Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You are still failing to explain why it is acceptable to redefine marriage to either allow or disallow polygamy, to introduce or change age restrictions, to abolish forced marriage, to allow interracial marraige, these are all changes to the definition of marriage, and therefore you should be opposed to those too, instead you have bent over to people who want to marry those from other races; you have bent over to those who want to end polygamy; you have bent over to those who wish to enforce age restrictions on marriage; you have bent over to those who want to end forced marriage.

    You don't want marriage redefining compared to how it was millennia ago, then stop just being a homophobe, be a racist too, support child sex too, support polygamy too. Oh, I forgot, you oppose it not because you care about the definition of marriage, you oppose it because you hate homosexuals.

    And it really does not matter one bit whether you support gay marriage or not, there is this thing called the law, if you don't want to have to acknowledge gay marriage, there are plenty of backwards countries for you to emigrate to.
    **** the law. Marriage is and will always be between a man and a woman. None of your arguments on interracial marriage or polygamy or age restrictions actually change this definition. The definition remains unchanged for all., these did not change the definition of marriage.

    Your attempt of using examples that are of course as to enforce this change is ridiculous. Marriage is between a man and a woman period. No one gets to change the definition. Not homosexuals nor those who believe in bestiality.

    This doesn't make me a homophobe, I would tolerate gays and they should have rights but they do not get to change the definition of marriage.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Rather than call me an imbecile why don't you do some research

    This'll get you started.
    https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourc...0and%20bacchus

    Jammy Duel is absolutely right in what he says, if you want the original meaning of marriage preserved then why don't you believe in it being a mere trade agreement anymore?
    The relationship isn't defined as a marriage but a friendship. Also even if their relationship was romantic it wasn't defined as a marriage. Your point makes zero sense and you are still an imbecile and an insult to your ancestors.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    The relationship isn't defined as a marriage but a friendship. Also even if their relationship was romantic it wasn't defined as a marriage. Your point makes zero sense and you are still an imbecile and an insult to your ancestors.
    You say that but there is serious evidence that they were indeed married. A very famous Historian who focussed on homosexuality and Christianity and after poring over legal and church documents from this era, he discovered something incredible. There were dozens of records of church ceremonies where two men were joined in unions that used the same rituals as heterosexual marriages.

    A lot of these homosexual unions happened way before interracial marriage existed or age restrictions on marriage so for you to "go back" to what you deem a proper state of marriage you'd sort-of have to ban interracial marriage as well as the age restrictions.

    My point makes perfect sense, and I'm really beginning to see your ignorance regarding the matter. You want to return to a homophobic state of marriage rather than a traditional one, however you know that being a homophobe will also make you a bad person so you try and hide it by saying that you want traditional marriage back.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    You say that but there is serious evidence that they were indeed married. A very famous Historian who focussed on homosexuality and Christianity and after poring over legal and church documents from this era, he discovered something incredible. There were dozens of records of church ceremonies where two men were joined in unions that used the same rituals as heterosexual marriages.

    A lot of these homosexual unions happened way before interracial marriage existed or age restrictions on marriage so for you to "go back" to what you deem a proper state of marriage you'd sort-of have to ban interracial marriage as well as the age restrictions.

    My point makes perfect sense, and I'm really beginning to see your ignorance regarding the matter. You want to return to a homophobic state of marriage rather than a traditional one, however you know that being a homophobe will also make you a bad person so you try and hide it by saying that you want traditional marriage back.
    I don't recognize such record or what a historian believes was a marriage. Their relationship was not recognized as a marriage and should not be defined as a marriage.

    Stop using interracial or age restricted marriage to hide behind. Both do not change the definition of marriage, the definition of marriage remains the same in both cases. It still remains between a man and a woman.

    Your an imbecile and gay propaganda seems to have gotten the best of your logic. Labelling me a "homophobe" is exactly what the gays want, they want to cause this friction between me and you even though we are share similar values. I want everyone to have rights but no one gets to change the definition of marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. It has always been this way and should remain unchanged. Stop trying to enforce your beliefs on me or anyone else. That goes for anyone be it the gays or those who believe in bestiality.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    love how ali's calling people imbeciles when he's making the ridiculous proposition that tradition has some sort of intrinsic value.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    **** the law. Marriage is and will always be between a man and a woman. None of your arguments on interracial marriage or polygamy or age restrictions actually change this definition. The definition remains unchanged for all., these did not change the definition of marriage.

