Author | Thread |
|
02/17/2007 12:50:02 AM · #701 |
Originally posted by glad2badad: Originally posted by TCGuru: ... YES AND YES!! Why do you care? How is it going to affect you DIRECTLY?? |
Unfortunately, that is an attitude applied to way too many things today in our world. "If it doesn't impact me directly, why worry about it?" I'm talking about things like violence in video games, drug use, etc... so it may not be applicable to this scenario. The general attitude/theme of "it doesn't impact me" or "don't get involved", plays a big part IMO of many of society's problems today. |
I disagree on this point... I feel that the problems society has today is the general attitude that "MY* rights are more important than the rights of others"
|
|
|
02/17/2007 12:53:46 AM · #702 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
How, then, can a relationship between two people of the same sex fit the definition of marriage? Are you suggesting that we change the definition of marriage? If so, that's fine, but please accept that you are essentially asking that the very definition of marriage be changed. |
Other than dead languages (such as Latin) the meaning of words change ALL THE TIME. Active languages evolve. An example... prior to the 1980's had you ever used the words personal computer? Prior to the 1990's had PC ever meant politically correct and personal computer?
|
|
|
02/17/2007 12:53:48 AM · #703 |
I would think that the definition of marriage - respect, support, honor, love, trust, etc - could be changed enough to accomodate "two consenting adults", couldn't it? I mean the "definition of marriage" goes well beyond the words in a dictionary.
I'm still waiting for response to my earlier inquiry about marriage between a man and a woman when there is NO possibility of procreation. |
|
|
02/17/2007 12:53:54 AM · #704 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac: Again, I don't personally have a problem with gay marriage, but I am a little troubled by the flouting of the definition of marriage. The Cambridge Dictionary defines marriage as:
"a legally accepted relationship between a woman and a man in which they live as husband and wife, or the official ceremony which results in this"
How, then, can a relationship between two people of the same sex fit the definition of marriage? Are you suggesting that we change the definition of marriage? If so, that's fine, but please accept that you are essentially asking that the very definition of marriage be changed. |
Nope. Didn't say that :) Asked everyone to just look the other way and leave people alone when it doesn't affect them. Who cares what the dictionary says? I mean really, did anyone here write it? Just teach tolerance and move along. :) Be happy and don't worry about how Bob and John's union is defined. It doesn't really really matter. |
|
|
02/17/2007 12:55:11 AM · #705 |
Originally posted by glad2badad: Originally posted by TCGuru: ... YES AND YES!! Why do you care? How is it going to affect you DIRECTLY?? |
Unfortunately, that is an attitude applied to way too many things today in our world. "If it doesn't impact me directly, why worry about it?" I'm talking about things like violence in video games, drug use, etc... so it may not be applicable to this scenario. The general attitude/theme of "it doesn't impact me" or "don't get involved", plays a big part IMO of many of society's problems today. |
Nope. Those things affect you directly. Many things do. But not this. No one is being truly hurt :)
Message edited by author 2007-02-17 00:55:46. |
|
|
02/17/2007 12:56:53 AM · #706 |
For anyone that wants to argue that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman... have you ever looked at divorce rates among heterosexual couples?
Hell, give the gays a try, they might show us something.
|
|
|
02/17/2007 12:58:43 AM · #707 |
Originally posted by Melethia: I would think that the definition of marriage - respect, support, honor, love, trust, etc - could be changed enough to accomodate "two consenting adults", couldn't it? I mean the "definition of marriage" goes well beyond the words in a dictionary.
I'm still waiting for response to my earlier inquiry about marriage between a man and a woman when there is NO possibility of procreation. |
I read that and I have to say, that is total malarky... I agree with you, procreation should NOT be a basis for legal vs (goodness I hate this word) illegal marriage. |
|
|
02/17/2007 12:58:49 AM · #708 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac: Again, I don't personally have a problem with gay marriage, but I am a little troubled by the flouting of the definition of marriage. The Cambridge Dictionary defines marriage as:
"a legally accepted relationship between a woman and a man in which they live as husband and wife, or the official ceremony which results in this"
How, then, can a relationship between two people of the same sex fit the definition of marriage? Are you suggesting that we change the definition of marriage? If so, that's fine, but please accept that you are essentially asking that the very definition of marriage be changed. |
...and Merriam Webster provides the following definition...
