and if you don’t like those dictionaries, we’ll turn to something that a little more authoritative:
I leave it to a more enterprising Doper to post the appropriate definitions from the dictionaries of the Netherlands and Belgium.
There are as many types of homosexual relationships as there are homosexual relationships. What has the roles that one partner or another to do with extending the legal protection of marriage to those couples?
They claim its because its a sin.
Then one is legitimizing sin.
I don’t know why they aren’t going after adulterers and theifs and such.
Guess they don’t have a huge all-powerful lobby!
Of course, marriage isn’t a sin, so they are left with the “unnatural” argument.
Well, I think its unnatural to wake up at 5 a.m.and go to work out but my neighbor does it and it doesn’t hurt me at all.
Actually this was not what I was getting at at all, I see you did not read the book I mentioned. It has to do with differieng underlying phycology between women and men.
You haven’t given the reason why. Who are you to change the definition.
Thanks jehovah68 for the definition, from what I see in many defintions is that any mention of SSM has the word ‘same sex’ in context of marriage, creating a phrase, which marriage is a word in it, and I would say that phrase is the actual word.
And also my dictionary does not even have the word electricity, nor gunpowder in it, but marriage is there, and that is part of the point, the word is taken a long time ago.
HAVE YOU READ ANYTHING I HAVE WROTE!!! (see the steam comming out of my ears) I am for giving such civil unions ALL rights of married.
And we don’t call that a marriage either, wait a minute, lets redefine marriage to include neighbors who wake up at 5 am and go to work.
I have, actually. And my candid opinion of it is not suitable to print in this forum. Let’s just say that I find it lacking in intellectual rigor. I certainly wouldn’t use it as a basis for legislation (actually, I wouldn’t use it to wipe my…never mind).
Remember that dictionary definitions reflect current common usage, and change all on their own regularly (and with increasing rapidity) as the common use changes.
You should look up “nice” some time.
In the unlikely event that that becomes the common usage, you would certainly eventually see it in the new dictionaries.
However, this underlying psychology is not the same for all women, nor for all men. Does this mean that individuals who don’t fit this psychological mold can’t get married?
The reason why is (to me) obvious. Gays who want to marry have a relationship that is equivalent to traditional marriage in all ways except for the sexes of the parties involved. The question you should be asking is not “Why should we change the definition of marriage?”, but “Why are the sexes of the parties involved important to the definition of marriage in the first place?”
The answer is, of course, “tradition”. So, is upholding tradition more important than giving a minority group equal rights? And I know you’re going to say that you’re all for giving them equal right with different terminology. But the problem with that is their relationships will never be treated the same by society as long as they’re stuck with a different name for it.
By that line of reasoning, “interracial marriage” isn’t marriage, but a phrase that just happens to have the word ‘marriage’ in it.
And a long time ago that word meant a union between a man and a woman of the same race as ordained by God. The current concept of marriage obviously does not correspond completely with what the word originally meant.
Since you feel no one else has understood this query, I wonder:
Are you asking if one partner is always the fcker and the other always the fckee? Frankly, that’s what I thought upon first reading your post. I’ll reserve further comment until this is clarified.
I think what he’s saying is that we shouldn’t run our society by the decree of Webster’s Dictionary. (What would that be? “Bibliocracy”?)
And who’s to say that we can’t change or add to our language if we want? I mean, Oxford added “Muggle” to the dictionary last year, and the word was invented in 1996. Or even the word “Gay”…after all, back in 1905, it just meant “happy.”
I believe Gyrate is alluding to the fact that the word nice was not always a compliment. At one time it meant ignorant, from the Latin words for not and knowing. Some words DO evolve in meaning, sometimes it’s just a lateral, other times it could be a step up, or down. Same with the word gossip. It all goes to show that as our world changes, so must the terms we use to describe our world. You can’t pull a Canute, to try and keep it from happening. As an aside, I presume rule by dictionary would be called lexicogracy.
