definition of a word, because without the equality of homosexual and heterosexual couples, democratic, fair society is broken. Equality is essential to a fair society and discrimination is antithetical to democracy. The definition's not there, change the definition, because the alternative is a society that legally discriminates against a minority group. And they have a certain word for societies that legally discriminate against a minority group.

[kailandon]

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.

you just sound dumb

[ZechsK]

Kaosgirl

ZechsK

Nico Says Things

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 your own personal definition. In some places, the definition of marriage is who bid money more for your daughter.

This thread is a complete fail. Anyone who actually spends time arguing this is just idiotic. The OP has no validity or support.

Then I suppose you would say that because in some places it's not considered murder to kill your daughter to protect the family honour because she had pre-martial sex.

Probably not. I try to avoid sentence fragments.

ZechsK

Oh s**t! Did I let the key out of the bag? rolleyes Our definitions are going according to western society.It's a given. That "other places" excuse is bullshit because what "other places" do has no bearing on us.

Oh hai, I live in Canada where we've already accepted same-sex marriage. When are you backwards Americans going to catch up?

1- I'm not American, nor do I live in America, I'm Jamaican.

2- Homework :- List all western nations. Highlight all western nations that allow gay marriage.

Point stands.

This discussion was in general although taking place in light of recent events in the USA and geared towards them. So if we want to define marriage in general in this conversation we have to go with western society, and if we want to define marriage within the USA we use majority within the USA - and in both instances that does not include same sex. You mentioning Canada is inconsequential, and that guy mentioning "in some places" is inconsequential, and personal definitions are inconsequential.

There is nothing wrong with trying to change a definition, but you can't claim to have the "correct" one when what determines correctness in a social sense is subjective and dependent upon majority approval. That is my whole point, I'm not telling anyone not to try to make theirs the accepted definition.

[cyropi]

ZechsK

There is also the whole little thing about being precise. Why on earth are we striving to NOT be as precise as possible? George Orwell would be having a fit right now and if you don't know why google 1- Politics and the English Language, and 2- Newspeak.

I may have read what you said wrong, but surely Orwell would be pleased that the colour and depth of language was being retained and that we weren't heading into a world of Newspeak?