Why same sex marriages can never be

[Dark Bunny Lord]

OneWithDunamis

Kiumaru

OneWithDunamis

Words change meaning overtime, but if we don't stick with the meaning that is currently found in dictionaries, what's the standard? Are we then free to say whatever we want and inject our own meanings into them? Are we also free to interpret what's presented to us as anything we want? The fact that we're responding to each other shows how important a commonly understood language is.

If you do not realize the contradiction there, I am sure you need to reevaluate your own argument. The standard is decided by what meaning is most prevalent. If a word has changed meaning and other people use said meaning enough, it becomes the new definition. The standard is how people use it, not the dictionary. You're arguing for keeping the word as is but fail to see that marriage itself has changed meaning from its conception:

Etymology Online

marriage
c.1300, from O.Fr. mariage (12c.), from V.L. *maritaticum, from L. maritatus, pp. of maritatre "to wed, marry, give in marriage" (see marry).
"When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition until death do them part." [G.B. Shaw]
Marriage counselling first recorded 1945. Marriage bed, fig. of marital intercourse generally, is attested from 1590.

Thus, marriage has changed meaning. Yet you're saying it shouldn't change meaning so we can keep it the same despite being able to change in the first place. If we go with what you said, we should revert the word back to this original definition and go with that. (This definition is rather sexually neutral so it would allow homosexual marriage). I have to go now and have fun proving your point.

I acknowledge the changes in the past, and I suggest that the meanings of words be fixed as they currently are. If we are to revert to the original definition, I would argue against banning same-sex marriages instead, and that'd be fine. Be since it's currently perceived as a union between man and woman, I would say no to same sex marriages for the sake of better communication.

Ah so now we see the truth. The words okay to be changed as long as it is changed to something you can agree with.
Clearly then the only reason you would be okay with it was because you felt it wouldn't lead to the collapse of society which is just plain ignorant since you can't see the future (not to mention something so small leading to something so big is astronomically unlikely.) THOUSANDS of new words and phrases are used in new ways to give new definitions all the time and yet society stands... imagine that.

[The_Martyr]

Why don't we look at definitions that seem to have some sort of relevancy to this topic, shall we?

Gay used to have the meaning of overly happy. Now, it means being homosexual.
Queer used to have the meaning of something strange and misunderstood. Now, it means being homosexual.

Now, those definitions morphed over a few hundred years (I don't have an exact time, but it's fairly recent in the history of the world) and nothing bad has happened, no? No. Ok. Your argument is basically invalid. Definitions change all the time because language is changing all the time.

[OneWithDunamis]

Dark Bunny Lord

OneWithDunamis

Kiumaru

OneWithDunamis

Words change meaning overtime, but if we don't stick with the meaning that is currently found in dictionaries, what's the standard? Are we then free to say whatever we want and inject our own meanings into them? Are we also free to interpret what's presented to us as anything we want? The fact that we're responding to each other shows how important a commonly understood language is.

If you do not realize the contradiction there, I am sure you need to reevaluate your own argument. The standard is decided by what meaning is most prevalent. If a word has changed meaning and other people use said meaning enough, it becomes the new definition. The standard is how people use it, not the dictionary. You're arguing for keeping the word as is but fail to see that marriage itself has changed meaning from its conception:

Etymology Online

marriage
c.1300, from O.Fr. mariage (12c.), from V.L. *maritaticum, from L. maritatus, pp. of maritatre "to wed, marry, give in marriage" (see marry).
"When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition until death do them part." [G.B. Shaw]
Marriage counselling first recorded 1945. Marriage bed, fig. of marital intercourse generally, is attested from 1590.

Thus, marriage has changed meaning. Yet you're saying it shouldn't change meaning so we can keep it the same despite being able to change in the first place. If we go with what you said, we should revert the word back to this original definition and go with that. (This definition is rather sexually neutral so it would allow homosexual marriage). I have to go now and have fun proving your point.

I acknowledge the changes in the past, and I suggest that the meanings of words be fixed as they currently are. If we are to revert to the original definition, I would argue against banning same-sex marriages instead, and that'd be fine. Be since it's currently perceived as a union between man and woman, I would say no to same sex marriages for the sake of better communication.

Ah so now we see the truth. The words okay to be changed as long as it is changed to something you can agree with.
Clearly then the only reason you would be okay with it was because you felt it wouldn't lead to the collapse of society which is just plain ignorant since you can't see the future (not to mention something so small leading to something so big is astronomically unlikely.) THOUSANDS of new words and phrases are used in new ways to give new definitions all the time and yet society stands... imagine that.

I don't care if "new words and phrases are used in new ways to give new definitions" because they're new words. That doesn't change anything. That adds to the existent vocabulary.

And if you didn't get what I meant, I'm okay with whatever the current definition is, whether it supports same-sex marriages or not. As long as the words are fixed and that what we say will always be what we mean then it's fine.

