MARRIAGE EQUALITY NATIONWIDE

[Razzle]

Additionally, your reply completely ignores my point that Christians have yourself changed the definitions of marriage. Answering in regards to American jurisprudence is dodging my question, so I will ask it again: Given that you Christians have changed the definition of marriage over the centuries, what is the basis of your complaint that this ruling changes the definition of marriage, if it's not a defense of the bigotry?

I'm reminded of those who complain that gay people changed the meaning of the word 'gay' to mean homosexual ('hijacked a perfectly good word'), yet never have any problem using the word 'queer' to mean homosexual, changing its original meaning from 'peculiar'. Difference? Presumably it's fine to change the meaning of a word to homosexual if the change comes from straight people and is pejorative. But if the meaning was changed by gay people and is NOT pejorative, it's a shame about the original meaning getting lost.

This quibbling over the word 'marriage' looks like the same phenomenon. They say they don't want a word's definition changed, but their acceptance of other definition changes betrays the fact that what they ACTUALLY don't want is a word changed *in a way that destigmatises gays and bisexuals*

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm reminded of those who complain that gay people changed the meaning of the word 'gay' to mean homosexual ('hijacked a perfectly good word'), yet never have any problem using the word 'queer' to mean homosexual, changing its original meaning from 'peculiar'. Difference? Presumably it's fine to change the meaning of a word to homosexual if the change comes from straight people and is pejorative. But if the meaning was changed by gay people and is NOT pejorative, it's a shame about the original meaning getting lost.

This quibbling over the word 'marriage' looks like the same phenomenon. They say they don't want a word's definition changed, but their acceptance of other definition changes betrays the fact that what they ACTUALLY don't want is a word changed *in a way that destigmatises gays and bisexuals*

A big pet peeve of mine throughout this debate has been the idea that the meaning of the word "marriage" might be changed.

Holy shit, you mean a word's meaning might evolve? Are you kidding me? You mean that language is not a static relationship of concepts hammered into stone to pass down through the eons where one people can speak to another without translation? What about Middle English? What about entirely new languages which grow out of the separation of tribes or other cultural groupings?

The meanings of most words, especially nouns and verbs, change over time. By wishing to cling to a specific example, modern-day bigots are not only fighting an egalitarian morality, they are also fighting raw facts.

[robvalue]

Marriage: A legal contract between two adults able to give consent. Both parties can be any race individually but both parties must be of the same race. Both parties can be any gender individually but both parties must not be of the same gender.

It's streamlining the definition to remove pointless discrimination.

Sorry to pick on you again Lek, but...

You say same sex relationships are immoral. So you are suggesting that homosexuals choose between:

(1) Pretend to be straight, lie to their potential opposite sex partners and have a straight relationship

(2) Tell potential opposite sex partners they are gay, but want to seek a relationship with them anyway

(3) Have no relationship

[Razzle]

A big pet peeve of mine throughout this debate has been the idea that the meaning of the word "marriage" might be changed.

Holy shit, you mean a word's meaning might evolve? Are you kidding me? You mean that language is not a static  relationship of concepts hammered into stone to pass down through the eons where one people can speak to another without translation? What about Middle English? What about entirely new languages which grow out of the separation of tribes or other cultural groupings?

The meanings of most words, especially nouns and verbs, change over time. By wishing to cling to a specific example, modern-day bigots are not only fighting an egalitarian morality, they are also fighting raw facts.

I know right? A good example is the word "atheist". It was first used to refer to Christians in the Roman empire, because Christians denied the existence of the vast majority of gods believed in at the time. As every culture accepted the existence of every other culture's gods (including the Jews, back then), going around telling people that any god wasn't real, was so radical that it needed its own label, and in that context, calling Christians 'atheists' made sense. Given how selective their opposition to word redefinition is, I would bet money that almost no modern Christians would demand we revert to the original meaning of that word, once informed of it.

[pocaracas]

Well, someone had to bring forth some history.
At some point in European history, the church was the sole body responsible for administering marriages, seeing as they were practically the only keeping records of these practices.
Eventually, states began keeping their own records and thus was born the civil marriage. The same word was applied, probably, because people are lazy and couldn't come up with another word, or didn't want to appear divisive, or were assault desiring to replace the religious version. Nowadays, all religious marriages are coupled with the civil marriage, so that the couple can reap all the tax benefits that come with their union.

However, there are some people who only get a civil marriage. Their union has nothing to do with anyone's belief system. They simply desire to spend their lives together and reap the tax benefits that come from such declaration.

Religious marriages are dictated by the religions and those have been adamant in their position of what their version of marriage entails: two individuals of different gender.

Gay marriages are civil marriages, not religious ones. The definition of civil marriage is allowed to evolve and become as inclusive possible.

[Razzle]

Well, someone had to bring forth some history.
At some point in European history, the church was the sole body responsible for administering marriages, seeing as they were practically the only keeping records of these practices.
Eventually, states began keeping their own records and thus was born the civil marriage. The same word was applied, probably, because people are lazy and couldn't come up with another word, or didn't want to appear divisive, or were assault desiring to replace the religious version.  Nowadays, all religious marriages are coupled with the civil marriage, so that the couple can reap all the tax benefits that come with their union.

However, there are some people who only get a civil marriage. Their union has nothing to do with anyone's belief system. They simply desire to spend their lives together and reap the tax benefits that come from such declaration.

Religious marriages are dictated by the religions and those have been adamant in their position of what their version of marriage entails: two individuals of different gender.

Gay marriages are civil marriages, not religious ones. The definition of civil marriage is allowed to evolve and become as inclusive possible.

One correction: some religions do want to marry same-sex couples and call it marriage. The Unitarian Universalists have been arguing for their right to do so for decades, and several pro-gay Christian denominations (I don't count the UUs as a Christian denomination; I've been attending their services as an atheist lately and as far as I can tell, most of the theist members would agree that it's an off-shoot religion) have been more recently as well. 

The Christians against it want everyone to think that their religious liberty is threatened by same-sex marriage legalisation, when in fact they have the same right to refuse to marry any couple for any reason that they always had. It's the religious liberty of pro-gay marriage churches that is denied all over the world until rulings like this are made, so religious freedom is being expanded, not reduced.

[Razzle]

Sorry to pick on you again Lek, but...

You say same sex relationships are immoral. So you are suggesting that homosexuals choose between:

(1) Pretend to be straight, lie to their potential opposite sex partners and have a straight relationship

(2) Tell potential opposite sex partners they are gay, but want to seek a relationship with them anyway

(3) Have no relationship

You forgot the option most commonly suggested by Christians: Stop being gay.  

A few even acknowledge that might be difficult, and provide helpful courses.

[robvalue]

Lol well... I hope Lek has more sense than to say that

[Homeless Nutter]

I'm reminded of those who complain that gay people changed the meaning of the word 'gay' to mean homosexual ('hijacked a perfectly good word'), yet never have any problem using the word 'queer' to mean homosexual, changing its original meaning from 'peculiar'. [...]

And I don't even know, what's a socially acceptable term for a bundle of sticks, these days...

[Razzle]

I'm reminded of those who complain that gay people changed the meaning of the word 'gay' to mean homosexual ('hijacked a perfectly good word'), yet never have any problem using the word 'queer' to mean homosexual, changing its original meaning from 'peculiar'. [...]

And I don't even know, what's a socially acceptable term for a bundle of sticks, these days...  

Or indeed for minced up meat off-cuts and offal. 



Saucy faggots were my favourite faggots, before those damned Christians hijacked the word.