Does gay marriage change the definition of marriage?

Page 7 of 7 [ 112 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Previous topic | Next topic

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

21 May 2008, 5:49 pm

twoshots wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

twoshots wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

twoshots wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

But the male parts are constructed for the female parts and vice versa.

~(is=>ought)

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.

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.

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.

No, the functions aren't set in stone. They can be readily lost, but not gained back or developed in the first place. Try building a computer by shaking electronic components over a breadboard.

oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

21 May 2008, 5:52 pm

ford_prefects_kid wrote:

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- 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.

Who are YOU to decide who is or falls in LOVE?!? Can you read the emotions of an animal to know it is not consenting or in LOVE!??

_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.

greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

21 May 2008, 5:56 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

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

I am not making the argument as "it should exist in nature" as I am not basing it or using that as an explanation or an "excuse" if you will, on why gay marriage should be allowed, but to debate the thought of it being unnatural or not, homosexual marriage and relationship is to be a human right, wether animals practice it or not, because it is irrelevant.

_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?

ford_prefects_kid
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Feb 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 594
Location: Los Angeles, CA

21 May 2008, 6:14 pm

oscuria wrote:

ford_prefects_kid wrote:

Who are YOU to decide who is or falls in LOVE?!? Can you read the emotions of an animal to know it is not consenting or in LOVE!??

Anyone who's really been in a loving relationship knows how important communication and understanding are, and why you can't have one with a cow.

I love my dog and he loves me, but he doesn't know s**t about how I think or why I do things, or what childhood moments made me who I am today and why the rain makes me feel like a little girl again.

If you don't KNOW someone you can't truly LOVE them. Don't be obtuse.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

21 May 2008, 6:45 pm

Love and sex are two different things.

oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

21 May 2008, 7:07 pm

ford_prefects_kid wrote:

If you don't KNOW someone you can't truly LOVE them. Don't be obtuse.

I never knew Krisna, I never knew Moses, I never knew Jesus, I never knew Sankara, I never knew Muhammad, I never knew Rumi, I never knew the Gurus, yet I love every single one of them as they are a part of me.

_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.

ford_prefects_kid
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Feb 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 594
Location: Los Angeles, CA

21 May 2008, 9:48 pm

oscuria wrote:

ford_prefects_kid wrote:

If you don't KNOW someone you can't truly LOVE them. Don't be obtuse.

Oh, well that makes sense. The love you have for Moses Jesus and Muhammad is precisely the same kind of love as the kind I was referring to when I spoke of two people in a committed romantic relationship.

And since we've established that there is only one definition of love, I have to ask- since we all know that Jesus loves everyone, are you ok with that? Do you ever feel jealous sometimes? And how do you feel about our country not granting you the legal right to enter into the institution of marriage with all the individuals you mentioned above simultaneously?

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

21 May 2008, 10:03 pm

There isn't just one kind of love. There are many different kinds of this emotion.

oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

21 May 2008, 10:04 pm

ford_prefects_kid wrote:

First off, your attempts are not going to work. Your insults are not going to cause me to react.

I never implied there was one definition of Love (or rather the forms of love), but there is one widely accepted and acknowledge definition of marriage.

How do you know that Jesus loves everyone? and What does love have to do with marriage?

_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.

ford_prefects_kid
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Feb 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 594
Location: Los Angeles, CA

21 May 2008, 10:14 pm

oscuria wrote:

ford_prefects_kid wrote:

Oh please. Drop the higher ground act, you're the one that jumped on me with the all caps WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE ANIMALS?!? crap.

My point was that the definition of marriage has already changed, since it was once thought of as simply an institution and economic convenience, and women were not even considered equal partners. In our modern society, the current philosophy of what marriage is supposed to represent has much more to do with a higher form of mutual love, respect and commitment between two consenting adults.

These ideals could still be present between a couple of the same sex, but not between a man and his dog because a dog is not capable of that particular form of love.

The fact that I originally clarified to which kind of love I was referring, but you still responded by slating your love for various religious leaders and the kind of love that an animal can exhibit is irritating. It seems you are deliberately trying to misinterpret me, because I can't imagine that this is unclear.

oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

21 May 2008, 10:29 pm

ford_prefects_kid wrote:

1) It is not a higher ground. You insulted me, and the Prophets as being homosexual. If you consider me being insulted by such accusations as being "high-ground", so be it.

2) You are explaining marriages in the western sense. How do you know that marriage throughout the world was not considered equal partner? You do not, because your experience is only with the west (more accurately american).

3) Marriage has nothing to do with love. People claim it to be. Using this as an argument for homosexuals to get marriage is just a plea to sympathy and emotions.