[Dark Bunny Lord]

OneWithDunamis

RICA RIOT ooxx

♫♪Now if she does it like this xo
♫♪Will you do it like that
♫♪Now if she touches like this
♫♪Will you touch her right back


One last thing--
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

"I would say no to same sex marriages for the sake of better communication."

I'm willing to bet money that a woman and a woman can 'communicate' better than any woman and man could.
Not only that, their choice in life style doesn't effect yours.
Stop being so childish.

Everyone has the right to be unhappy together. <3

[Runs off to get ready for work]

♫♪♫Now if she moves like this
♫♪♫Will you move her like that
♫♪♫Come on, shake, shake
♫♪♫Shake, shake, shake it

That's like saying smoking only hurts the smoker. IF there's only one smoker, sure.

And a woman and man can communicate much better than a woman and another woman. Physically. If you know what I mean wink

No, it's not like saying smoking only hurts a smoker.
Gay people are going to be gay whether marriage is legalized or not.
The issue is about rights, currently they have domestic partnership which is "ridden off" to be the same thing as marriage when it doesn't provide nearly the same rights. The constitution and your definiation of marriage are clearly at odds of each other.
It's this close mindedness that had interracial marriage illegal, that kept women from having rights, and blacks from having their freedom.

It's really only matter of time before society wisens up and gets rid of the idiocy that is the past when this can join the "gee look how many bigots and homophobes there where back then" is somethign to be taught in the history books like every other movement that insisted society be given the rights promised to it in the constitution.

[OneWithDunamis]

The_Martyr

Why don't we look at definitions that seem to have some sort of relevancy to this topic, shall we?

Gay used to have the meaning of overly happy. Now, it means being homosexual.
Queer used to have the meaning of something strange and misunderstood. Now, it means being homosexual.

Now, those definitions morphed over a few hundred years (I don't have an exact time, but it's fairly recent in the history of the world) and nothing bad has happened, no? No. Ok. Your argument is basically invalid. Definitions change all the time because language is changing all the time.

I kinda wish I could say those words in their original context, but when I do I get frowned upon. Or if I choose to call someone a queer they'll think I'm calling them strange and get offended. It creates mass confusion, making people acting stupid.

[Dark Bunny Lord]

OneWithDunamis

I don't care if "new words and phrases are used in new ways to give new definitions" because they're new words. That doesn't change anything. That adds to the existent vocabulary.

And if you didn't get what I meant, I'm okay with whatever the current definition is, whether it supports same-sex marriages or not. As long as the words are fixed and that what we say will always be what we mean then it's fine.

A word changing meaning "changes" meaning period. If the law where to pass eventually without to much time man kind would know it meant between two people and no longer between a man and a women.
How any such confusion from the transition would lead to a collapse in society by any means what so ever is simply an outlandish unrealistic theory that if it had even the slightest bit of credibility would have happened already in some visual large extent do to the number of words that have had their definitions given a new meaning or additional meanings. (Slang would have killed the world and yet through the billions of words like "cool" and other such terms gaining new or alternate meanings it hasn't happened).

[OneWithDunamis]

Dark Bunny Lord

OneWithDunamis

RICA RIOT ooxx

♫♪Now if she does it like this xo
♫♪Will you do it like that
♫♪Now if she touches like this
♫♪Will you touch her right back


One last thing--
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

"I would say no to same sex marriages for the sake of better communication."

I'm willing to bet money that a woman and a woman can 'communicate' better than any woman and man could.
Not only that, their choice in life style doesn't effect yours.
Stop being so childish.

Everyone has the right to be unhappy together. <3

[Runs off to get ready for work]

♫♪♫Now if she moves like this
♫♪♫Will you move her like that
♫♪♫Come on, shake, shake
♫♪♫Shake, shake, shake it

That's like saying smoking only hurts the smoker. IF there's only one smoker, sure.

And a woman and man can communicate much better than a woman and another woman. Physically. If you know what I mean wink

No, it's not like saying smoking only hurts a smoker.
Gay people are going to be gay whether marriage is legalized or not.
The issue is about rights, currently they have domestic partnership which is "ridden off" to be the same thing as marriage when it doesn't provide nearly the same rights. The constitution and your definiation of marriage are clearly at odds of each other.
It's this close mindedness that had interracial marriage illegal, that kept women from having rights, and blacks from having their freedom.

It's really only matter of time before society wisens up and gets rid of the idiocy that is the past when this can join the "gee look how many bigots and homophobes there where back then" is somethign to be taught in the history books like every other movement that insisted society be given the rights promised to it in the constitution.

The issue at hand is how inflexible languages SHOULD be. I am fighting for the sacredness of language. I already said that if "marriage" had no gender implications I would be fighting against bans on same-sex marriages. All for preserving the current definitions of words. I'm not saying what words mean now are more accurate than they did before, or what they will be, but a standard must exist and be adhered to.

[OneWithDunamis]

Dark Bunny Lord

OneWithDunamis

I don't care if "new words and phrases are used in new ways to give new definitions" because they're new words. That doesn't change anything. That adds to the existent vocabulary.

