NationStates Jolt Archive

I have seen many, many arguements against gay marriages being that it changes the definition of marriage. Well, here's proof to the opposite:

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

Why am I posting a topic on this? Because posting it in individual topics has proven to be too much of a hassle.

You may now try to argue with the dictionary.

I have seen many, many arguements against gay marriages being that it changes the definition of marriage. Well, here's proof to the opposite:



Why am I posting a topic on this? Because posting it in individual topics has proven to be too much of a hassle.

You may now try to argue with the dictionary.
Lol why I happen to agree with your pov one dictionary is hardly an endpoint

I think that same sex marriages should be allowed, atleast a civil ceremony and that these participants should be allowed the same privilages that other marriages are given, such as tax purposes, wills and other trusts.

Marriag is only the union between a soccer mom and a NASCAR dad. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Just kidding. Marriag is a contract between two individuals who agree to care for each other as next of kin and share wealth and debt. As such it should apply equally to straight and gay unions. The religious aspect of marriage should be handled strictly by the churches, synogogs, mosques, etc. Gov't and Church should stay out of each other's businesses.

The question we should ask the anti-gay marriage crowd, is who "defined" marriage in the first place?

If they can come up with anything not tied to Christianity, I'll be impressed.

Well, The Oxford Dictionary Defines Marriage as:

mar•riage /mærd/ noun
1 [C] the legal relationship between a husband and wife: a good / happy marriage All of her children's marriages ended in divorce. an arranged marriage (= one in which the parents choose a husband or wife for their child) She has two children by a previous marriage. This is his second marriage.—see also mixed
2 [U] the state of being married: They don't believe in marriage. My parents are celebrating 30 years of marriage.
3 [C] the ceremony in which two people become husband and wife: Their marriage took place in a local church.

This Dictionary's History is Older than Your Dictionary. :)

The question we should ask the anti-gay marriage crowd, is who "defined" marriage in the first place?

If they can come up with anything not tied to Christianity, I'll be impressed.

Remember that also Islam and Judaism are also against gay marriage, AFAIK.

Remember that also Islam and Judaism are also against gay marriage, AFAIK.

From what I've heard, not Judaism. They don't believe in imposing their religious laws on other people.

From what I've heard, not Judaism. They don't believe in imposing their religious laws on other people.

Right, but remember that Leviticus is in the Old Testament and from my understanding, the Old Testament is part of the hebrew scriptures. so that's where I got that from.

Right, but remember that Leviticus is in the Old Testament and from my understanding, the Old Testament is part of the hebrew scriptures. so that's where I got that from.

Which means in some temples you couldn't get married if you're gay, but they don't want to pass laws against it. In fact, it's because it's in the Torah that they wouldn't force it on others; those are laws for the hebrew people, not others.

yourdictionary.com defines marriage as:

mar·riage Listen: [ mrj ]
n.


a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. b. The state of being married; wedlock. c. A common-law marriage. d. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

A wedding.

A close union: "the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics" (Lloyd Rose).

Games The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.



I'm not against Gay Marriage, but I am against silly arguments. :)

To use your own fallacious argument, "You may now try to argue with the dictionary."

Check the Oxford Dictionary definition as well. :)

:fluffle:

I have seen many, many arguements against gay marriages being that it changes the definition of marriage. Well, here's proof to the opposite:



Why am I posting a topic on this? Because posting it in individual topics has proven to be too much of a hassle.

You may now try to argue with the dictionary.

You fool, Webster's is all part of the huge liberal media conspiracy!

Its just those goddamn socialist dictionaries again!

yourdictionary.com defines marriage as:

mar·riage Listen: [ mrj ]
n.


a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. b. The state of being married; wedlock. c. A common-law marriage. d. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

A wedding.

A close union: "the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics" (Lloyd Rose).

Games The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.



I'm not against Gay Marriage, but I am against silly arguments. :)

To use your own fallacious argument, "You may now try to argue with the dictionary."

