Thread: Same sex marriage does not redefine marriage

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

How does same sex marriage change the meaning of what marriage originally stood for in the past?

My argument and the entire point of this thread is that same sex marriage, in absolutely no way, redefines the institution of marriage.

The reason it can't redefine marriage is because everyone has a different definition of marriage to begin with. You can't redefine something that doesn't have a set definition in the first place.

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

Genesis 2:24

God did. At the very beginning of mankind. And I do not recognize the power of any Earthly authority to override him on this matter.

And in this country, the Bible does not get the say in how marriage is defined. People and the Constitution (via the SCOTUS) get to decide what marriage is. Several states have already decided that marriage should include same sex couples. More will follow. And it is likely that eventually the SCOTUS will decide that states cannot discriminate against people entering into a legal contract based on the sexes of those two people.

Originally Posted by katiegrrl0

It does not redefine it. I posted the definitions and so no it does not.

No one is saying the dictionary word wold change. Anti-ssm is saying the purpose and function would change. That's what they mean by "definition".

Originally Posted by katiegrrl0

It may change the concept in some peoples mind but not the definition.

Changing the concept = changing the definition, altering the purpose and function of the union.

Originally Posted by Jerry

No one is saying the dictionary word wold change. Anti-ssm is saying the purpose and function would change. That's what they mean by "definition".



Changing the concept = changing the definition, altering the purpose and function of the union.

Changing the concept for someone does not change the definition. It is a union of two that love each other and is bound by that. If someone hears me say I love my wife they assume I'm male and my marriage is totally acceptable. If they see me standing next to wife and we are both obviously women it is no longer acceptable. That is not a change in definition.

Originally Posted by grip

I don't believe it changes the definition because it adds to it.

It changes the definition because it adds to it.

Originally Posted by grip

If basketball added the three point shot it doesn't change the definition of basketball, it simply changes a rule within the concept.

Right. A change doesn't necessarily mean a complete and total over haul, redefining the sport. But it is a change. Gays shouldn't shy away from the fact that they want to change marriage, they just need to clarify that they don't want to redefine marriage, that it will remain an institution promoting family and socializing children; not redefine marriage into "a strictly legal contract" with no social interactions of any kind, on any level at all what-so-ever, or make marriage into a stunt to validate the gay identity.

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

I already did. I provided a very logical argument for how same sex marriage in no way redefines the institution of marriage. Nobody has yet been able to disprove my logic.

You have yet to source both the current and the proposed new definitions of marriage to have "proved" anything.

You say it won't, but that means nothing because others say it will.

Originally Posted by katiegrrl0

Changing the concept for someone does not change the definition. It is a union of two that love each other and is bound by that. If someone hears me say I love my wife they assume I'm male and my marriage is totally acceptable. If they see me standing next to wife and we are both obviously women it is no longer acceptable. That is not a change in definition.

That's not what marriage is today, so your idea would be a redefinition.

Originally Posted by Jerry

That's not what marriage is today, so your idea would be a redefinition.

Yeah - and I like that change . . . as opposed to 'marriage is the forced and unpleasant union of one subjugated individual and an opressor' or 'marriage is the union of two people agreed on in the childhood years by the parents of said children' or even 'marriage is the change over of one paid-for individual to the ownership and governance of another'

Yes: this 'love' aspect is apparently quite modern - and appealing. . . nevermind this barter and market exchange system for consanguinuity rights.

Originally Posted by Jerry

That's not what marriage is today, so your idea would be a redefinition.

I posted definitions from a few different dictionaries. One of them being Websters. The list both heterosexual marriage and same sex marriage. So in fact it is the definition today.

Originally Posted by jambalaya

I don't think he is suggesting that thngs don't evolve just that the premise of the OP just insults one's intelligence whether you are all for same sex marriage or not. I think it is really childish to redfine the world because it doesn't fit with what you want. Marriage is being redefined. We are arguing whether that is a just thing. That is a legitimate argument. The OP just kind of says "I don't have to argue with you because the entire premise of your argument is invalid and I live on this higher plane where I can understand such things and you can't". I call a big B.S. on that.

Wrong.

Set aside the question of SSM. Set aside miscegenation laws (marrying outside your "race".) Set aside the (now historical) polygomous marriage laws Utah once had.

Your status as "married" or "not married" has been defined and redefined endlessly and likely still is almost daily. Remember now, you are ONLY married if the law says you are.

Some examples:

New York just approved no-fault divorce in 2011.

Most states have eliminated the twilight zone of "legally separated", which had its uses.

Common law marriage continues to appear and disappear around the country. Can't say why, and in every case, the "facts" that render one married via common law vary greatly.

The IRS tinkers with the marriage status endlessly, along with who's entitled to deduct for children, etc.

The health care industry, government, etc. tinker with your status as rights as "married" almost as frequently.

"Married" as it pertains to medical ethics is evolving at a VERY rapid pace.

Shall I go on?

You are never "married" as a unchanged status for any length of time as a matter of law, and the rights, duties, privileges, etc. of that status also change as a matter of law, probably hourly. Especially if you consider the actions of state, county and local governments as well as those of the feds.

So, while "married" or not is usually fairly easily ascertainable, what that might actually mean if extremely fluid under the LAW.

All the same also applies to who is "not married".