_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.

ford_prefects_kid
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Feb 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 594
Location: Los Angeles, CA

21 May 2008, 10:41 pm

oscuria wrote:

1) It is not a higher ground. You insulted me, and the Prophets as being homosexual. If you consider me being insulted by such accusations as being "high-ground", so be it.

oscuria wrote:

2) You are explaining marriages in the western sense. How do you know that marriage throughout the world was not considered equal partner? You do not, because your experience is only with the west (more accurately american).

Actually I was going back to the ancient Greeks and the writings of Plato if you read my initial post, because they are generally considered to be the foundation of all Western culture. We're both living in one, and the post with a definition of marriage from Webster referred to marriage in western culture, so I see no need to personally expand the content of the debate.

oscuria wrote:

3) Marriage has nothing to do with love. People claim it to be. Using this as an argument for homosexuals to get marriage is just a plea to sympathy and emotions.

Funny, but I've been to a fair amount of weddings and I coulda sworn I heard something about.. "love, honor and obey..."

oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

21 May 2008, 10:53 pm

ford_prefects_kid wrote:

No, I was pointing out the fact that your love for them is of obviously a different kind, so trying to refute my point that you must know someone to love them (in a relationship sense) by slating your love for Jesus and friends is ridiculous. I kinda figured out on my own by now that you're not gay, believe it or not.

Actually I was going back to the ancient Greeks and the writings of Plato if you read my initial post, because they are generally considered to be the foundation of all Western culture. We're both living in one, and the post with a definition of marriage from Webster referred to marriage in western culture, so I see no need to personally expand the content of the debate.

Funny, but I've been to a fair amount of weddings and I coulda sworn I heard something about.. "love, honor and obey..."

1) Saying I should marry them is an insult to me (as it implies homosexuality). I don't know your beliefs, but I'm going to assume it is a liberal approach and thus you won't understand why.

2) You do understand that there was love for men back then. Yes, I understand this as in Islamic cultures pederasty was admired. BUT they never married between males. They understood that marriage was between a man and a woman. Whatever union they had with a man was not marriage. They would return to their wives or to marry a woman.

3) Funny how "love, honor and obey" doesn't imply that the couple have to be in love first.

_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.

ford_prefects_kid
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Feb 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 594
Location: Los Angeles, CA

21 May 2008, 11:12 pm

oscuria wrote:

1) Saying I should marry them is an insult to me (as it implies homosexuality). I don't know your beliefs, but I'm going to assume it is a liberal approach and thus you won't understand why.

It was not a literal suggestion, it was a reduction to the absurd. Sorta like when a kid says he loves power rangers, and his 6-year-old friend retorts by offering a similar solution.

oscuria wrote:

2) You do understand that there was love for men back then. Yes, I understand this as in Islamic cultures pederasty was admired. BUT they never married between males. They understood that marriage was between a man and a woman. Whatever union they had with a man was not marriage. They would return to their wives or to marry a woman.

Yes, but that was acceptable behavior within the institution of marriage at that time, based on what they defined the significance of marriage to be. This has changed in today's world. If you don't believe me, ask any conservative woman if she thinks returning to a girl to take care of your house and children, but openly loving and having sexual relations with a man is appropriate conduct within a marriage.

oscuria wrote:

3) Funny how "love, honor and obey" doesn't imply that the couple have to be in love first.

Well, expecting sparks to fly just because you both said the magic words at the ceremony is a little overly optimistic, dontcha think?

oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

21 May 2008, 11:42 pm

ford_prefects_kid wrote:

It was not a literal suggestion, it was a reduction to the absurd. Sorta like when a kid says he loves power rangers, and his 6-year-old friend retorts by offering a similar solution.

Yes, but that was acceptable behavior within the institution of marriage at that time, based on what they defined the significance of marriage to be. This has changed in today's world. If you don't believe me, ask any conservative woman if she thinks returning to a girl to take care of your house and children, but openly loving and having sexual relations with a man is appropriate conduct within a marriage.

Well, expecting sparks to fly just because you both said the magic words at the ceremony is a little overly optimistic, dontcha think?

I am aware it was not a literal suggestion, but there is still the implication. You don't or rather wont understand, it's ok.

Only five countries allow same-sex marriages throughout to be performed. It doesn't seem like the rest of the world is ready to "modernize" or change its definition.

Arranged marriages?

_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

01 Jun 2008, 5:00 pm

peebo wrote:

i disagree. there are myriad definitions of marriage, not all of which specifically refer to gender. if we are discussing legal definitions then perhaps.

More obfuscation. :roll:

Page 7 of 7 [ 112 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Jump to:

Does gay marriage change the definition of marriage? Post Reply New Topic

Does gay marriage change the definition of marriage?