Defining Marriage

dabateman · 07-31-2007, 11:45 AM

"We have to "defend marriage". The homosexuals are trying to "redefine" marriage." I've heard all the talking points, but the truth is there is not a singular definition of marriage. Here are the most common definitions...

marriage - Definitions from Dictionary.com

If companies (Non-sexual entities) have the legal ability to contractually marry, why shouldn't homosexuals?

fxashun · 07-31-2007, 12:15 PM

Isn't that being a bit literal? That's called a merger as indicated.
6.a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
merge - Definitions from Dictionary.com

How about that's what we call the homosexual union?

eta...I can't help but notice how many of those definitions specifically include "man and woman"
marriage - Definitions from Dictionary.com

foundit66 · 07-31-2007, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

Isn't that a bit literal. Additionally that's called a merger.
merge - Definitions from Dictionary.com

That is a synonym for it, but that doesn't negate the fact that dabateman's description IS one of the definitions of "marriage".

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

How about that's what we call the homosexual union?

Oh. The irony...
You complain about the redefinition of marriage, but then as an alternative you suggest we redefine another word?
Must be the NIMBY philosophy at work...

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

eta...I can't help but notice how many of those definitions specifically include "man and woman"
marriage - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Nobody is refuting that "man and woman" has definitions in the word marriage.
The point is that "man and man" and "woman and woman" are ALSO combinations that are included in the dictionary definition of marriage.

If we were to debate the definition of the word "row", it wouldn't make any sense to point to the dictionary definition which states "a number of persons or things arranged in a line, esp. a straight line: a row of apple trees" in order to try and refute the fact that "to propel a vessel by the leverage of an oar or the like" is also a viable definition.

fxashun · 07-31-2007, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

That is a synonym for it, but that doesn't negate the fact that dabateman's description IS one of the definitions of "marriage".

There is also a entry about furniture. As it applies to humans, man and woman is the standard.

Oh. The irony...
You complain about the redefinition of marriage, but then as an alternative you suggest we redefine another word?
Must be the NIMBY philosophy at work...

No, I was being sarcastic.

Nobody is refuting that "man and woman" has definitions in the word marriage.
The point is that "man and man" and "woman and woman" are ALSO combinations that are included in the dictionary definition of marriage.

Funny thing in the entries that mentioned things that could include that combination, they had a qualifier.
"but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage"
no such qualifiers for the "man and wife" "man and woman" entries.

If we were to debate the definition of the word "row", it wouldn't make any sense to point to the dictionary definition which states
"a number of persons or things arranged in a line, esp. a straight line: a row of apple trees"
That's a noun.
in order to try and refute the fact that "to propel a vessel by the leverage of an oar or the like" is also a viable definition.
And that's a verb.

But the word row doesn't have an important connotation built into it.

We don't call a group of lions a herd. And a group of bison isn't called a pride.

When we refer to geese it gets even more precise, on the ground, it's a gaggle but when they take flight they are a flock. So words can have very narrow definitions in certain situations. Like "marriage" as it pertains to the recognition of the permanent heterosexual pairing. Homosexuals need not apply.

hevusa · 07-31-2007, 02:57 PM

If our government is defining marriage by religious values it is clearly unconstitutional. The only fair way forward would be for the US government to only honor civil unions for EVERYONE.

dabateman · 08-01-2007, 02:10 AM

I think the problem fxashun, is that there isn't a 'standard' definition of marriage. I'm sure that would make everyone comfortable, but there just isn't one. As far as your understanding of the word marriage and it's heterosexual only applications, good luck with that. Your animal word analogies don't work because they aren't based upon sexual orientation. The fact is that science doesn't differentiate. We don't have a gaggle of heterosexual geese and a homosexual gaggle of geese, we just have a gaggle of geese. Sexuality doesn't matter and your comparisons seem to prove that.

The point of this thread is there isn't a 'definite' definition of marriage, and to say that the correct definition of marriage pertains only to heterosexual humans is a false statement.

hkbajwa · 08-01-2007, 03:17 AM

How about this.. ANy domestic contract between two consenting adults, ratified by the US government should be called a "Civil Union".. whether between heterosexual or homosexual couples. In fact the Civil Union should also be possible between multiple partners.

In doing so the government will be fulfilling its obligations to the population by recording and monitoring the contracts between citizens ( and ensuring that the parties stick to the clauses of the agreement). The job of government is to ADMINISTER relations between citizens.. not to decide the morality or immorality of any contract between consenting adults.

In doing so the government also will not be imposing "morality" on anybody.. that has never and shall never be the prerogative of a government.

"Marriage" is jsut a bloody word.. it should be left to the COUPLE whether they wish to call their union/contract/agreement a MARRIAGE or an Intergalactic Peace Treaty..

The government is only authorised to oversee the agreement.. what that agreement is CALLED ( and its "moral" repercussions) has nothing to do with the administration.

dabateman · 08-01-2007, 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hkbajwa

How about this.. ANy domestic contract between two consenting adults, ratified by the US government should be called a "Civil Union".. whether between heterosexual or homosexual couples. In fact the Civil Union should also be possible between multiple partners.

In doing so the government will be fulfilling its obligations to the population by recording and monitoring the contracts between citizens ( and ensuring that the parties stick to the clauses of the agreement). The job of government is to ADMINISTER relations between citizens.. not to decide the morality or immorality of any contract between consenting adults.

In doing so the government also will not be imposing "morality" on anybody.. that has never and shall never be the prerogative of a government.

"Marriage" is jsut a bloody word.. it should be left to the COUPLE whether they wish to call their union/contract/agreement a MARRIAGE or an Intergalactic Peace Treaty..

The government is only authorised to oversee the agreement.. what that agreement is CALLED ( and its "moral" repercussions) has nothing to do with the administration.

I have advocated a change to the legal definition being called a civil union and marriage becoming a word used by religious institutions. The problems is that heterosexuals want to maintain the 'straight' only definition of marriage for both the legal and social definition. Interesting how marriage traditionally was a social definition not recognized by the state.

fxashun · 08-01-2007, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabateman

I have advocated a change to the legal definition being called a civil union and marriage becoming a word used by religious institutions. The problems is that heterosexuals want to maintain the 'straight' only definition of marriage for both the legal and social definition. Interesting how marriage traditionally was a social definition not recognized by the state.

"Religion" isn't the only reason that supports a ban on homosexual marriage. I don't follow any organized religion but I still think that marriage should be between a woman and man. It is a absolute standard among higher life on the planet. And as humans, we know this. There is no natural substitute for the gift of procreation that the heterosexual union signifies.

Call it religion, morals, or common sense, homosexuality goes against all of them. Allowing them to share the term "marriage" with the heterosexual standard is simply unthinkable to me. It's simply a sexual deviation. Call the homosexual union whatever you like, just make sure it's not "marriage". You can marry a man to a man, or a leg to a table. But neither result should officially be called a "marriage".