I try to be open-minded, but this is too much…painting and poetry were never meant to marry…darnit, it’s time to make a stand. I’m voting for Roy Moore.
Actually I’m embarrassed to admit I’ve read it. It really is meretricious rubbish.
Linguistic change is never (or almost never) deliberate; it simply happens through common misuse, adaptation of a word in use to a new use and general semantic drift. A “quantum leap” has come to mean a very large and sudden leap, yet originally meant (and still does in its original context) a very, very small one. Meanings sometimes change quite a lot.
Er, yes. Also *exact, subtle, stupid, *or wanton.
To be nice, no. To be just, yes. And that’s giving you the benefit of the doubt as to its current proscriptive status. My point, as others have picked up on, is that it makes no sense to say (as some have done) that since the dictionary definition specifies a union of people of the opposite sex that it must always mean that.
> I have not read this thread since my last post (and not as I type thie
> either). I am sure you all had some very sweet and nice support for my
> position since I last posted. But something that was posted before
> helped me relize why I am opposed. It is my opinion.
>
> The post, or word that helped me realize was the word nice, which
> I am sure was to mean to be nice to homosexual couples and ‘let them
> have it’ so to speak.
>
> But as most things there are 2 sides. I want to be nice to people who
> wish to keep marriage as a union between woman and man ordained by God.
>
> Most marriage laws have contrubuted to marriage loosing much of it’s
> luster, such as no fault devorce, and Britney Spears 24 hour marriage -
> but these items just allow people to do immoral things, but OTHO it
> allows people to get the gov’t out of their way and handle things on
> their own.
>
> But the issue of SSM is by default is in many peoples books immoral,
> there is no way around it. It would be if not the 1st, would certainlly
> be the strongest slap in the face to those who hold marriage to be
> ‘bigger’ then just man(kind).
>
> So many morals are attacked daily, I think it would be nice to
> reserve the term marriage as a moral f-m union.
>
> Again my opinon, and again I still would be interested in any links as
> to the dynamics between SS couples compaired to F-M couples.
>
> Again I haven’t kept up with this thread since my lasat post, and
> composing this off line.
I’m a het female and I’m at a total loss to understand the “dynamics” between M-F married couples, at least the ones I know. I have no interest in getting married, and I’ve seen some actions that I would describe as immoral in the name of marriage.
However, it’s none of my business what the dynamics between any couple are or what religious beliefs, if any, contribute to their relationship. It’s enough to know that they have made a commitment to each other in full knowledge of the social and legal rights and responsibilities attendant to that commitment. Just because I look at the two of them together and shake my head is no reason for anyone to deny them those rights and responsibilities.
And I’m with Gyrate on the meretricious rubbish (perfect description, that).
First of all, I’m a hetero female, and I’m for same sex marriage. This is why.
To me marriage is simply a legal contract between two people and the state. It’s not sacred to me at all. You don’t abridge someone’s right to enter into a legal contract without a darn good reason. The only ones I can think of are immaturity, or mental disease. For instance, legal minors cannot enter into any legal contract, I assume because they usually don’t have the capacity to negotiate properly. (You know, they’re kids.)
So it seems to me, that denying two people (who are capable of entering a legal contract) the right to enter into that contract simply because of the sexual orientation of the two people is wrong.
To answer this one, you have it absolutly wrong, and if you don’t mind me asking Where the F— did you get this cr-- from??? I think this type of reply reflects on your views - certainly not mine. It has to go into the fundemental non-sexual differences between f and m. I don’t care to go into it as I won the point that f and m different beyond a simple plumbing difference.
Anyway I heard what you (the rest of you) said, I disagree with you. I am ready to leave it there.
You stated no one else understood what you were asking. Did you mean psychology instead of physiology? Others were addressing that issue and you were dismissive of them all.
This “plumbing” argument - it’s a new way of repeating Jerry Falwell’s, “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” Ergo, you are dealing with Christian fundamentalists. Ergo, don’t waste your time with them.
)