Thread: Same sex marriage does not redefine marriage

Originally Posted by Jerry

No one's talking about killing gays, so what are you talking about?

You wrote that the Average Joe does not care about equality and that the pro-family movement is winning, I concluded from that that whatever is the issue majority rules seem to apply, well, in muslim countries muslim laws apply in order to discriminate against christians, something I would think most christians (and myself even though I am not a christian) would be strongly against.

Just because the majority might think one way it is very important to have the rights and feelings of minorities in the back of our mind even if we do not belong to that minority.

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.

according to your faith there is a god, according to your faith the bible is a true representation of what happened and according to your faith no eartly autority can override him. If you feel that way, fine, feel all the way you want, but, the constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion;

the free exercise clause says (according to Wikipedia):

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another.

what you and your allies want is to make congress do what your religion wants, which could be seen as establishing it as the "go-to religion". By showing so much preference to one religion over another religion (and I would like to add no religion) by making the christian definition of marriage the only one that every one must abide by, goes against the establisment clause the first amendement.

Originally Posted by Peter King

You wrote that the Average Joe does not care about equality and that the pro-family movement is winning, I concluded from that that whatever is the issue majority rules seem to apply, well, in muslim countries muslim laws apply in order to discriminate against christians, something I would think most christians (and myself even though I am not a christian) would be strongly against.

Just because the majority might think one way it is very important to have the rights and feelings of minorities in the back of our mind even if we do not belong to that minority.

I fail to see how this proves or disproves that SSM changes the definition of marriage.

Originally Posted by katiegrrl0

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.

For example:

25-1-1. Marriage defined--Consent and solemnization required. Marriage is a personal relation, between a man and a woman, arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of parties capable of making it is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute a marriage; it must be followed by a solemnization.

South Dakota Codified Laws

The question is: if we *change* "between a man and a woman" to "between two people", does that change redefine the institution?

Originally Posted by Jerry

For example:


The question is: if we *change* "between a man and a woman" to "between two people", does that change redefine the institution?

It removes marriage as a means of control and an emotional weapon.

Originally Posted by Jerry

It changes the definition because it adds to it.



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.

If either of an opposite sex couple are incapable of producing children should they not be married because they can't produce offspring? It simply can't be defined for the sole purpose of making families with children. The basic tenets of marriage is an institution that recognizes devotion and commitment of two people to be faithful and share their lives together. If you were to change what marriage basically meant, then you would be altering it's concept to the degree that it has been "redefined". But if you're adding to the definition to include a larger scope and capacity, then you've simply reinterpreted what it could encompass.

If it's a stunt to validate the gay identity, then all heteros should be ashamed that they cannot be accepted. Why would we not want to allow peaceful, law abiding citizens to join our community in a loving manner worthy of respect?

Originally Posted by grip

If either of an opposite sex couple are incapable of producing children should they not be married because they can't produce offspring?

Not that I'm aware of.

Originally Posted by grip

It simply can't be defined for the sole purpose of making families with children. The basic tenets of marriage is an institution that recognizes devotion and commitment of two people to be faithful and share their lives together.

Please link to where you're getting this definition.

Originally Posted by grip

If you were to change what marriage basically meant, then you would be altering it's concept to the degree that it has been "redefined". But if you're adding to the definition to include a larger scope and capacity, then you've simply reinterpreted what it could encompass.

This is a very good response to what this thread is actually about.

Looking back on the legal definition I provided from SD, if we *changed* it to simply include SSM, it would read:

"Marriage is a personal relation, between two people, arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of parties capable of making it is necessary."

...to me that doesn't sound like a re-purposing of marriage.

Originally Posted by grip

Why would we not want to allow peaceful, law abiding citizens to join our community in a loving manner worthy of respect?

Questioning/examining why or why not, to do or not do anything, is not within the scope of this thread. Here we simply want to look to see if SSM will redefign marriage as a total institution.

Originally Posted by Jerry

Not that I'm aware of.



Please link to where you're getting this definition.



This is a very good response to what this thread is actually about.



Questioning/examining why or why not, to do or not do anything, is not within the scope of this thread. Here we simply want to look to see if SSM will redefign marriage as a total institution.

In the OP the poster is concerned that SSM opponents want to keep the lawful privilege of marriage designated only for their traditional concept, man and woman. That by adding same sex couples to marriage changes it too such a degree that it has been "redefined" and can no longer be considered the same institution. Is that within the scope of what this thread is about? Because that's certainly what I've been discussing.

If so, then do you oppose it at all or simply the definition? I don't see the big detractor away from societal values? Change is inevitable in any culture or civilization and as long as most of our evolving is in a productive manner, conducive to prosperity why oppose it?

Originally Posted by grip

In the OP the poster is concerned that SSM opponents want to keep the lawful privilege of marriage designated only for their traditional concept, man and woman. That by adding same sex couples to marriage changes it too such a degree that it has been "redefined" and can no longer be considered the same institution. Is that within the scope of what this thread is about? Because that's certainly what I've been discussing.

If so, then do you oppose it at all or simply the definition? I don't see the big detractor away from societal values? Change is inevitable in any culture or civilization and as long as most of our evolving is in a productive manner, conducive to prosperity why oppose it?

For the sake of this thread I am 110% behind legalizing SSM in all ways, at all levels, completely.

The root problem pro-ssm faces is something they can do little about: SSM forces religious folks to face the mirror and realize how much they've messed up the institution over the years.

On the other hand, gays also make themselves an easy target for this projection to take place.

Originally Posted by Jerry

For the sake of this thread I am 110% behind legalizing SSM in all ways, at all levels, completely.

The root problem pro-ssm faces is something they can do little about: SSM forces religious folks to face the mirror and realize how much they've messed up the institution over the years.

On the other hand, gays also make themselves an easy target for this projection to take place.

I see what you're saying, and agree the harder pro-ssm fights for the legality the more fierce their opposition will be based on fear from the religious.

Things usually work themselves out in time. Good debating you Hoss.