Check the Oxford Dictionary definition as well. :)

:fluffle:

Um he used the dictionary to prove that gay marrage is really marrage ... and you did the same thing? (look at your example d)

unless I am mis reading something

So what are you arguing exactly (seems to be a fallacious arguement) or not one at all :)

Dictionaries are less and less end-all-discussion points as they are a reflection of societal usage of vocabulary. The point is bunk.

Dictionaries are less and less end-all-discussion points as they are a reflection of societal usage of vocabulary. The point is bunk.


...and that ladies and gentlemen, is how any word aquires meaning, including marriage.

Either way, the institution marraige existed long before the word 'marraige'. The institution marraige also existed prior to Christiandom, prior to all the biblical and prophetic writings that under-write the religions Judasism, Islam and Christianity. Marraige is much older than any of the religions referred to in this thread, it is much more universal than any religion has ever been found to be, there is no one religion that always proceeds (and so can be classified as a cause of) it.

Dictionaries are less and less end-all-discussion points as they are a reflection of societal usage of vocabulary. The point is bunk.
lol read the second post of the discussion ;)

What point is this serving exactly? Religious Fundies are not going to toss aside years of conditioning and bigotry just because of what it says in a dictionary. Why would anyone want to get married at all? I don't need the state or any religion to tell me who I live with. The stuff about legal distribition of assets, pensions etc after death sucks, admittedly. Here's a solution - make a will.

Dictionaries are less and less end-all-discussion points as they are a reflection of societal usage of vocabulary. The point is bunk.

Of course it is. It is designed to refute a point that is bunk in the first place.
To argue that gay couples can't marry because marriage is defined as being limited to a man and a woman is like arguing that mules can't get pregnant (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2399773.stm) because species is defined as being able to produce fertile offspring and horses and donkies are a different species.

The only way that you could argue that gay couples should not marry is if you can prove that it's somehow harmful to other people. You can't prove that because it isn't true, so there is no valid argument (that I've heard anyone put forward) against gay marriage. If you respond to arguments against gay marriage you are, of neccessity, arguing bunk.

Would someone please point me to the section in the Bible (Torah or New Testament) where the definition of marriage is given?

I know the Torah indicates the general model for marriage is polygamy, and that marriage in no way prevents a man from taking mistresses or concubines (Solomon comes to mind). I am aware that Paul suggested it is best to avoid marriage altogether (“Marriage is not a sin, but it is better to be unmarried’’). I also understand women who marry, but are not virgins, should be stoned to death (Deut 22:13-21), and if a woman's husband dies his brother must step in and marry her (also in Deuteronomy).

However, I can't nail down the part that talks about what God wants a "traditional" marriage to look like.

What point is this serving exactly? Religious Fundies are not going to toss aside years of conditioning and bigotry just because of what it says in a dictionary. Why would anyone want to get married at all? I don't need the state or any religion to tell me who I live with. The stuff about legal distribition of assets, pensions etc after death sucks, admittedly. Here's a solution - make a will.

Didn't one of the anti gay marriage laws enacted in the last election specifically ban legal arangments designed to imitate marriage, banning things like power-of-attorney agreements and including gay lovers in wills?

I don't remember which state it was, but I'm pretty sure one of them did.

Didn't one of the anti gay marriage laws enacted in the last election specifically ban legal arangments designed to imitate marriage, banning things like power-of-attorney agreements and including gay lovers in wills?

I don't remember which state it was, but I'm pretty sure one of them did.

Ohio, banned civil unions etc even between a man and a woman

Actually, my whole point with this is to point out how silly it is to argue over the definition of marriage. I was hoping that what I consider a silly post would have expressed that clearly. Oops.

Never under-estimate the ability of General Forumites to miss the point. Or the degree to which they can shoot wide. :p

Yes, but people will argue until they die that they are right and you are wrong, no matter how stupid the argument truly is.

In general people fear what they don't understand or don't want to accept. To justify it they often fall back on religion because it allows them to not have to think.