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 b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
Would you suggest we exclude the latter definition solely due to the fact that it doesn't meet with some peoples expectations... I think not.
Terminology and definitions change with time... as is this one.
Ray
|
|
|
02/17/2007 01:05:09 AM · #709 |
Originally posted by TCGuru: Nope. Didn't say that :) Asked everyone to just look the other way and leave people alone when it doesn't affect them. Who cares what the dictionary says? I mean really, did anyone here write it? Just teach tolerance and move along. :) Be happy and don't worry about how Bob and John's union is defined. It doesn't really really matter. |
If, as you say, the definition of Bob and John's marriage doesn't really matter, then why do you insist on defining it as "marriage"?
|
|
|
02/17/2007 01:07:24 AM · #710 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac: Originally posted by TCGuru: Nope. Didn't say that :) Asked everyone to just look the other way and leave people alone when it doesn't affect them. Who cares what the dictionary says? I mean really, did anyone here write it? Just teach tolerance and move along. :) Be happy and don't worry about how Bob and John's union is defined. It doesn't really really matter. |
If, as you say, the definition of Bob and John's marriage doesn't really matter, then why do you insist on defining it as "marriage"? |
I don't think I ever typed that word. :) |
|
|
02/17/2007 01:07:27 AM · #711 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac: Originally posted by TCGuru: Nope. Didn't say that :) Asked everyone to just look the other way and leave people alone when it doesn't affect them. Who cares what the dictionary says? I mean really, did anyone here write it? Just teach tolerance and move along. :) Be happy and don't worry about how Bob and John's union is defined. It doesn't really really matter. |
If, as you say, the definition of Bob and John's marriage doesn't really matter, then why do you insist on defining it as "marriage"? |
Because states won't recognize Civil Unions as being equal to marraige. Now, if Civil Unions were for both gays and straights and marriage was kept in the church... I would have no issues.
|
|
|
02/17/2007 01:10:09 AM · #712 |
Originally posted by RayEthier: ...and Merriam Webster provides the following definition...
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 b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage |
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that this definition has been changed in the last several years from the traditional definition. Definitons of words change all the time. The English language is, after all, a dynamic, as opposed to a static, language. But just accept that you are asking for the very definition of marriage to change from what it has been defined as for thousands of years. |
|
|
02/17/2007 01:11:38 AM · #713 |
Originally posted by TCGuru: Originally posted by Keith Maniac: Originally posted by TCGuru: Nope. Didn't say that :) Asked everyone to just look the other way and leave people alone when it doesn't affect them. Who cares what the dictionary says? I mean really, did anyone here write it? Just teach tolerance and move along. :) Be happy and don't worry about how Bob and John's union is defined. It doesn't really really matter. |
If, as you say, the definition of Bob and John's marriage doesn't really matter, then why do you insist on defining it as "marriage"? |
I don't think I ever typed that word. :) |
OK, my bad. I apologize. Then you don't want to call Bob and John's union a "marriage"?
|
|
|
02/17/2007 01:12:44 AM · #714 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Because states won't recognize Civil Unions as being equal to marraige. Now, if Civil Unions were for both gays and straights and marriage was kept in the church... I would have no issues. |
Uh oh, I was not United in a church!! Am I an illegal?? yipers!! ;) |
|
|
02/17/2007 01:13:18 AM · #715 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever: Originally posted by Keith Maniac: Originally posted by TCGuru: Nope. Didn't say that :) Asked everyone to just look the other way and leave people alone when it doesn't affect them. Who cares what the dictionary says? I mean really, did anyone here write it? Just teach tolerance and move along. :) Be happy and don't worry about how Bob and John's union is defined. It doesn't really really matter. |
If, as you say, the definition of Bob and John's marriage doesn't really matter, then why do you insist on defining it as "marriage"? |
Because states won't recognize Civil Unions as being equal to marraige. Now, if Civil Unions were for both gays and straights and marriage was kept in the church... I would have no issues. |
I totally agree. |
|
|
02/17/2007 01:14:19 AM · #716 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac: But just accept that you are asking for the very definition of marriage to change from what it has been defined as for thousands of years. |
Has it?... I seem to recall that polygamy was quite popular in Biblical times. I argue that the "traditional" marriage has only been around for hundereds (not thousands ) of years.
