Gay Marriage

Quote: TheCesspit

But we can go back to the 1828 definition then;

MAR''RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

So, what exactly is the problem here?

Quote: Beethoven

Quote: TheCesspit

But we can go back to the 1828 definition then;

MAR''RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

If we don't want to change what words mean.

Um...you're the one who doesn't want to change the definition of "consent".

Um... yes, I am aware of the argument by absurdity you are trying to make.

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: TheCesspit

But we can go back to the 1828 definition then;

MAR''RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

So, what exactly is the problem here?

howabout "till death shall separate them"? Why aren't the defenders of "traditional marriage" trying to make divorce illegal?

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: TheCesspit

But we can go back to the 1828 definition then;

MAR''RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

So, what exactly is the problem here?

For you, probably nothing. Of course, it would also mean the end of divorce as well if we take these terms. But you want a fixed term, I offered one up. But that's it you realize. It's stuck this way. No changing it. No turning it into something else. No evolution of the language.

For example:

liberal 1. Of a free heart; free to give or bestow; not close or contracted; munificent; bountiful;

God-damn those liberals, eh?

Quote: TheCesspit

Um... yes, I am aware of the argument by absurdity you are trying to make.

Good, if liberals are so keen on changing definitions, then they shouldn't whine if the guy in Florida wants to change the definition of "consent".

Quote: TheCesspit

For you, probably nothing. Of course, it would also mean the end of divorce as well if we take these terms. But you want a fixed term, I offered one up. But that's it you realize. It's stuck this way. No changing it. No turning it into something else. No evolution of the language.

Uh, nice try but not really. Divorce existed in the 1700s. Divorce existed in the time of Christ as he speaks on it. Legal unions a/k/a "contracts" have always had a remedy by the courts to undo them. Unless said contract is undone then yes, it is for life. It is still for life unless undone.

As far as it goes, I would prefer that a divorce be harder to get. Pre-1960s when it was harder to get there was more of an effort to save the marriage.

Quote: Beethoven

Good, if liberals are so keen on changing definitions, then they shouldn't whine if the guy in Florida wants to change the definition of "consent".

Except... that's not his argument in court, is it?

"The exclusion from marriage to a machine denies myself a dignity and status of immense import,” he argues in his motion."

Hence *facepalm* - nothing about changing meaning of words at all.

Quote: AZDuffman

Uh, nice try but not really. Divorce existed in the 1700s. Divorce existed in the time of Christ as he speaks on it. Legal unions a/k/a "contracts" have always had a remedy by the courts to undo them. Unless said contract is undone then yes, it is for life. It is still for life unless undone.

But, the definition clearly says 'until death'. Not 'until divorce'. Are you redefining the meaning of marriage? Or adding caveats and extending the language. Which is what happens.

Of course, contracts can be undone. And I see no reason why a contract of marriage can not be made between two consenting adults, to the exclusion of all others. I can find dictionaries that don't use the 'man and woman' term, but they are more recent, and I'm sure I'll get told it's part of the 'liberal' conspiracy. (Liberal being another word that's been redefined in recent years, but not by liberals in this case).

Words change, and societies change. If all the anti-gay marriage hang up is the mere re-defintion of a word for more modern times, they really need to get out more and worry about many other things that are happening that are far more serious.

Quote:

As far as it goes, I would prefer that a divorce be harder to get. Pre-1960s when it was harder to get there was more of an effort to save the marriage.

Reasonable enough.

Quote: TheCesspit

Except... that's not his argument in court, is it?

"The exclusion from marriage to a machine denies myself a dignity and status of immense import,” he argues in his motion."

Hence *facepalm* - nothing about changing meaning of words at all.

Geez, you're getting just as bad as those other guys who like to shift their arguments. Guess that means I'm winning. :)

FYI, I never claimed that the Florida guy's argument was such. I simply stated that I hope he's persistent and that he throws the (ultra lame) liberal argument about "changing definitions" right back in their faces. Go back and read for yourself. Shame on you for shifting. *facepalm*

Quote: Beethoven

Geez, you're getting just as bad as those other guys who like to shift their arguments. Guess that means I'm winning. :)

My arguement was if he can get consent, then he might be okay. You then said consent should be redefined. Not my argument, yours.

Because you then said again:

"Good, if liberals are so keen on changing definitions, then they shouldn't whine if the guy in Florida wants to change the definition of "consent"

So it seemed, changing definitions was all you wanted to talk about. Topic started by you, kept on by you based on one statement by me why I thought his argument was weak.

Quote:

FYI, I never claimed that the Florida guy's argument was such. I simply stated that I hope he's persistent and that he throws the (ultra lame) liberal argument about "changing definitions" right back in their faces. Go back and read for yourself. Shame on you for shifting. *facepalm*

Except, his argument is NOTHING to do with definitions of words. You started it on that course. I shifted nothing. As I said, I am well aware of your tactic to try and make an argument by absurdity. Very good. You get one cookie. Well done. Congratulations.