Does gay marriage change the definition of marriage?

Post Reply New Topic

It Extends the definition of Marriage. To some extent that certainly *does* change it[OMFG! Change!! !! ! ] but it does NOT replace the standard definition of marriage by any stretch of the imagination!

I think that your outright hatred of gay people indicates that you may be trying to cover up from your own latent gayness.

Why don't you let individual gays decide what they want to do, before making a
politically-charged blanket statement implying that most gays are absolutely solid
in their personal choices to remain gay. I'm sure many waver, especially with the
natural societal pressure in the form of the vast majority of society being straight.
Straight people experiment with bi and gay thoughts and more, so I'm sure gays
experiment with straight behaviors too.

i agree with fogman. i think there is a lot to be said for that line of argument.

He's possibly right, but Fred's problem could also just be plain ol' garden-variety hatred.

Yes, that form is wrong.

But the male parts are constructed for the female parts and vice versa. Homosexuality is not hereditary because they can have no offspring aside from the use of straight sex (which gives them no survival advantage over straight people anyway.) It is a construct of the mind rather than something your genome forces you to do and it is contrary to the use of the construction of the bodies. Homosexuality, even though it is practiced now and in the past (which means nothing), is unnatural by the implied purpose of the construction of the two sexes.

~(is=>ought)

This is not clear at all. If we assume that homosexuality is controlled by a gene that dictates only sexual preference then yes, we would expect that the mutant strategy of homosexuality would not stand a snowball's chance in hell of invading a population of heterosexual individuals. However, it is not at all clear that this is how homosexuality actually is coded for. Twin studies, for example, indicate that if the one is gay there is a much higher chance the other will be when compared to non-identical twins. Homosexuality could be a result of a combination of genetics and environment. There seem to be documented physiological correlates with homosexuality as well (see the wikipedia article on homosexuality). In other words, a simply "it's a person's choice" model is completely inadequate and flies in the face of the evidence. How homosexuality remains a more or less widespread strategy would need to be explained, rather than the seeming unlikeliness of it being used to disregard the evidence.


See above.

Gosh, it seems every time I lurk here I find that parrot face gleefully comparing homosexual relationships to beastiality.

At least I can understand just plain not accepting it on a religious basis- might not agree with it, but I can understand it- but anyone with a brain knows darn well the communication between two adult minds in a loving relationship can't be compared to that of an adult and a horse, ect.

And repeatedly bringing up the fact that you married outside of your race doesn't make you any less of a bigot.



Would the definition of marriage change from the late 19th century Webster definition quoted here? Well, yes. But the definition of marriage already has changed a great deal. Going way back to the Greeks, Plato and Sophocles have implied that while a Greek marriage was between a man and a woman, a "higher level" of love was found not in this economical and institutional arrangement, but rather in the common homosexual relationships between men.

Today, we in the western world ideally expect men and women to marry because there exists a "higher level" of love between them. We also think it's inappropriate for 40 year old men to marry 13 year old girls, and we don't think men can be married and still have a homosexual partner on the side.


I would think that, in our society and culture, the REASONS that we ideally slate as being appropriate for marriage (love, life-long commitment, ect.) would not change by including gay couples.

And- before you get a chance to ask the stupid question- no, you can't find a higher form of love with a cow or a tree or a rock.

Homosexuality exists in nature, some animals perform homosexual acts, Bonobo (a species of chimanzee) is an example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

So, homosexuality is indeed part of nature and the "unnatural" term does not really apply, and let's suppose there was no homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom, such statement would be a naturalistic fallacy.

That's not it.

Implied function by design is not "is ergo ought".

We do this all the time: figuring out how to set a watch. Programing a VCR. Peeling a banana or orange. Some things are able to be figured out based on how they are designed.

Now that is an example of "is therefore ought."

There is no such thing as a function, there is only a use.

Wrong. Our eyes function as 10 megapixel 55 Hz cameras. Ears function as microphones which can pick up a 3db change and range from 150Hz to 20,000Hz frequency of sound.

Yes there may be nuances that you don't like in the word "function" but body parts, cells, etc, do have designed functions whether one likes the idea or not.

Just like your previous post.
And would you still explain why it is unnatural after seeing biological evidence and observation from animal behaviour?

And even if what you said is truth, then I repeat, it would be a naturalistic fallacy, in such case.

I noticed you have used some fallacies yourself, as well, and your accusations to posters using a fallacy such as ad hominem attacks as well others, are in fact fallacies themselves: ad hominem argument and argumentum ad logicam.

No, they're used as that. This is where we go our separate ways as I'm a Darwinist. Body parts are used in certain ways, and there is nothing precluding an emergent use for them. To say that they have some kind of set in stone "function" is platonic nonsense.

"A practice exists in nature. Therefore, it should exist in nature." That's "Is therefore ought".