But, if marriage is just a word.... (legal, cocaine, drug)

[T-Rob123]

Time and time again on this forum I've read posters who say they are "all for" equality and the idea that same sex couples ought to have the same benefits and rights as married couples BUT should NOT be called MARRIED, because the supposed definition is "man and woman." Of course this thought is flawed because Americans aren't the only ones who talk with words, and since their are other countries, in fact english speaking countries that do allow gay marriage...well as we can see the word "Married" no longer is defined as two members of the opposite sex entering into a marriage. But I digress.

Usually these posts end with something along the lines of "if the rights of a civil union are the same as a married couple then WHY do the gays need to be "married"?"

In this thread I'm hoping people who feel this way can explain the opposite. If same sex couples are okay, and you are fine with them having the same rights, then why do you have a problem with them being "married?"

[bnepler]

Just do away with the so-called "marriage license" and the government will be out in the cold. The only reason it existed is to keep whites from marrying and having sex with blacks. It is what it is.

[Little-Acorn]

Changing the definition of "marriage" to include a union of two men or two women, is like changing the definition of apples to include rocks.

You can change all the definitions you want. That won't make the new definition true or accurate.

[EmeraldCityWanderer]

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

Changing the definition of "marriage" to include a union of two men or two women, is like changing the definition of apples to include rocks.

You can change all the definitions you want. That won't make the new definition true or accurate.

Marriage doesn't equal one man and one woman for thousands of years. Here's the Bible's definition...

[Little-Acorn]

Originally Posted by EmeraldCityWanderer

Marriage doesn't equal one man and one woman for thousands of years. Here's the Bible's definition...

Thanks for supporting my point. Marriage has never included a union of man and man; or woman and woman. Fanatics can try to chage all the definitions they want. But that won't make the new definition true or accurate.

[T-Rob123]

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

Changing the definition of "marriage" to include a union of two men or two women, is like changing the definition of apples to include rocks.

You can change all the definitions you want. That won't make the new definition true or accurate.

Actually, the "re-definition" of marriage is ACTUALLY just taking a word and tweeking it to include more people into it's original meaning.


That said in actuallity MANY words that we use today used to have totally different far definitions. I provided a link to an article that lists a lot of them, but since I know most people won't click on the link (I doubt I would have) I've just copied and pasted a few random ones from the alphabetical list:

.A bureau was originally a cloth covering for a desk, from burel "coarse woolen cloth" (as a cover for writing desks), diminutive of Old French bure "dark brown cloth."
To be buxom was once to be "compliant, meek, obedient, humble." From Old English bugen "to bow" + -som, creating "capable of being bent."
Cabinet is diminutive for cabin from Old French and translates as "little gambling house," which is what it first was.
To capitulate used to mean to negotiate.
Careful once meant "full of anxiety."
A carol was once a non-religious ring dance.
Cauldrons started out as something for heating people, not food. From the Latin caladarium, "hot bath."
Century once described a 100-man Roman army.
If you had charisma, you had the god-given gift to perform miracles. From the Greek kharis, "god-given favor."
As an adjective, cheap is fairly recent. Its ultimate source goes back to the Latin noun caupo, "tradesman." The original sense is preserved in the surname Chapman.
The early meaning of clay was "material of the human body."
Clergy first meant "learning, scholarship," and clerk was the word for a man ordained into the Christian ministry.
Climate originally denoted a zone of the earth between two lines of latitude.
Originally meaning "to fasten with a nail," cloy began as a verb. It was reduced from acloy, based on the Latin for "nail," clavus.
The first meaning of coax was "to make a fool of," in slang phrase to make a coax of.
A coil was once a noisy disturbance or a confused noise.
The noun compass, was once an adjective meaning "cunning, cleverness, ingenuity."
Complexion first meant a person's physical nature and because that was thought to be revealed by the color and texture of the skin, it came to describe the appearance of facial skin.
If you confused someone, you brought them to ruin. From Latin confusionem, a noun of action from confundere "to pour together," (com- "together" + fundere "to pour").
Conserve once meant to observe a custom or rite.
A corsage was once a word for the bodice of a woman's dress.
Counterfeit once denoted a perfect copy.
To crave once meant to demand as a legal right.
Cuff once described a glove or mitten.
Cute is a shortened form of acute, meaning "keenly perceptive; shrewd."
If you were daft, you were not silly but "mild and meek." From the Germanic word gadaftjaz, it was probably influenced by analogy with daffe "halfwit."


Daily Kos: The Mad Logophile: Words That Have Changed Their Meaning, Part 1

[hammertime33]

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

Changing the definition of "marriage" to include a union of two men or two women, is like changing the definition of apples to include rocks.

You can change all the definitions you want. That won't make the new definition true or accurate.

Changing civil marriage law so that gay couples can access it is like changing civil marriage law so that interracial couples can access it.

[wutitiz]

I've tried to explain the problems with redefinition of words in the context of politics, but it just doesn't seem to register with those who want what they want.

Nonetheless I'll try again. Remember the controversy over sentencing for crack vs. powder cocaine? Crack was mostly used by blacks, powder by whites, but it was the same basic drug. Some states passed much more stiff sentencing for crack nonetheless. Why? Because the drug had been renamed, and legislators apparently found the new name much scarier. A lot of people spent a lot of extra time in jail, all because of the word "crack."

"WMD" actually may be another pretty good example. We went to war because of that term, but I recall poster 'Mircea' who was apparently an engineer or technician in the military. He said that most politicians who talked about "WMD" had no idea what they were talking about and wouldn't know WMD from LSD.

If you don't want these problems, be very careful about word definitions in the context of politics.

And btw I would turn the question back on you, OP: why is it so important to redefine "marriage." Why not just put everyone under the rubric "civil union" for gov't purposes?

[Vintage_girl]

Originally Posted by bnepler

Just do away with the so-called "marriage license" and the government will be out in the cold. The only reason it existed is to keep whites from marrying and having sex with blacks. It is what it is.

Which also has to do with the anti-miscegenation laws, which people were intermarrying anyway. The government shouldn't be involved in marriage, as it's just a means to exchange money to them.

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by EmeraldCityWanderer

Marriage doesn't equal one man and one woman for thousands of years. Here's the Bible's definition...

Completely false. Men had multiple wives. That mean that he was married multiple times. It was not 1 marriage including multiple wives and multiple concubines.