    Your attempt of using examples that are of course as to enforce this change is ridiculous. Marriage is between a man and a woman period. No one gets to change the definition. Not homosexuals nor those who believe in bestiality.

    This doesn't make me a homophobe, I would tolerate gays and they should have rights but they do not get to change the definition of marriage.
    Wait, so changing the definition from being somebody of the same race to any race doesn't change the definition? Changing it from any age to only certain ages isn't a change in definition? Changing from a man and any number of women to one man and one woman isn't changing the definition? Do you know the definition of the words "definition" and "change"? Let me help you

    Definition: a statement of the EXACT meaning of a word
    Change: become different

    So a haing the exact meaning of a word become different is defined to be a change in definition.

    And if we're going to be pedantic about going thousands of years back in time, your definition actually allows lesbian marriages.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    I don't recognize this so called "gay" marriage. A marriage is between a man and woman. I don't care what the law says. No one gets to change the definition!!
    Actually yes, we do, because this is a democracy and your opinion isn't more important than the large majority of people who support equal marriage.
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Marriage isn't simply defined by the law, it's an ancient institution that predates recorded history and originated thousands of years ago. No one, be it the gays or the people who believe in bestiality gets to change the definition.
    Since it's a legal institution, yes, it is. For better or worse the state has for a long time now promoted marriage, given it special legal privileges and made it part of the legal system. That means the state gets to define it, as it has done by changing the definition multiple times before. You don't have to recognise it, and religious institutions don't have to marry same-sex couples, but that doesn't change the facts.
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    **** the law. Marriage is and will always be between a man and a woman. None of your arguments on interracial marriage or polygamy or age restrictions actually change this definition. The definition remains unchanged for all., these did not change the definition of marriage.

    Your attempt of using examples that are of course as to enforce this change is ridiculous. Marriage is between a man and a woman period. No one gets to change the definition. Not homosexuals nor those who believe in bestiality.

    This doesn't make me a homophobe, I would tolerate gays and they should have rights but they do not get to change the definition of marriage.
    If we all got to say "**** the law" whenever we didn't like it, we'd have anarchy. As a Tory I'm guessing that isn't a nice proposition for you. And by the way, gay people would be able to say the same thing and marry whether you liked it or not. And poligamists. And those who have a thing for sticking their private parts in decapitated pigs.

    And yes, if you believe that some people should have less rights because of their sexuality, you're homophobic. Exactly the same as the fact that if you believed blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry, you'd be racist. It's very simple.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Actually yes, we do, because this is a democracy and your opinion isn't more important than the large majority of people who support equal marriage.

    Since it's a legal institution, yes, it is. For better or worse the state has for a long time now promoted marriage, given it special legal privileges and made it part of the legal system. That means the state gets to define it, as it has done by changing the definition multiple times before. You don't have to recognise it, and religious institutions don't have to marry same-sex couples, but that doesn't change the facts.

    If we all got to say "**** the law" whenever we didn't like it, we'd have anarchy. As a Tory I'm guessing that isn't a nice proposition for you. And by the way, gay people would be able to say the same thing and marry whether you liked it or not. And poligamists. And those who have a thing for sticking their private parts in decapitated pigs.

    And yes, if you believe that some people should have less rights because of their sexuality, you're homophobic. Exactly the same as the fact that if you believed blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry, you'd be racist. It's very simple.
    As a tory? Unless he's changed party in the last few hours he's a kipper

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Newest UKIP MP living up the the stereotype I see.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Stop using interracial or age restricted marriage to hide behind. Both do not change the definition of marriage, the definition of marriage remains the same in both cases. It still remains between a man and a woman.
    The definition of a word is what the majority of speakers of that language use it to mean. In this case it has developed to include same-sex unions under the umbrella of marriage.

