Does gay marriage change the definition of marriage?

Post Reply New Topic

Yes,

Allowing homosexuality to have "marriages" will redefine the term "marriage" to mean whatever the heck they want it to, as evidenced by the above posts.

BTW, I'm not a homophobe, I'm a hetrophile...

How far do you think the definition could be extended? It'd be impossible for humans to marry animals because the animal would not be able to definitively express consent to marry. So I'm curious to see what people are afraid of in this case.

Not quite sure about the definition, would that mean attracted to heterosexual men?

Nope. Hetero=different (in this case, the opposite sex) Philia= love, like, et cetera.

Is it possible for an animal to want sex with/from/using/etc a human?

Actually, I voted "maybe so" because there evidently seem to be people who define marriage as a union (with the required properties) specifically between a man and a woman. And possibly in the law as well. Yes, that definition would have to change. But language and the law have both shown themselves to be malleable enough to accommodate such changes, as they have for example with the concept of universal suffrage.

I wouldn't quite rule it out, but at least with present technology it would be impossible to definitively gauge consent from an animal.

So, is Susan being denied her right to vote the same situation as Joe and Curly wanting to have "sex" with each other claiming they have a right to do so?

I do not condone sleeping with animals

I had a girlfriend once who used to sleep with her dog, I dont mean at the foot of her bed either. It would snuggle up next to her under the sheets. I explained to her that I felt it was unnatural. She said that she had always slept with her dog ever since it was a puppy and that she really didnt mind all the shedding. I knew there wasnt anything sexual about it, but it was still just too creepy for me to handle. We remained friends over the years and I was not at all surprised to learn that when the animal died, she burried it in a cemetary.

It's another example of the institutions being changed for the sake of granting a benefit to people who were unfairly denied it before. If anything gay marriage is a far more innocuous benefit to give, and even now you don't see animals and children being given the right to vote. Even the economic consequences would be quite small.

And for thousands of years marriage was about family wealth, power, and status -- historically, haven't arranged marriages the norm? Personal choice at all is a relatively recent development.

Since marriage is a social-personal construct that can't be clearly "defined" (and I don't think it's supposed to be). Gay people IMO ought to have a say in the construction, as other groups who had been historically excluded have (interracial couples) over time.

I think the argument about marrying animals is silly, though. Since the construct is social (IOW, has other people involved in what is means) there will be adequate resistance to change which will keep things from flopping over into people marrying animals or somesuch. But, I don't find absolute social rigidity to be desirable either.

Slavery used to be the norm, and our views now would probably seem like "marrying dogs" to them. So throwing things out that "work" is sometimes not a bad thing (despite what your sig says ). I.e. like that slavery didn't inherently lead to problems that caused it to end "naturally," so societally speaking, it "worked" fine. But a new attitude tword it arose and it was socially decided not to be ok.

To beat a head horse some more: with interracial marriage it was socially decided to be wrong, then not wrong. What marriage means is is made-up; it was just decided.

Count me on the side that thinks gay people ought to be able to get married.

Without getting into a whole other topic, I actually wonder if gay marriage could help straight marriage . Seems like gay people get to work out and create their relationship roles with more freedom than straight people (who have centuries of socially laid out patterns to conform to). Roles in the USA have always seemed cartoonish to me, but maybe that's the autism talking.

I am assuming you have Western, and primarily American culture in mind.

So, the definition of marriage is being changed by the advent of gay marriage. That referrence confirms it without a doubt!

Therefore, the statement repeated several times earlier arguing that, no, marriage has not changed, it's always been a relationship between consenting adults is proved patently false! (Did I just call someone a liar? )

Ah, historical documents... What would we do without 'em? (Answer: We'd listen to liberals!)

(And I'm a rabid heterophile myself. )

LOL. I always wonder why this reaction itself doesn't cause gay marriage to be legalized immediately.

Unbeatable slogan: "let gays marry, it might up how often you get to see chicks making out!"

Yes.

No. Statistics speak for themselves.