Where do you take the definition of "marriage" from?

WeHaveToGoBack

People often cite, as their main reason, for not wanting same sex marriage is that they don't want the definition of marriage to change.

But my question is, where are you, personally getting this definition from, and are you for or against same sex marriage?

(Sorry if this isn't the right place for this)

AboutaWeekAgo

Is your username a nod to Back To The Future or Lost?

Mr_Muffin

Why can't we change marriage in some way? Like the first 12 months of marriage are a probationary period were you can walk out and not have to get divorced or something like that. Or maybe we could have 'marriage reviews' where a third party reviews a marriage every 6 months to assess how things are going and if they are going well they get tax relief or something. LOL.

WeHaveToGoBack

AboutaWeekAgo wrote: »

Is your username a nod to Back To The Future or Lost?

4 8 15 16 23 42 :P

pablo128

To my mind, a marriage is a religious ceremony. With regard to gays/lesbians getting married, I see no problem with them having a civil ceremony, but if the church says no to a church wedding there's not a lot they can do.

One eyed Jack

WeHaveToGoBack wrote: »

People often cite, as their main reason, for not wanting same sex marriage is that they don't want the definition of marriage to change.

But my question is, where are you, personally getting this definition from, and are you for or against same sex marriage?

(Sorry if this isn't the right place for this)

Suuuure you are OP, sure you are... :pac:

pablomakaveli

I think people who use the excuse of not wanting to change the meaning of the word marriage to stop ssm are morons.

In fact ive never heard a single valid reason against ssm.

Delirium

WeHaveToGoBack wrote: »

People often cite, as their main reason, for not wanting same sex marriage is that they don't want the definition of marriage to change.

But my question is, where are you, personally getting this definition from, and are you for or against same sex marriage?

(Sorry if this isn't the right place for this)

Parents told me getting married was what two people did when they loved each other and want to spend their lives together.

They probably never considered same-sex couples but that doesn't mean I didn't as I grew up.

So personally, I don't have to redefine marriage to encompass same-sex marriage.

pablo128

SW wrote: »

Parents told me getting married was what two people did when they loved each other and want to spend their lives together.

They probably never considered same-sex couples but that doesn't mean I didn't as I grew up.

So personally, I don't have to redefine marriage to encompass same-sex marriage.

I would agree with your view, but it's the church that has to change it's stance IMO.

Delirium

pablo128 wrote: »

I would agree with your view, but it's the church that has to change it's stance IMO.

only with regard to the sacrament of marriage.

It's the state (and voters) that decide what civil marriage is or isn't. We have divorce for example.

ToddyDoody

WeHaveToGoBack wrote: »

People often cite, as their main reason, for not wanting same sex marriage is that they don't want the definition of marriage to change.

But my question is, where are you, personally getting this definition from, and are you for or against same sex marriage?

(Sorry if this isn't the right place for this)

From the church. They invented it sure.

WeHaveToGoBack

My thoughts somewhat echo those expressed above.

Why does marriage have to mean a man and a woman?

If anti-SSMers are so focused on preserving the meaning of "marriage" why do they only wed one wife, why don't they marry young children? The meaning of the word, and all words really, has changed throughout history. This is just another "change;" if you can even call it a change.

Zaph

pablo128 wrote: »

To my mind, a marriage is a religious ceremony. With regard to gays/lesbians getting married, I see no problem with them having a civil ceremony, but if the church says no to a church wedding there's not a lot they can do.

Part of the religious ceremony in a Catholic church wedding is the civil part that the state requires for the couple to be deemed legally married. The rest of the ceremony adds nothing to the legal status of the couple, it simply makes them married in the eyes of the church. Now I don't have any particular issue with that, the Catholic church are perfectly entitled to make up their own rules, as are any other religions. But they still have to ensure the civil part is taken care of as part of the ceremony.

So ultimately marriage, even in a Catholic church, isn't a religious ceremony, it's a civil ceremony with some religious bits added in. Advocates for SSM realise that the Catholic church, and you can also include others such as the Jewish and Muslim faiths, aren't going to suddenly throw open the doors of their churches, synagogues, mosques, etc., and welcome all and sundry in to get married there. But they do know that the important part is the civil part, and that's what they're campaigning for. Not whether or not a gay couple can have their ceremony in a place of worship, just that they can simply be married in the eyes of the state.

shruikan2553

I take it from marriage itself. The world didnt implode when the Residential Tenancy Act 2004 came along and redefined tenancy. A tenant is still a tenant and a landlord is still a landlord just a husband will still be a husband and a wife will be a wife.

I find it odd how people an be so worried about the definition of a work, words and legislation change all of the time. Just because you can get divorced now doesnt mean its no longer marriage.

K_user

Marriage contracts have existed for thousands of years. We have evidence of them in ancient Egyptian and Macedonian times. Thats 2300 BC.

Yet it wasn't until 1500's, at the Council of Trent, that marriage was written into Catholic canon law. That a validity of marriage was made dependent upon the wedding taking place before a priest and two witnesses. It should also be pointed out that the Old Testament allowed men to marry multiple wives.

So historical evidence tells us that marriage predates official religious ceremony by over 3,000 years.

Marriage at its core is a legal contract between two people. It protects both parties and it shackles them.

To put it simply a wife can't bring her husband to court because he attended a different religious ceremony, but she can if he attended another woman :P

Its important to note that one of the reasons that polygamy isn't allowed is because of the legal division of assets.

K_user

Zaph wrote: »

Part of the religious ceremony in a Catholic church wedding is the civil part that the state requires for the couple to be deemed legally married. The rest of the ceremony adds nothing to the legal status of the couple, it simply makes them married in the eyes of the church.

Exactly, Catholics get married their way, Jews another and Muslims another. But the civil part remains the same. In the eyes of the law no one is married until they sign on the dotted line.

A Catholic priest will not finish the wedding until the civil documents are signed. Yet a civil wedding requires no religion. And that says it all.

pauliebdub

It's essentially a contract offered by the state, between two people, providing commitment and security. some people choose a religious ceremony others just a civil ceremony. Wouldn't be interested in the religious aspects of marriage.

K_user

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I take it from marriage itself. The world didnt implode when the Residential Tenancy Act 2004 came along and redefined tenancy. A tenant is still a tenant and a landlord is still a landlord just a husband will still be a husband and a wife will be a wife.

I find it odd how people an be so worried about the definition of a work, words and legislation change all of the time. Just because you can get divorced now doesnt mean its no longer marriage.

Ireland used to have a death penalty.

It wasn't prohibited by law until 1990. And while the last man to be executed was in 1954, the last man sentenced to death was in 1985.

Redefinition of any law takes time. There will always be people for and against.