[Formerly Helpful_C]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
You can easily disprove a view. If you think all swans are white and I show you one black swan then your view has been disproven.
Do you know anything about deductive and inductive reasoning?

That would be a false statement, not a view. A view is an opinion.

I wrote the basis to them.

[im so academic]

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
Yes, but that wouldn't be equality. It would be seperating heterasexuals from homosexuals, a lesser version of the black and white segregation that took place.
It's not as extreme, but it's just as wrong. Why should homosexuals have a seperate institution that's not as good, and isn't regaurded as the same by society? Why can't they get married?

That's why I don't think there should be a term called "gay marriage". It's not fair for those who are heterosexual. Rather the word "marriage" should apply to both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. So, I'm in favour of changing the definition of marriages, just as long there is no such thing as the term "gay marriage".

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by im so academic)
That's why I don't think there should be a term called "gay marriage". It's not fair for those who are heterosexual. Rather the word "marriage" should apply to both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. So, I'm in favour of changing the definition of marriages, just as long there is no such thing as the term "gay marriage".

Oh yes if course.
I think we only say Gay marriage because it's not legal yet, and it's our way of referring to the debate surrounding it. When it becomes legal it definitely should just be part of "marriage" and not have anything else added to the name, I agree.

[im so academic]

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
Oh yes if course.
I think we only say Gay marriage because it's not legal yet, and it's our way of referring to the debate surrounding it. When it becomes legal it definitely should just be part of "marriage" and not have anything else added to the name, I agree.

I guess that explains why people are saying "gay marriage". I'm all for them marrying, I just don't like the term because it still creates a divide between homosexual marriages and heterosexual marriages.

I'm hoping when it does become legal, then marriage will apply to everyone. Thank you for explaining the situation at present.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
That would be a false statement, not a view. A view is an opinion.

I wrote the basis to them.

....no that would be an opinion. If a person holds the view that all swans are white it is an opinion as they didn't necessarily make a statement but just hold the view that swans are all white.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by im so academic)
I guess that explains why people are saying "gay marriage". I'm all for them marrying, I just don't like the term because it still creates a divide between homosexual marriages and heterosexual marriages.

I'm hoping when it does become legal, then marriage will apply to everyone. Thank you for explaining the situation at present.

so you mean something like this?

[CurlyBen]

(Original post by With an Accent)
Some people insist that a 'marriage' is defined at a union between a man and a woman, and that this on its own constitutes a reason why gay marriage cannot be legalised.

Firstly, I believe this to be illogical. I'm of the opinion that grammar is about describing how people use language, not telling them how. If a majority say 'him and me are going' instead of 'he and I' or 'if I was' instead of 'if I were', who could be presumptuous enough to say that they are 'wrong'? There is no governing body for English. Language changes, and there is variation. Are new words like 'multitouch' or natural variation like regional accents mistakes to be stamped out?!

Lexical shift is the process by which the meaning of words change, and it happens all the time.

My dictionary says that marriage is 'the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognised by law, by which they become husband and wife', but this definition seems unfair to me. If you told a British person that two Californian men had got 'married', I hardly think they would cry out in horror at your grammatical mistake and say 'You mean they partnered civilly!' I have a funny feeling that most British people might just understand what you meant if you used the word 'marry' or 'marriage' or 'wedding' in this context! British broadsheets, for instance, have no lexical qualms about applying the word 'marriage' to unions in other countries.

If British people understand and use these words to refer to same-sex partners, then, in my opinion, that is what 'marriage' means. Let's forget about what centuries-old laws and unreflective dictionary entries may say.

Secondly, even if 'marriage' as a union exclusively between a man and a woman were indisputably the widely-held definition, why should this mean that we shouldn't legalise gay marriage? Marriage is not solely a religious institution, but a legal one, and not allowing same-sex couples to wed is systematic discrimination. The difference is only in name, but having a 'partner' rather than a 'husband' or 'wife' is a big difference. I don't care what the dictionary or the statute says: let's change it.

