Does gay marriage change the definition of marriage?

Post Reply New Topic

Especially when it's legalized?

I'm not asking for a debate, just a yes or no answer.
Does the legalization of gay marriage alter the definition of marriage?

This is, I believe, the most important question regarding gay marriage today,
even more important than whether or not it should be allowed.

I say this because I think it's critically important to the institution of marriage
to determine whether marriage has an adjustable definition, or a static one.
If it's adjustable, then, in far future times, we'll no doubt find ourselves marrying things we
cannot now realistically envisage.

Last edited by Ragtime on 16 May 2008, 3:54 pm, edited 7 times in total.

No, marrige is still a relationship between two consenting adult human beings.

Um... that's a change, the way you phrase it.

If we eventually legalize animal-human marriages, couldn't those
wishing to marry animals just as easily answer my question with:
"No. Marriage is still a relationship between two consenting lifeforms"?
(Any future legalization of animal-human marriages implies that consent has been redefined.)

Last edited by Ragtime on 16 May 2008, 3:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

How are we supposed to agree with you
if you wont tell us what your position is?

What brought this on anyway?
Are you engaged to a hairy steel worker?

I always thought marriage was between a man and a woman. Anything outside that wouldn't really constitute as a true marriage.

Your argument is the same as those who opposed interracial marriages. Actually, given many of your views, I wouldn't be especially surprised if you were opposed to interracial marriage.

Now, my church does not recognize same-sex marriages. However, my church also does not issue legal marriage licenses. There really are two different types of marriage: those under the auspices of a church and also the legal document that constitutes a civic marriage. Many people get both. I see no issue with the state issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. I also support the freedom of any church to reject the validity of those marriages and/or to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for gays.

I think this comes from the thought and belief that the original definition of marriage must have been that of a heterosexual couple, wether some think the definition can expand and some think it shouldn't.

However, a question I ask is: Does marriage has been always exclusively meant for heterosexual couples? Because I am actually uncertain, considering there has been polygamic marriages in history.

No, marriage is about the love of two adults. But injecting it with homophobia, you are basically cheapening the practice, IMO.

Marriage wasn't always about love. Run along with your 20th century belief.

...No...

I'm not saying that gays aren't human, or that they are a sub-species, or that they come from
cultural backgrounds too radically different than straight people's backgrounds,
nor do I think these things, so I don't get your comparison.
Interracial marriages functioned, and still function, precisely the way non-interracial marriages did, and do.
(I would know; my wife is Hispanic.)



Hold your tongue for longer until you get to know me and my views,
and you won't make this type of incorrect snap-judgment in the future.
I love my brown wife very, very much.

Marriage is a business arrangement that has evolved to include legal benefits such as health insurance, health proxies, ownership of property, and survivorship.

This is separate from the optional sacrements an organization of worship may bestow upon it, and it is important to keep the two separate.

Human beings, gay or not, should have equal rights to these legal benefits.

Bringing animals into it is just silly, and echoes the idiocy of conservative dimwits such as Rick Santorum, the well-known Man-on-Dog sex specialist.

Historically, many things which have been silly in one era
often enough become the norm in the next.
And trends can indicate such a transition, even if it's a slow one.
If marriage has been defined as heterosexual for thousands of years,
and now it's not,
that represents an extremely notable change in the course of human history.

To be sure, there are many things going on in the world today that are silly,
but that doesn't mean they can't or don't effect us, and require responses from us.

Last edited by Ragtime on 16 May 2008, 5:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

In my opinion it doesnt change the definition of
the word, but merely cheapens the act. It seems
this is just another way that fags are trying to
imitate normal people. I guess I would feel sorry
for them if I valued their existance.

Dont get me wrong, I do my best to be tolerant
of others but I believe the only thing worse than
allowing fags to get married is be to allow them
to adopt children.

I also believe they should all be castrated and have
the word "HOMO" tattooed across their foreheads.

What about lesbians?

Nothing in Califronia could ever be significant enough
to represent even a mild transition in human history.

Lesbos are coo