    In the same way, the word "feminism" has developed misandristic connotations because that's what speakers use it to mean.

    Whether or not you personally like these developments is unimportant, because it's not your personal language, it's the language of a community of speakers.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Wait, so changing the definition from being somebody of the same race to any race doesn't change the definition? Changing it from any age to only certain ages isn't a change in definition? Changing from a man and any number of women to one man and one woman isn't changing the definition? Do you know the definition of the words "definition" and "change"? Let me help you

    Definition: a statement of the EXACT meaning of a word
    Change: become different

    So a haing the exact meaning of a word become different is defined to be a change in definition.

    And if we're going to be pedantic about going thousands of years back in time, your definition actually allows lesbian marriages.
    The dumbest logic ever. First race doesn't change the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman neither does age.The definition actually applies to both, you can choose to interpret this way you want but it is still between men and women.

    Also polygamy can also count as a marriage. Especially in the vast majority of cases were the one man is married to each woman. I don't see how this changes the definition of marriage but simply can be defined as a plural marriages.

    Finally, your pathetic defense of the gay agenda and gay interests demonstrate how influenced you've become of the media. If you are heterosexual then we don't have anything to argue about, this discussion makes very little sense. This is exactly what most gay people would want to achieve friction and division among homosexuals on this topic.

    The definition of marriage changes for no one and hasn't changed throughout history no matter what you make of irrelevant examples. Also, since I'm willing to be amused please state how my definition of Marriage allows "lesbianism"? This should be good.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Actually yes, we do, because this is a democracy and your opinion isn't more important than the large majority of people who support equal marriage.

    Since it's a legal institution, yes, it is. For better or worse the state has for a long time now promoted marriage, given it special legal privileges and made it part of the legal system. That means the state gets to define it, as it has done by changing the definition multiple times before. You don't have to recognise it, and religious institutions don't have to marry same-sex couples, but that doesn't change the facts.

    If we all got to say "**** the law" whenever we didn't like it, we'd have anarchy. As a Tory I'm guessing that isn't a nice proposition for you. And by the way, gay people would be able to say the same thing and marry whether you liked it or not. And poligamists. And those who have a thing for sticking their private parts in decapitated pigs.

    And yes, if you believe that some people should have less rights because of their sexuality, you're homophobic. Exactly the same as the fact that if you believed blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry, you'd be racist. It's very simple.

    We are a democracy indeed yet there was no vote on gay marriage in England? The majority is heterosexual, not gay. But thanks to the media and hollywood we have come to think of homosexuality as the new normal. First people were against it, then they were indifferent then finally in support of it. The reality is you can't escape homosexuality it's everywhere, people are so frequently exposed to this that they stop reacting to it, kind of like how kids stop reacting to violence on tv or video games. The gay agenda has started to divide the heterosexual community and cause arguments and friction. At the end of the day they end up benefiting when we argue. If anything you should be supporting me and prevent the gay community from hijacking the word marriage for their own benefit. This isn't an issue about rights this is an issue about the use of the word marriage.


    The legality of it isn't what concerns me what concerns me is enforcing this false definition of marriage or the attempt of changing the definition of marriage. I don't care what they call their relationships but it isn't a marriage. I'm in no way against people having rights but no one gets to change the definition of marriage. Be it the gays or the people who believe in bestiality they don't get to change the definition.

    You final comment is not only insulting but it's also stupid. Interracial marriage is still considered a marriage between a man and a woman, this doesn't change or violate the definition of marriage. Can you idiots stop using this false example again and again because your logic here is flawed.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    As a tory? Unless he's changed party in the last few hours he's a kipper

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    And proud to be one.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    The definition of a word is what the majority of speakers of that language use it to mean. In this case it has developed to include same-sex unions under the umbrella of marriage.

    In the same way, the word "feminism" has developed misandristic connotations because that's what speakers use it to mean.

    Whether or not you personally like these developments is unimportant, because it's not your personal language, it's the language of a community of speakers.
    Totally irrelevant example using feminism. Marriage is considered and believed to be by the vast majority of people on earth, a union between a man and a woman. Those that don't believe this is the case have been affected by the gay agenda and are only serving the gay communities interest to divide heterosexual individuals. Gays use the media and money to promote their interests. Now this translates into major political power. However, all of this doesn't change the definition of marriage. People who believe in bestiality may come up with a similar campaign but they won't get to change the definition of marriage either.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I think a troll has reared its ugly head.

    tsr troll.jpeg

    Though I'll humour it with a response anyway.
    .
    .
    Ali1302

    Before I respond to particular points of yours, I'd just say some general information. The most important information actually, so if you decide to be lazy and not read all of it, at least read this part (up until the two line breaks.)

    Marriage:
    - pre-dates religion
    - offers reduced taxes, and better hospital visitation rights to one's partner, therefore discriminating who's allowed to marry makes it institutionalised discrimination..
    - is a milestone in many relationships, and is an intrinsic part of our society and culture, making it cruel to unnecessarily deny such.

    Now, when dictating whether something is right or wrong...
    - why appeal to tradition/the norm/the status quo?
    - why appeal to religion
    (Both of these much the same principle as appealing to nature.)

    One should I believe determine whether something is wrong by seeing whether it negatively affects the parties involved. One must consider (and try to increase) its applicability to everyone, both present and in the future, that being the closest you can get to objectivity in a discussion on morality.
    .
    {line break}
    {line break}
    .
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    I don't recognize this so called "gay" marriage. A marriage is between a man and woman. I don't care what the law says. No one gets to change the definition!!
    Please, it's same-sex marriage, or in the UK from a moral standpoint, it should be just marriage.

    No, a marriage is the legal union of two people in a relationship, be it between a man and a woman, or a man and a man/a woman and a woman, though that last part is dependent upon whose jurisdiction it's under.

    Well actually, you do care what the law says because otherwise I doubt you'd adhere to it.

    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Marriage isn't simply defined by the law, it's an ancient institution that predates recorded history and originated thousands of years ago. No one, be it the gays or the people who believe in bestiality gets to change the definition.
    Curious, are you at all appealing to religion? If you are, I'd just like to say that marriage pre-dates religion. Also remember that there's plenty of different types and contexts for marriage, such as religious marriages, political marriages etc. etc.

    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Even interracial marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman. The age requirement isn't too important as it's different in different countries. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman period. No one, not the gays, nor the people who believe in bestiality gets to change the definition.
    Why do you appeal to tradition or the norm?
    And why do you keep reiterating your point about bestiality, and how is it even relevant here?
    I'm pretty, no 100% sure that bestiality and homosexuality are distinctly separate things.

    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Even polygamy in the arab world is defined between a man and a woman as the one man is married to each woman. Marriage has always been defined this way for thousand of years and if you wish to bend over for gay media propaganda go ahead. Marriage is between a man and a woman full stop. Just because homosexuals are tolerated doesn't mean they get to change the definition of marriage, nor do the people who believe in bestiality get to change the definition. Homosexuals want to enforce this change anyway they can but they will not succeed. A marriage has always been for thousands of years between a man and a woman. No one gets to change the definition period.
    Oh :giggle: you believe in the gay agenda, as if no one else in life has an agenda, and as if gay people are a homogeneous group. As if they're unique in that regard.

    What do you find dictates that a marriage is between a man and a woman anyway? I don't feel you're being entirely honest in your posts.

    (Original post by Ali1302)
    You are an imbecile. You are also an insult to all of your ancestors. Keep believing what the gay propaganda media want you to believe. Marriage has always been defined between a man and a woman. Homosexuality may have existed in the past but it was never defined as a marriage.
    Stop speaking to yourself; it's disruptive, and I personally find it weird for someone else to talk to themselves in second person.

    And so what if someone is an insult to all of their ancestors? They're dead, move on with life (although there's no reason to believe that they are an insult.) I, and many other, decide to place an emphasis on dictating their own lives.

    No, homosexuality did exist in the past, there's no "may have" about it, there's no doubt about it, at all.

    Of course homosexuality has never been defined as marriage! Silly silly silly silly silly.
    Homosexuality is characterised by the (sole) sexual attraction to the same sex, whilst marriage as aforementioned is "the legal union of two people in a relationship, be it between a man and a woman, or a man and a man/a woman and a woman, though that last part is dependent upon whose jurisdiction it's under."

    (Original post by Ali1302)
    **** the law. Marriage is and will always be between a man and a woman. None of your arguments on interracial marriage or polygamy or age restrictions actually change this definition. The definition remains unchanged for all., these did not change the definition of marriage.

    Your attempt of using examples that are of course as to enforce this change is ridiculous. Marriage is between a man and a woman period. No one gets to change the definition. Not homosexuals nor those who believe in bestiality.

    This doesn't make me a homophobe, I would tolerate gays and they should have rights but they do not get to change the definition of marriage.
    Marriage is evidently not always between a man and a woman, as exemplified in our current society, and other societies around the globe.

    The definition of marriage has changed multiple times (multiple, a massive understatement), the number of times, and to what it has been changed to, depends on where you are, in short, generally speaking.

    Oh, and this does make you a homophobe.

    Definition update time!

    Homophobes are people who "have a fear of / are irrational or discriminatory against homosexuals."

    You merely tolerate them? We're no longer talking about the institution of marriage, are we? (Well I got that impression earlier anyway.) You don't like homosexuals/disagree with their sexuality. Why is that?

    What you meant to say was "they have rights, they just shouldn't have the same rights." Don't fool us from your unjustifiable bigotry and discriminatory beliefs.

    Gay people don't get to change the definition of marriage either; society does.

    (Original post by Ali1302)
    The relationship isn't defined as a marriage but a friendship. Also even if their relationship was romantic it wasn't defined as a marriage. Your point makes zero sense and you are still an imbecile and an insult to your ancestors.
    Lol, so gay people in a relationship, so to speak, are just fiends which have clearly past the platonic stage? Don't beat around the bush. (Also, for your information and enlightenment, the relationships of gay people can be romantic. )

    Of course it's not defined as marriage; a romantic relationship is how two people relate to each other, with expressions of love. And a marriage has already been reiterated twice, so I won't repeat, just go back and find it.

    (Original post by Ali1302)
    I don't recognize such record or what a historian believes was a marriage. Their relationship was not recognized as a marriage and should not be defined as a marriage.

    Stop using interracial or age restricted marriage to hide behind. Both do not change the definition of marriage, the definition of marriage remains the same in both cases. It still remains between a man and a woman.

    Your an imbecile and gay propaganda seems to have gotten the best of your logic. Labelling me a "homophobe" is exactly what the gays want, they want to cause this friction between me and you even though we are share similar values. I want everyone to have rights but no one gets to change the definition of marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. It has always been this way and should remain unchanged. Stop trying to enforce your beliefs on me or anyone else. That goes for anyone be it the gays or those who believe in bestiality.
    "Homophobe" is merely a label denoting certain characteristics or qualities, and of which you are. You meet at least two of the stipulations earlier in the definition of a homophobe, and you only need to meet one.

    You two (whoever the user was) clearly don't share similar values, don't fool yourself, and don't think that they are just temporarily blinded and can be turned back on track, as if someone has put sunglasses on him/her without them knowing, tinting their vision.

    Actually, you're trying to force your beliefs on us, and those wishing to marry the same sex. Instead of voting in favour of same-sex marriage you would vote against it, preventing the phrase "live and let live" from ringing true. You wouldn't let them marry and get on with their lives, even though it doesn't affect you in the slightest. You're the one making a fuss about it. :duh:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Why did I just waste my time when knowing this person was probably just a troll? :sigh:
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Unown Uzer Nigel Farage MEP care to comment on the homophobic remarks of your MP above?
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    Why did I just waste my time when knowing this person was probably just a troll? :sigh:
    Also an MP.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Also an MP.
    A **** one then at that.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    A **** one then at that.
    Can only hope that Nigel sees sense and kicks him. Unless they are going for the homophobic vote
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 11, 2015
Poll
Are you going to a festival?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.