I think this post misses a fairly crucial point: whilst language has evolved over the years, the changes don't come about as the result of legislation. Civil partnerships grant gay couples the same legal rights as marriage, and there's no legislation specifically banning a civil partnership being referred to as marriage. If people want to refer to a gay couple as married, there's nothing stopping them. I've heard a lot of people arguing about gay marriage, but as far as I can tell the only significant difference would be to change "centuries-old laws and unreflective dictionary entries". If your argument is that language evolves, then fine - let it do so naturally, not through legislation. I really don't understand what the intent is behind the campaign for gay marriage is - the proposed changes don't infer any new rights or responsibilities. In fact, nothing beyond a change in a legal definition. Something of a storm in a teacup surely?

Personally, my inclination would be to use the term marriage for a religious partnership and civil partnership as the non-religious equivalent, whether hetero or homosexual.

[amyelizabeth2681]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
How does your point stand?

'You said so yourself, you don't have much of a reason to be against gay marriage.'

You still haven't quoted where I said that. I never once said those words either literally or in any other way. The quote you used - '[a]s it stands, marriage is between a man and a woman. By expanding marriage, heterosexuals are losing the sanctity of marriage. You are disgracing the act. It's sickening.' - doesn't do anything to prove your point.

I'll tell you why - because I never made any comments like that. You can lie all you like, but it's still a lie. The fact that you won't admit it shows the type of person you are - nasty, immoral and without boundaries. You will do anything to avoid admitting that you made a mistake. I feel sorry for you.

The point I was making was that you've stated the idea of two people of one gender getting married sickens you. You have yet to give a justification for such feelings and I suppose it's blatantly obvious you're grasping at straws, which proves you don't have any sort of justification for your views.

You know, I'd probably have more respect for you if you actually bothered to address my points, which I've pointed out numerous times (Or are you too 'above' that too? Ah who am I kidding, lol it's like arguing with a politician). It's ok not to have an answer, but trying to grab the supposed "moral high ground" won't make you sound any less bigoted. And that's not because you're opposed to gay marriage, not at all. It's because you lack the ability to effectively defend your point with any sort of logic or to address MY points. I'm sure there are plenty of valid points out there against gay marriage, which would make sense. You, however, haven't made any of them.

And to be honest with you, I feel more sorry for you than anything. Homosexuality has become a non-issue since it was decriminalised and more and more people today agree with gay marriage. Deep down, it's got to be hell in your head, allowing your biases to dictate your views, with no real moral justification for them, so you're forced to attempt to defend your stance with arguments which don't make sense, making irrelevant comparisons, then giving up all together because of a 'misquote'. Everyone else on the other hand, because it doesn't bother us, we can move on to debating other issues with relevant justifications, whilst you continue your futile battle. Have fun in your bubble my friend!

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by CurlyBen)
I think this post misses a fairly crucial point: whilst language has evolved over the years, the changes don't come about as the result of legislation. Civil partnerships grant gay couples the same legal rights as marriage, and there's no legislation specifically banning a civil partnership being referred to as marriage. If people want to refer to a gay couple as married, there's nothing stopping them. I've heard a lot of people arguing about gay marriage, but as far as I can tell the only significant difference would be to change "centuries-old laws and unreflective dictionary entries". If your argument is that language evolves, then fine - let it do so naturally, not through legislation. I really don't understand what the intent is behind the campaign for gay marriage is - the proposed changes don't infer any new rights or responsibilities. In fact, nothing beyond a change in a legal definition. Something of a storm in a teacup surely?

Personally, my inclination would be to use the term marriage for a religious partnership and civil partnership as the non-religious equivalent, whether hetero or homosexual.

But that's not really true. In the us marriage between interracial couples was not considered marriage. It did take the governor changing the definition to include interracial couples for it to become accepted as a real marriage. So to say that institutional definitions don't affect the 'natural' evolution of marriage isn't accurate.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Bobo1234]

I don't think anybody's really retarded enough to use the current written-out lexical definition of marriage to argue against gay marriage, they mostly mean the definition as set out in the Bible. That said, that's equally retarded as a standpoint as we've moved on from the era of strict adherence to Abrahamic Law.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by tufc)
The argument in the OP about grammar is correct, to a degree: grammar is very much an advisory source of knowledge, not an authority.
However, if we were to change the definition, it would be so fundamental a change that we would separate marriage from its history. The word 'marriage' can of course be changed to include gay couples, but if it is, it won't refer to the historic institution it currently does, and will instead refer to a completely new 'Marriage Mach II'.

