Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Retirement communities...next SSM legal dispute
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SimplyMe" data-source="post: 73004331" data-attributes="member: 9588"><p>And this would be an Appeal to Tradition, which is a logical fallacy.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Who cannot simply redefine it? Are you saying that homosexuals can't redefine it. I suppose it was good that they didn't need to.</p><p></p><p>Look, first, (at least in English) "marriage" has been commonly used about a joining of two things -- not just a state of matrimony. </p><p></p><p>Beyond that, as you point out, it is a societal construct and it was society that changed it. Even before same sex marriage became legal in the US, most English language dictionaries already had changed the meaning to include same sex marriage.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Source? This is one of those things that sounds good but just is not true, otherwise old people (those whose children are grown and can no longer have children together) would not be allowed to marry. Additionally, we wouldn't have separate categories of marriage law (which governs marriage and divorce) and family law (which deals with parents and children). </p><p></p><p>Of course, your point also ignores the fact that a number of same sex households have children -- either their own (even if from previous marriages or a donor parent) or adopted.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Did you forget a "not" there? The second part of your sentence doesn't seem to fit the idea of churches retaining control of marriage licenses. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And, at the same time, the opinion piece (and others like it), including some of the boycotts organized, do support that a number of people did care -- even if you aren't one of them. The "War on Christmas" movement is more than just one gay -- including several here on these forums that seem to care a lot about it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SimplyMe, post: 73004331, member: 9588"] And this would be an Appeal to Tradition, which is a logical fallacy. Who cannot simply redefine it? Are you saying that homosexuals can't redefine it. I suppose it was good that they didn't need to. Look, first, (at least in English) "marriage" has been commonly used about a joining of two things -- not just a state of matrimony. Beyond that, as you point out, it is a societal construct and it was society that changed it. Even before same sex marriage became legal in the US, most English language dictionaries already had changed the meaning to include same sex marriage. Source? This is one of those things that sounds good but just is not true, otherwise old people (those whose children are grown and can no longer have children together) would not be allowed to marry. Additionally, we wouldn't have separate categories of marriage law (which governs marriage and divorce) and family law (which deals with parents and children). Of course, your point also ignores the fact that a number of same sex households have children -- either their own (even if from previous marriages or a donor parent) or adopted. Did you forget a "not" there? The second part of your sentence doesn't seem to fit the idea of churches retaining control of marriage licenses. And, at the same time, the opinion piece (and others like it), including some of the boycotts organized, do support that a number of people did care -- even if you aren't one of them. The "War on Christmas" movement is more than just one gay -- including several here on these forums that seem to care a lot about it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Retirement communities...next SSM legal dispute
Top
Bottom