And if you didn't get what I meant, I'm okay with whatever the current definition is, whether it supports same-sex marriages or not. As long as the words are fixed and that what we say will always be what we mean then it's fine.

A word changing meaning "changes" meaning period. If the law where to pass eventually without to much time man kind would know it meant between two people and no longer between a man and a women.
How any such confusion from the transition would lead to a collapse in society by any means what so ever is simply an outlandish unrealistic theory that if it had even the slightest bit of credibility would have happened already in some visual large extent do to the number of words that have had their definitions given a new meaning or additional meanings. (Slang would have killed the world and yet through the billions of words like "cool" and other such terms gaining new or alternate meanings it hasn't happened).

"Wicked" used to mean evil only, and now that it's interpreted as "cool" and "awesome", kids are running around casting spells on each other gaily. And I do mean full of mirth. See? That could've been a comprehension disaster.

[The_Martyr]

OneWithDunamis

The_Martyr

Why don't we look at definitions that seem to have some sort of relevancy to this topic, shall we?

Gay used to have the meaning of overly happy. Now, it means being homosexual.
Queer used to have the meaning of something strange and misunderstood. Now, it means being homosexual.

Now, those definitions morphed over a few hundred years (I don't have an exact time, but it's fairly recent in the history of the world) and nothing bad has happened, no? No. Ok. Your argument is basically invalid. Definitions change all the time because language is changing all the time.

I kinda wish I could say those words in their original context, but when I do I get frowned upon. Or if I choose to call someone a queer they'll think I'm calling them strange and get offended. It creates mass confusion, making people acting stupid.

That leads to not a debate on the use of language, but on human free will. People are able to take a language and manipulate the words however they want to use it in their own way. I could call someone queer and their mind, most likely (maybe it's just because of where I live) be I just called them homosexual, when I did in fact, mean strange. It's a matter of how language already is used in numerous different ways by the population. It's all about what people do themselves. Definitions are almost completely useless when in comes to human usage. It's almost always purely academic when definitions are used, in my findings..

[OneWithDunamis]

The_Martyr

OneWithDunamis

The_Martyr

Why don't we look at definitions that seem to have some sort of relevancy to this topic, shall we?

Gay used to have the meaning of overly happy. Now, it means being homosexual.
Queer used to have the meaning of something strange and misunderstood. Now, it means being homosexual.

Now, those definitions morphed over a few hundred years (I don't have an exact time, but it's fairly recent in the history of the world) and nothing bad has happened, no? No. Ok. Your argument is basically invalid. Definitions change all the time because language is changing all the time.

I kinda wish I could say those words in their original context, but when I do I get frowned upon. Or if I choose to call someone a queer they'll think I'm calling them strange and get offended. It creates mass confusion, making people acting stupid.

That leads to not a debate on the use of language, but on human free will. People are able to take a language and manipulate the words however they want to use it in their own way. I could call someone queer and their mind, most likely (maybe it's just because of where I live) be I just called them homosexual, when I did in fact, mean strange. It's a matter of how language already is used in numerous different ways by the population. It's all about what people do themselves. Definitions are almost completely useless when in comes to human usage. It's almost always purely academic when definitions are used, in my findings..

I'd say that's not true, because according to that logic, I think you're hitting on me.

[Super 9-Volt]

I think it would have been possible for them to continue work on the Tower of Babel by coming up with a new language for everyone working on it. Then again, that's just me.

I've always thought that marriage was a way for two parties to come together for property reasons. confused I'm all for same-sex marriage.

[Suzuku90]

But who decides which dictionary is correct? All that dictionaries do is include words used at a high frequency. In newer dictionaries, I have heard, they include stupid as a definition of gay, and that Webster's newest dictionary in particular includes a second definition of marriage as being between members of the same sex.

Found it.

Nainboruto: Property, children, money, and love seem to be the main reasons for marriage. There are many more benefits, but those are the big ones.

[OneWithDunamis]

Suzuku90

But who decides which dictionary is correct? All that dictionaries do is include words used at a high frequency. In newer dictionaries, I have heard, they include stupid as a definition of gay, and that Webster's newest dictionary in particular includes a second definition of marriage as being between members of the same sex.

Found it.

Nainboruto: Property, children, money, and love seem to be the main reasons for marriage. There are many more benefits, but those are the big ones.

I'm sticking with the one I have because it's within my reach.

[Suzuku90]

OneWithDunamis

Suzuku90

But who decides which dictionary is correct? All that dictionaries do is include words used at a high frequency. In newer dictionaries, I have heard, they include stupid as a definition of gay, and that Webster's newest dictionary in particular includes a second definition of marriage as being between members of the same sex.

Found it.

Nainboruto: Property, children, money, and love seem to be the main reasons for marriage. There are many more benefits, but those are the big ones.

I'm sticking with the one I have because it's within my reach.

But why does that mean all of society should stick to that definition? The dictionary you have is outdated; the company has a new definition.

[Iggy The Balrog]

What a frail argument.

Definitions of words have always changed and evolved, and are even doing so as we speak.

This is just silly.

Try harder.