This still doesn't make even the slightest sense. What makes the one man one woman doctrine so fundamental? It's not like it's always been that. Like every other aspect of marriage it is different throughout history and on different cultures. And before you say you are only talking about the uk why do you limit it to only the uk? The uk was influenced by outside cultures and has many different cultures that operate with in it.

Of course it also doesn't make sense that adding to the definition would separate it from its history. Logically that's not really possible. For example the sky is blue. This something pretty fundamental however if it all of a sudden becomes red it isn't separated from its history. It was still blue. (I'm sure there are better examples but that's all I can think of right now)


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[High VOLTAGE]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
Homosexual couples can have children though other routes. Children only need a mother and a father in terms of biology, they're not necessary when raising the child - as shown by single parents and also research into same sex parenting.
I have a friend with two mums and a sperm donor father, never had any effect on his mind growing up, in fact he's perfectly stable and training to be an engineer.

So all this talk of our broken society and single parent families generally being a disadvantage in a childs upbringing is all rubbish?

[High VOLTAGE]

(Original post by Wangers)
Pfft. All those good Christian upstanding moral people that have kids, divorce and the kids get step-parents. Oh wait, it happens all the time!

Yes exactly you just made my point. They still know that they have a mother and father and then when they have step parents they still have 2 adults of the opposite sex raising them.

[Mister Dead]

(Original post by High VOLTAGE)
So all this talk of our broken society and single parent families generally being a disadvantage in a childs upbringing is all rubbish?

That's an admirable attempt to reframe the argument

Single parent families can be a disadvantage, because there are disadvantages associated with being a lone parent. But there are also disadvantages associated with being in a relationship - for instance, being a lone parent is more advantageous than being in an abusive relationship with a parent that does not help with the child raising, and spends all of the families money. So it doesn't mean a lone parent can't bring up a child just as well, or indeed that two men or two women can't, just because you can highlight disadvantages that might be associated with it.

And 'broken britain' is just a buzz phrase made up to sell newspapers to stupid people. It literally doesn't mean anything.

[High VOLTAGE]

(Original post by Mister Dead)
That's an admirable attempt to reframe the argument

Single parent families can be a disadvantage, because there are disadvantages associated with being a lone parent. But there are also disadvantages associated with being in a relationship - for instance, being a lone parent is more advantageous than being in an abusive relationship with a parent that does not help with the child raising, and spends all of the families money. So it doesn't mean a lone parent can't bring up a child just as well, or indeed that two men or two women can't, just because you can highlight disadvantages that might be associated with it.

And 'broken britain' is just a buzz phrase made up to sell newspapers to stupid people. It literally doesn't mean anything.

Right, but for the full benefit in a child's life a father and mother are both needed yes?

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by High VOLTAGE)
Right, but for the full benefit in a child's life a father and mother are both needed yes?

Studies have shown that being raised by two same sex parents is not significantly different from being raised by heterosexual parents. The outcome of the child seems to have to do with things like stability and support etc. rather than the sex of their two (or one) parents.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[SnoochToTheBooch]

I don't see why people give a toss, I mean, it's just standing infront of a few people, making a few utterances and putting a metal hoop on someone's finger, it's all imaginary anyway.

[CurlyBen]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
But that's not really true. In the us marriage between interracial couples was not considered marriage. It did take the governor changing the definition to include interracial couples for it to become accepted as a real marriage. So to say that institutional definitions don't affect the 'natural' evolution of marriage isn't accurate.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Rubbish. Considered by whom? I'm sure the couples considered it marriage, and changing a law is unlikely to change the viewpoint of the average person - they will continue to think it either is or isn't a marriage, depending on their feelings, regardless of what the law says. In any case, the post I was referring to was talking about the natural evolution of language, not marriage specifically.

[zeropoint]

(Original post by High VOLTAGE)
Right, but for the full benefit in a child's life a father and mother are both needed yes?

Nope. cite: American Psychological Association

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by High VOLTAGE)
Right, but for the full benefit in a child's life a father and mother are both needed yes?

No, same sex parents are just as good, and in some cases better.