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

ufo2012
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#121
Report 7 years ago
#121
(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
If logically one can be christian and gay then it doesn't matter what those part of the mainstream think because they are incorrect.
Your view will obviously differ based on whether you are approaching it from a religious angle or just as a member of society.

However, as mentioned previously, I shall reserve further debate on this issue because it is off-topic here, it should have it's own topic - I don't intend to expound any further upon them here as it is not the place and it is not furthering the basis of the actual topic here in any way right now.
0
reply
Ras17
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#122
Report 7 years ago
#122
(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
Anthropologists have proposed several competing definitions of marriage, that is simply one of them.
And what I meant was that the definition isn't being COMPLETELY changed, just having something added to it. It takes nothing away, just adds.
Well since marriage is traditionally a religious event, and the majority of mainstream religions seem to be against against homosexuality, it would be fair to suggest - even anthropoligically - that the defintion of marriage as "The formal union of a man and a woman" is the most accurate.

Essentially, the OP is suggesting that the definition of marriage is changed, which seems to imply that they accept the definition as "The formal union of a man and a woman" henceforth why it is that they wish to see it changed.

However, if you were to follow an alternative definition - such as one suggested by the anthropoligists you mentioned which do not specify the sex of the people, what would need to change?
0
reply
Emaemmaemily
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#123
Report 7 years ago
#123
(Original post by Ras17)
Well since marriage is traditionally a religious event, and the majority of mainstream religions seem to be against against homosexuality, it would be fair to suggest - even anthropoligically - that the defintion of marriage as "The formal union of a man and a woman" is the most accurate.

Essentially, the OP is suggesting that the definition of marriage is changed, which seems to imply that they accept the definition as "The formal union of a man and a woman" henceforth why it is that they wish to see it changed.

However, if you were to follow an alternative definition - such as one suggested by the anthropoligists you mentioned which do not specify the sex of the people, what would need to change?
It's the law that needs to change, not the definition. Religion doesn't own own marriage, it existed before it and now there are many non-religious ceremonies.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#124
Report 7 years ago
#124
(Original post by Ras17)
Well since marriage is traditionally a religious event
Not particularly, just a cultural event.

and the majority of mainstream religions seem to be against against homosexuality
Oddly enough, that was largely in name only until the last couple of centuries. For most of history people didn't really care about others' private lives unless it involved them or their family.

it would be fair to suggest - even anthropoligically - that the defintion of marriage as "The formal union of a man and a woman" is the most accurate.
There's nothing remotely close to agreement on what marriage means for men, it's hugely different in different cultures. For women it virtually always seems to be something to do with guardianship of children, but that's it.
0
reply
fudgesundae
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#125
Report 7 years ago
#125
(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.
No it isn't. From the same place as the picture in your sig:

1. The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife

2. A similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex

Not the greatest place to try and get an anti-gay marriage sig from is it?
0
reply
ufo2012
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#126
Report 7 years ago
#126
(Original post by fudgesundae)
No it isn't. From the same place as the picture in your sig:

1. The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife

2. A similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex

Not the greatest place to try and get an anti-gay marriage sig from is it?
Where did that definition come from?

The main definition you should be looking for is that of the British legal system.
0
reply
johnaulich
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#127
Report 7 years ago
#127
(Original post by ufo2012)
Where did the definition come from?

The main definition you should be looking for is that of the British legal system.
That's just silly. The idea is we want the law changing. The British legal system once effectively described a married woman as the property of her husband. By your logic, that should still be in place, because at the time of changing it, that was the law.
0
reply
ufo2012
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#128
Report 7 years ago
#128
(Original post by johnaulich)
That's just silly. The idea is we want the law changing. The British legal system once effectively described a married woman as the property of her husband. By your logic, that should still be in place, because at the time of changing it, that was the law.
I think I have been misunderstood, I meant where did the definition that fudgesundae quoted come from.

As the definition they should be looking to is that of the legal system, not what it once described, but what it currently describes - for now, today.
0
reply
fudgesundae
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#129
Report 7 years ago
#129
(Original post by ufo2012)
Where did that definition come from?

