Digsy Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 You do know that the word marriage was in existence before the Bible, or the first five books of the Tanakh, were written don't you? You do know that the word marriage can simply mean any close or intimate association or union don't you? So whose trying to redefine words exactly? If you want the word marriage to specifically refer to a very recent religion's union of a man and a woman with reference to their rules, then it is you that wants to redefine the word. Who gets to decide which religions get to claim the word anyway? The very idea of state approved religions who get to use the word sends a totalitarian shudder down my spine. Otherwise, why not the newly created religion of same-sexness (peace be upon them)? What a wonderful game of semantics we could create. If you want a word to mean married in your particular chosen manner, then it is up to you to create one. Darriage perhaps dar·riage [dar-ij] noun the social institution under which specifically a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, and Digsy's approved religious ceremonies Why when this is sufficient enough for most jurisdictions. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/marriage Point being why spend so much on forcing through laws to legally change the definition, when the definition is not set by them? I mean isn't it just Blacks law dictionary and it's counterparts that will be modified? Won't the online dictionaries/wiki's etc get modified free of charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Why when this is sufficient enough for most jurisdictions. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/marriage Point being why spend so much on forcing through laws to legally change the definition, when the definition is not set by them? Yes, the many definitions of marriage given in the Wiktionary (including the same-sex one, did you see that?) are all applicable. It can apply to any close union. It is you that wants to redefine it, to exclude and discriminate against same-sex couples. The point is not to redefine it, because it already includes any close union, the point is to chip away at unfair discrimination and give gay people the same standing in law as me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamrocker Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Please close my account mods. Calm down,Iv been called everything from a jack booted fascist to a paedophile lover by a certain poster ,you usually find that the people doing the calling have the most to hide,ignore them its them that are usually the blinkered ones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Calm down,Iv been called everything from a jack booted fascist to a paedophile lover by a certain poster ,you usually find that the people doing the calling have the most to hide,ignore them its them that are usually the blinkered ones Yes, I've noticed you quoting your own posts and responding to them quite a lot recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Yes, the many definitions of marriage given in the Wiktionary (including the same-sex one, did you see that?) are all applicable. It can apply to any close union. It is you that wants to redefine it, to exclude and discriminate against same-sex couples. The point is not to redefine it, because it already includes any close union, the point is to chip away at unfair discrimination and give gay people the same standing in law as me. I don't want to redefine it at all, it's done a darn good job of describing marriages for over 700 years. I just don't see why disabled people can no longer get legal aid to fight for their life changing issues, why people are losing jobs and homes, people are being driven into poverty and yet the government has the funds to pull stunts like this. Elton must be desperate to have a white wedding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 or 4. Just want equality That would fall under 3, and they have equality, it is possible for something to be different but equal. Women rightly strive for equality but will always remain different to men. ---------- Post added 06-02-2013 at 11:24 ---------- You've missed out a large group. 4. Want marriage to be 'redefined' to be not discriminatory. Find it easy to explain why with reference to equality. That falls under 3 and doesn't explain why it’s such an important issue; discrimination is unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things. Two things, marriage and civil partnership, very similar but different yet treated equally so not discriminatory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Why when this is sufficient enough for most jurisdictions. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/marriage Point being why spend so much on forcing through laws to legally change the definition, when the definition is not set by them? I mean isn't it just Blacks law dictionary and it's counterparts that will be modified? Won't the online dictionaries/wiki's etc get modified free of charge. The definition as a legal institution is set by the laws, and that is what is being changed. ---------- Post added 06-02-2013 at 11:29 ---------- It doesn't fall under 3 at all. If you can't understand the explanation of why it's important then maybe we need another group; 5) People who don't understand why it's important that the law minimises discrimination. You apparently belong to that group. Gay people will still be different to straight people, but equality means that they can both be legally recognised as married. It is possible to eliminate some discrimination, and in this case it's discrimination in the legality of who can marry. Where it can be eliminated by a simple legal change it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 I hate the way that new posts are combined, it makes it far more confusing. ---------- Post added 06-02-2013 at 11:33 ---------- The definition as a legal institution is set by the laws, and that is what is being changed. Digsy seems to be married to the strange concept that politicians are trying to redefine words. I doubt that we can divorce him from that idea. Very odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 It doesn't fall under 3 at all. If you can't understand the explanation of why it's important then maybe we need another group; 5) People who don't understand why it's important that the law minimises discrimination. You apparently belong to that group. Gay people will still be different to straight people, but equality means that they can both be legally recognised as married. It is possible to eliminate some discrimination, and in this case it's discrimination in the legality of who can marry. Where it can be eliminated by a simple legal change it should be. No it doesn't it means the quality or state of being equal. Then we need another group which you fall under, can’t understand why they are different but equal and not discriminated against. Two words can define two different but equal things. Marriage The formal union of a man and a woman typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife. Civil partnerships. A civil union is a legally recognized union similar to marriage. Different yet equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 That would fall under 3, and they have equality, it is possible for something to be different but equal. Women rightly strive for equality but will always remain different to men. "4. Just want equality" does not fall under "3.Want marriage redefined but can’t explain why it’s such an important issue to them". At all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.