If the definition of gay can change why can't the definition of marriage? Watch

username998490
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#81
Report 7 years ago
#81
(Original post by tufc)
Because marriage is explicitly defined by its heterosexuality. It's not defined in any way by any discrimination on grounds of race or disability status.
Then why is it okay for gay people not to marry? Because it's really not. As soon as we seperate from the church, the better.
0
reply
TenOfThem
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#82
Report 7 years ago
#82
(Original post by PeaceFreak)


I don't want a Christian marriage but I do want a marriage, what right does a church I don't follow have to try and deny me that?

I do not really understand your problem ... if you do not want to get married in church then surely your issue is with the state and their decision to create "civil partnerships" rather than allowing a state marriage
0
reply
tufc
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#83
Report 7 years ago
#83
(Original post by Laurenx123x)
Then why is it okay for gay people not to marry? Because it's really not. As soon as we seperate from the church, the better.
Look, discrimination is often realistic. If you were making a documentary about the slave trade, would you consider casting a white person as one of the slaves? If you were making a film about the suffragettes, would you consider casting a man as Emmeline Pankhurst?
0
reply
tufc
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#84
Report 7 years ago
#84
(Original post by anarchism101)
In Venice there's a tradition of the Doge/Mayor 'marrying' the lagoon on behalf of the city. One of the reasons priests aren't allowed to marry in some denominations is because they are sometimes said to be 'married to the Church'. Marriage simply means union.
Actually, etymologically, 'marriage' has always referred to a civil union between a man and a woman. What it means in other languages is of little concern to me.
0
reply
madders94
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#85
Report 7 years ago
#85
(Original post by tufc)
Because marriage is explicitly defined by its heterosexuality. It's not defined in any way by any discrimination on grounds of race or disability status.
Definitions can change. The very definition of the word "gay" has changed. Why can't the definition of marriage change?

The people who hold that opinion tend to be the ones afraid of change, the selfish ones who want something that is theirs and no-one else's - in other words, adults who behave more like children.
0
reply
madders94
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#86
Report 7 years ago
#86
(Original post by tufc)
Look, discrimination is often realistic. If you were making a documentary about the slave trade, would you consider casting a white person as one of the slaves? If you were making a film about the suffragettes, would you consider casting a man as Emmeline Pankhurst?
Casting someone in a documentary and allowing them to have a marriage ceremony as opposed to what sounds like the signing of a business contract are two very different things. For many people, the wedding is the best day of their life because it is a romantic ceremony and, for religious people, it is also a spiritual ceremony. What right does anyone have to exclude a whole group of people because "the dictionary says"?
0
reply
Pride
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#87
Report 7 years ago
#87
wait, when did the definition of 'gay' change?

What did it used to be, and what is it now...?
0
reply
tufc
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#88
Report 7 years ago
#88
(Original post by madders94)
Definitions can change. The very definition of the word "gay" has changed. Why can't the definition of marriage change?

The people who hold that opinion tend to be the ones afraid of change, the selfish ones who want something that is theirs and no-one else's - in other words, adults who behave more like children.
Because it's like saying that the colour we currently call 'blue' will, from next week, be called 'red'. It's just too much of a change. And I want gay people to have the same rights, but through civil partnerships, not marriage.
0
reply
tufc
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#89
Report 7 years ago
#89
(Original post by madders94)
Casting someone in a documentary and allowing them to have a marriage ceremony as opposed to what sounds like the signing of a business contract are two very different things. For many people, the wedding is the best day of their life because it is a romantic ceremony and, for religious people, it is also a spiritual ceremony. What right does anyone have to exclude a whole group of people because "the dictionary says"?
In both situations, it's because "history says".
0
reply
Id and Ego seek
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#90
Report 7 years ago
#90
(Original post by tufc)
Because it's like saying that the colour we currently call 'blue' will, from next week, be called 'red'. It's just too much of a change. And I want gay people to have the same rights, but through civil partnerships, not marriage.

Holy ****. Ever Semanticist on the face of this planet just punched themselves in the face. That's not how gradual semantic amelioration works, I'm afraid.
0
reply
madders94
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#91
Report 7 years ago
#91
(Original post by tufc)
Because it's like saying that the colour we currently call 'blue' will, from next week, be called 'red'. It's just too much of a change. And I want gay people to have the same rights, but through civil partnerships, not marriage.
... no it's not :lolwut: and anyway, the majority of people wouldn't let the change affect their lives, and would still call it "blue" because that's what they're used to and it has no bearing whatsoever on their lives. Only a small section of sad people would let it affect their lives, even though it has absolutely no bearing on it, and fight against the change.

Also,

(Original post by tufc)
In both situations, it's because "history says".
Because history's ALWAYS right, huh? Yep, the slave trade was right, maybe we should carry that on today. Oh, and the Holocaust was right, why don't we bring that back? Ooh yes, and can't forget the apartheid, that sounds like a brilliant idea for the 21st century.

If you live your life by what history says, no advancements will ever be made.
0
reply
Odiem23
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#92
Report 7 years ago
#92
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't a civil partnership confer the same rights/legal status as marriage?
0
reply
tufc
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#93
Report 7 years ago
#93
(Original post by madders94)
... no it's not :lolwut: and anyway, the majority of people wouldn't let the change affect their lives, and would still call it "blue" because that's what they're used to and it has no bearing whatsoever on their lives. Only a small section of sad people would let it affect their lives, even though it has absolutely no bearing on it, and fight against the change.
Exactly: a small section. Everyone should see marriage as a historic institution to be respected, not just a small section of society.


Also,





Because history's ALWAYS right, huh? Yep, the slave trade was right, maybe we should carry that on today. Oh, and the Holocaust was right, why don't we bring that back? Ooh yes, and can't forget the apartheid, that sounds like a brilliant idea for the 21st century.

If you live your life by what history says, no advancements will ever be made.
No, of course we shouldn't bring back the slave trade or the Holocaust. Marriage is an institution defined by its history, and its history is largely defined by its exclusivity to heterosexual couples. Redefine it, and it's simply not the same institution.
0
reply
tufc
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#94
Report 7 years ago
#94
(Original post by Odiem23)
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't a civil partnership confer the same rights/legal status as marriage?
Not quite. They should confer the same legal consequence, but there are a few areas where they're still lacking.
0
reply
madders94
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#95
Report 7 years ago
#95
(Original post by tufc)
Exactly: a small section. Everyone should see marriage as a historic institution to be respected, not just a small section of society.

No, of course we shouldn't bring back the slave trade or the Holocaust. Marriage is an institution defined by its history, and its history is largely defined by its exclusivity to heterosexual couples. Redefine it, and it's simply not the same institution.
I'm sorry, but when I think about marrying my fiance, I don't think about its historical exclusivity towards heterosexual people - I think about a lovely ceremony, all our friends and family present and exchanging vows to love each other and care for each other forever. I don't see why any of that should be exclusive to heterosexual people.
0
reply
madders94
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#96
Report 7 years ago
#96
(Original post by Odiem23)
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't a civil partnership confer the same rights/legal status as marriage?
I think as well as missing a few bits, the formality of the ceremony is something that sets it apart from civil marriages and church marriages; apparently it sounds more like the signing of a business contract, vowing to share assets and property etc rather than to love and cherish, honour and protect etc.
0
reply
tufc
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#97
Report 7 years ago
#97
(Original post by Odiem23)
Out of curiosity, which areas? Because the BBC website seems to suggest that there are no real/significant practical differences
It is mostly in theory - for instance, I believe that if someone in a civil partnership were to be made a Lord, their partner wouldn't be able to share in that title in the same way that the wife of a Lord becomes a Lady under heterosexual marriage.
0
reply
tufc
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#98
Report 7 years ago
#98
(Original post by madders94)
I'm sorry, but when I think about marrying my fiance, I don't think about its historical exclusivity towards heterosexual people - I think about a lovely ceremony, all our friends and family present and exchanging vows to love each other and care for each other forever. I don't see why any of that should be exclusive to heterosexual people.
No, but you think about its history, and if you separate it from its history, you don't have that any more.
0
reply
madders94
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#99
Report 7 years ago
#99
(Original post by tufc)
No, but you think about its history, and if you separate it from its history, you don't have that any more.
... honestly, I don't think about its history, I don't think extending marriage to other groups is going to separate it from its history and even if it did, it really wouldn't bother me, nor would it bother most normal people.
0
reply
tufc
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#100
Report 7 years ago
#100
(Original post by madders94)
... honestly, I don't think about its history, I don't think extending marriage to other groups is going to separate it from its history and even if it did, it really wouldn't bother me, nor would it bother most normal people.
So you're not going to be saying, "To have and to hold", "For richer, for poorer" or "In sickness and in health"?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How has the start of this academic year been for you?

Loving it - gonna be a great year (110)
17.94%
It's just nice to be back! (166)
27.08%
Not great so far... (220)
35.89%
I want to drop out! (117)
19.09%

Watched Threads

View All