The main definition you should be looking for is that of the British legal system.
Wiktionary. The same place that the sig of the member I quoted is from. I wasn't arguing about the legal definition of marriage, merely pointing out the hilarity of the fact that the site where his anti-gay marriage sig is from also defines marriage as a relationship between same sex partners.
0
reply
ufo2012
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#130
Report 7 years ago
#130
(Original post by fudgesundae)
Wiktionary. The same place that the sig of the member I quoted is from. I wasn't arguing about the legal definition of marriage, merely pointing out the hilarity of the fact that the site where his anti-gay marriage sig is from also defines marriage as a relationship between same sex partners.
I was unaware that is where the sig came from... as it shows the crown and ER II etc I thought it was simply a depiction of his support for the monarchy hence the correct definition would be that recognised by officialdom of said representation.
0
reply
Perseveranze
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#131
Report 7 years ago
#131
You want to marry in a Church, even though gays will be denied "access to the Kingdom". Lol.
0
reply
ufo2012
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#132
Report 7 years ago
#132
(Original post by Perseveranze)
You want to marry in a Church, even though gays will be denied "access to the Kingdom". Lol.
Is this a question, a statement, or an answer?
0
reply
johnaulich
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#133
Report 7 years ago
#133
(Original post by ufo2012)
I think I have been misunderstood, I meant where did the definition that fudgesundae quoted come from.

As the definition they should be looking to is that of the legal system, not what it once described, but what it currently describes - for now, today.
But we know what that says... it's what we want change. It's kind of the whole point of gay the marriage campaign.
0
reply
Ice Constricter
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#134
Report 7 years ago
#134
(Original post by Pride)
wait, when did the definition of 'gay' change?

What did it used to be, and what is it now...?
It didn't, the meaning has just been extended from happy to also meaning homosexual.
0
reply
johndoranglasgow
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#135
Report 7 years ago
#135
Yeah I have to admit that I don't really understand why a gay couple would want to be married in a church. It's hardly a welcoming or supporting institution for them.

They should be more than welcome to get married anywhere else though, the definition of marriage is changing, because the church has no right to claim the rights to a ceremony that exits in almost every culture and country.
0
reply
bkeevin
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#136
Report 7 years ago
#136
(Original post by johndoranglasgow)
Yeah I have to admit that I don't really understand why a gay couple would want to be married in a church. It's hardly a welcoming or supporting institution for them.

They should be more than welcome to get married anywhere else though, the definition of marriage is changing, because the church has no right to claim the rights to a ceremony that exits in almost every culture and country.
Far from being a religious person myself but you are asking a strange question. Just because most traditional churches reject homosexuality does not mean all of them do. There are many christian denominations (and non christian ones) that are very welcoming and supportive to gay people. So why would gay christians not want to marry in gay friendly churches?

Anyway I thought christianity condemned all mankind as sinners wether gay or not. The traditional view is it condemns homosexuality, but it does condemn so many other natural acts like greed, lust etc. So all christians are by definition sinners.
0
reply
tufc
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#137
Report 7 years ago
#137
(Original post by fudgesundae)
No it isn't. From the same place as the picture in your sig:

1. The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife

2. A similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex

Not the greatest place to try and get an anti-gay marriage sig from is it?
And which one has a number 1 next to it?
0
reply
fudgesundae
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#138
Report 7 years ago
#138
(Original post by tufc)
And which one has a number 1 next to it?
It doesn't matter, the number 2 is an alternative definition for marriage. The fact that it is the second definition in the list doesn't invalidate it as a definition of the word. If you were going to pick a dictionary to make an anti gay marriage slogan you could have picked a better source.
0
reply
The Polymath
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#139
Report 7 years ago
#139
(Original post by Tommyjw)
Spot the issue.
I firmly believe that the church should not be forced to allow gay weddings. Why should they? They're a religious organisation with their own views. Why would anyone want to have a wedding in the name of a religion which is fundamentally against what they do, anyway?

I'm all for equal rights by the way.
0
reply
RandZul'Zorander
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#140
Report 7 years ago
#140
(Original post by Junaid96)
I firmly believe that the church should not be forced to allow gay weddings. Why should they? They're a religious organisation with their own views. Why would anyone want to have a wedding in the name of a religion which is fundamentally against what they do, anyway?

I'm all for equal rights by the way.
But there are churches and religious organizations who aren't against homosexuality and want to be able to marry homosexuals. And nobody is really talking about forcing churches to do anything but allowing those who want to marry homosexuals. People are actually denying those religious organizations' right to practice.


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

Why wouldn't you turn to teachers if you were being bullied?

They might tell my parents (24)
6.86%
They might tell the bully (33)
9.43%
I don't think they'd understand (53)
15.14%
It might lead to more bullying (135)
38.57%
There's nothing they could do (105)
30%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed