One of the things I find interesting about the same-sex marriage debate is that the whole thing tends to revolve around semantics.

ie: the changing of a sentence in order to fit an agenda.

marriage has been stipulated as one man for one woman (or words to that effect), yet this has now become seemingly irrelevant to the PC mob.

So If we can change these words to fit a new requirement, why can't we just change others to allow for the next one, whatever that may be?

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:One of the things I find interesting about the same-sex marriage debate is that the whole thing tends to revolve around semantics.

ie: the changing of a sentence in order to fit an agenda.

marriage has been stipulated as one man for one woman (or words to that effect), yet this has now become seemingly irrelevant to the PC mob.

So If we can change these words to fit a new belief, why can't we just change others to allow for the next change?

what do you suggest?

Just changing definitions of words in order to push through a new law, does not seem very genuine to me.

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:... the PC mob ...

Do you write for the Daily Mail?

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:One of the things I find interesting about the same-sex marriage debate is that the whole thing tends to revolve around semantics.

ie: the changing of a sentence in order to fit an agenda.

marriage has been stipulated as one man for one woman (or words to that effect), yet this has now become seemingly irrelevant to the PC mob.

So If we can change these words to fit a new requirement, why can't we just change others to allow for the next one, whatever that may be?

This is simply not true, although it does appear to be a new, slimy way of presenting the slippery slope argument.

This debate revolves around a principle, namely that all people should be treated the same regardless of their sexuality.

It is the opponents of this principle, who, in their bigotry, will latch onto any sophistry available to try and present it as being about anything but this very basic principle.

We make up new words or redefine old words as and when society changes. With the same sex marriages the society has changed. What hasn't changed is religion's tenacious dying grasp on telling people how to live their lives.

There is a mouse on my desk, just to the right of me.


Perhaps you would like to air some disingenuous concern about the definition of that?

I think it should be simply called 'marriage'. Don't know what all the fuss is about.

virphen wrote:
This debate revolves around a principle, namely that all people should be treated the same regardless of their sexuality.

I agree that this is a decent principle but......

the way things stand, people ARE treated the same regardless of sexuality.

No one is actually stopping a gay man from marrying a woman - that is perfectly legal as far as I know.

So we already have equality.

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:

virphen wrote:
This debate revolves around a principle, namely that all people should be treated the same regardless of their sexuality.

I agree that this is a decent principle but......

the way things stand, people ARE treated the same regardless of sexuality.

No one is actually stopping a gay man from marrying a woman - that is perfectly legal as far as I know.

So we already have equality.

In an ideal world you marry the one you love. Can a gay man marry whom he loves ?

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:
I agree that this is a decent principle but......

the way things stand, people ARE treated the same regardless of sexuality.

No one is actually stopping a gay man from marrying a woman - that is perfectly legal as far as I know.

So we already have equality.

Oh dear... you are actually employing the rhetorical skills of Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann.

If you can't process how that's not actually equality, then no one is going to be able to show you otherwise.

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:

virphen wrote:
This debate revolves around a principle, namely that all people should be treated the same regardless of their sexuality.

I agree that this is a decent principle but......

the way things stand, people ARE treated the same regardless of sexuality.

No one is actually stopping a gay man from marrying a woman - that is perfectly legal as far as I know.

So we already have equality.

That is a silly thing to say. It is not about the freedom to have a heterosexual marriage, it is about being able to marry the person that you love, regardless of gender.

You say that marriage must be between a man and a woman but beyond an appeal to definition, you have not given any reason why it should be limited to heterosexual people. If gay marriage requires a redefinition of a word (and I'm not agreeing that it does) then why is that problematic? Is it worse to allow the meaning of a word to evolve or to deny a significant percentage of the population the right to marry their loved one?
The meanings of words change and usually without a problem, the reason that this one is a problem is because of religious bigotry.

Dial back a few decades in the USA and we'd here the same 'argument' with the contemporary boogey-man: No one's stopping Blacks from marrying Blacks, so we already do have equality.

yes, but race supposedly does not exist - gender does however.

so that analogy falls short.

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:yes, but race supposedly does not exist - gender does however.

so that analogy falls short.

Err, no.

Whether race exists or not is irrelevant to people deciding how others outside the perceived group are permitted to live their lives. As long as those in power believe, they can still use the perceived differences to subject them to inequality.

And it's not an 'analogy' - look up anti-miscegenation.

this old law provides a useful reference point.

Note, not only does it refer to men and woman, but specifically to free men and women.

This is an important allegory for the modern day.

MARRIAGE. A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought to exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage. Dig. 23, 2, 1; Ayl. Parer. 359; Stair, Inst. tit. 4, s. 1; Shelford on Mar. and Div. c. 1, s. 1.

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:this old law provides a useful reference point.

MARRIAGE. A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought to exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage. Dig. 23, 2, 1; Ayl. Parer. 359; Stair, Inst. tit. 4, s. 1; Shelford on Mar. and Div. c. 1, s. 1.

That's right - because once a law is written down, it must remain fixed thereafter.

fashions change, but genders don't.

Man and woman have children and thus a solid purpose for marriage.

However, love is just a passing fancy, so man and man will not have the substance to endure.

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:fashions change, but genders don't.

Man and woman have children and thus a solid purpose for marriage.

However, love is just a passing fancy, so man and man will not have the substance to endure.

So old couples and infertile couple can't get married then? Will you tell them or should I?

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:fashions change, but genders don't.

Man and woman have children and thus a solid purpose for marriage.

However, love is just a passing fancy, so man and man will not have the substance to endure.

Then you do not understand love.

You also don't understand the significance of marriage and property rights.