Now you have changed your whole argument. Before you said the high divorce rate justified gay marriage (which makes no sense). Now you say the fact that marriage was (in your opinion) redefined to allow for divorce means there is no reason we shouldn't redefine it further to allow for things like same-sex couples.Very weak argument. Constant redefinition erodes the underlying meaning of a word or concept, and your argument sets no limits to further changes - why exclude the "union of a loving committed threesome"? Why am I barred from marrying my dog (she'll never ask for a divorce)? If you scoff then you're a bigot!
I don't scoff at this idea but the fact is in the 2 examples you have set forth, there are long standing laws and legal arguments against but, such is not the case with gay marriage.
Besides, you are wrong to suggest the definition of marriage was changed to accommodate divorce in the first place. As I said earlier, divorce is as old as marriage. The ideal is a lifetime union, but the reality has always fallen short. Divorce didn't change the definition; it merely acknowledged the fact that not all marriages succeed by allowing you to become un-married again.
Sorry, ideal wasn't in the definition, if you allow the definition to change for one reason, then that same allowance has to be given for other reasons.
Definition: noun a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary
Once "for life" was pulled out, the EXACT meaning of the word was changed, proving it could be and setting the precedent for future change. 60 years ago the definition of the word marriage was the same as it is now.......... can you honestly say that it still holds the same meaning today as it did those 60 years ago?
Words change, meanings change, life itself changes, all things change, trying to stop that change is futile
.
Originally Posted by lustylad
Nope argument didn't change, you just don't want to see it.
"for life" was at one time included in the definition of marriage........... divorce and the divorce rate proves that the definition was changed before. So since it's been changed before, there is no standing that it can not once again change. The meaning of marriage will still be the same as it ever was, only the legal definition is being changed. The legal definition of marriage was only just put in place by states about 12 years ago, before that the legal definition was only assumed but not a law of: one man and one woman. That legal definition was set in place by states right about the same time as gays and lesbians decided to challenge that assumed definition, again interesting the timing. No if that legal definition predated by a good degree gay's and lesbian's pursuit of marriage, you'd have a much better leg to stand on with denying it. The fact it only happened at the same time as gay's and lesbian's made the endeavor to both be married and have it legally recognized, shows the true reason why it was done.
Now one of the arguments being made against gay marriage is it's impact on children. How is gay marriage any more impactful on children than divorce is, and we allow divorce, hell you make the argument that divorce has gone hand in hand with marriage. No one did or has tried to outlaw divorce, yet it hurts the meaning of marriage and has a direct impact on children, no one really seems to give a shit in that case.
Now when two people of the same sex decide that they want to enter into the bonds of marriage as a loving committed couple and have that bond recognized by law, everyone goes ape shit. This will have zero impact on the institution of marriage, no one yet has been able to make a solid case that it will. This was and is a non-issue, it's just a way to hold a group of people back due to ignorance and fear.
There are vastly more important issues that need dealing with in this country, it's a fucking shame that this one was used to get in the way and take the focus off of them.