|
|
|
02/17/2007 01:14:59 AM · #717 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac: Originally posted by TCGuru:
I don't think I ever typed that word. :) |
OK, my bad. I apologize. Then you don't want to call Bob and John's union a "marriage"? |
I really don't think it matters. You could call it a togetherness or a union or heck, coin a new term for it: GARRIAGE! Does it matter what term is used to define it? |
|
|
02/17/2007 01:16:36 AM · #718 |
Originally posted by TCGuru: Originally posted by Keith Maniac: Originally posted by TCGuru:
I don't think I ever typed that word. :) |
OK, my bad. I apologize. Then you don't want to call Bob and John's union a "marriage"? |
I really don't think it matters. You could call it a togetherness or a union or heck, coin a new term for it: GARRIAGE! Does it matter what term is used to define it? |
No, I suppose not. |
|
|
02/17/2007 01:17:38 AM · #719 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever: Originally posted by Keith Maniac: But just accept that you are asking for the very definition of marriage to change from what it has been defined as for thousands of years. |
Has it?... I seem to recall that polygamy was quite popular in Biblical times. I argue that the "traditional" marriage has only been around for hundereds (not thousands ) of years. |
Did polygamy include same-sex unions? |
|
|
02/17/2007 01:17:58 AM · #720 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac: ... why do you insist on defining it as "marriage"? |
... because that is what it is...perhaps not in the traditional sense, but a marriage nonetheless.
It pains me to see the level of intolerance exhibited on this matter. Why do we see such resistance to accommodating people in love wish to unite in matrimony... particularly when we consider that it does not impinge on any or our own rights.
Ray
|
|
|
02/17/2007 01:20:02 AM · #721 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
It pains me to see the level of intolerance exhibited on this matter. Why do we see such resistance to accommodating people in love wish to unite in matrimony... particularly when we consider that it does not impinge on any of our own rights.
Ray |
That's what I was saying. |
|
|
02/17/2007 01:20:30 AM · #722 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac: Originally posted by fotomann_forever: Originally posted by Keith Maniac: But just accept that you are asking for the very definition of marriage to change from what it has been defined as for thousands of years. |
Has it?... I seem to recall that polygamy was quite popular in Biblical times. I argue that the "traditional" marriage has only been around for hundereds (not thousands ) of years. |
Did polygamy include same-sex unions? |
No, but my point is that marriage was not and is not universally accepted as the union of one man and one woman. The dictionary meaning in this case is quite biased.
|
|
|
02/17/2007 01:21:24 AM · #723 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
It pains me to see the level of intolerance exhibited on this matter. Why do we see such resistance to accommodating people in love wish to unite in matrimony... particularly when we consider that it does not impinge on any or our own rights. |
I think its pretty clear by now. Religion.
|
|
|
02/17/2007 01:25:20 AM · #724 |
Originally posted by RayEthier: Originally posted by Keith Maniac: ... why do you insist on defining it as "marriage"? |
... because that is what it is...perhaps not in the traditional sense, but a marriage nonetheless.
It pains me to see the level of intolerance exhibited on this matter. Why do we see such resistance to accommodating people in love wish to unite in matrimony... particularly when we consider that it does not impinge on any or our own rights.
Ray |
I'm not intolerant. I have gay friends and I wish them well in their relationships. I have no problem with, as you say, "...accommodating people in love...".
But... why does it have to be called "marriage"? Why can't it be called "civil union"?
|
|
|
02/17/2007 01:26:45 AM · #725 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac: Originally posted by RayEthier: Originally posted by Keith Maniac: ... why do you insist on defining it as "marriage"? |
... because that is what it is...perhaps not in the traditional sense, but a marriage nonetheless.
It pains me to see the level of intolerance exhibited on this matter. Why do we see such resistance to accommodating people in love wish to unite in matrimony... particularly when we consider that it does not impinge on any or our own rights.
Ray |
I'm not intolerant. I have gay friends and I wish them well in their relationships. I have no problem with, as you say, "...accommodating people in love...".
But... why does it have to be called "marriage"? Why can't it be called "civil union"? |
But, why does it matter? I mean really and truly? Why? |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/18/2025 04:18:27 PM EDT.