Should 'Marriage' be re-defined

[Serial_Apologist]

by those who really matter

[amateur51]

On the subject of Peter Tatchell:

"The Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Judaism want to perform same-sex marriages. The current law says they can't.

This is not only homophobic but also an attack on religious freedom. While no religious body should be forced to conduct same-sex marriages, those that want to conduct them should be free to do so."

What is unreasonable about that?

I read that too, John Skelton - Peter Tatchell has become pretty impressive over the years, I reckon

[John Skelton]

I read that too, John Skelton - Peter Tatchell has become pretty impressive over the years, I reckon

He was always OK in my book , but yes he has.

I campaigned for him in the infamous 1983 Bermondsey by-election; the last time I had anything to do with 'mainstream' political parties. We've not kept in touch, but I remember what he went through then and how courageous he was.

[amateur51]

He was always OK in my book , but yes he has.

I campaigned for him in the infamous 1983 Bermondsey by-election; the last time I had anything to do with 'mainstream' political parties. We've not kept in touch, but I remember what he went through then and how courageous he was.

I wonder if he'll get an invitation to Rowan's leaving do?

Not Labour's proudest moment, that by-election but he & Hughes seem to have developed a healthy mutual respect

[Ferretfancy]

Never mind scottty!

" For we will be parsonified,
Conjugally matrimonified
By a Doctor of Vicinity
Who is located in this vicinity! "

[John Skelton]

Not Labour's proudest moment, that by-election but he & Hughes seem to have developed a healthy mutual respect

It was quite frightening, and I was reasonably hardened as a political activist. The Liberals ran a disgusting campaign, which came close to (?) incitement to violence. I suppose at the time Labour might have said my presence there and that of some of my friends was 'entryism'. A long time ago now.

[scottycelt]

On the subject of Peter Tatchell:

"The Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Judaism want to perform same-sex marriages. The current law says they can't.

This is not only homophobic but also an attack on religious freedom. While no religious body should be forced to conduct same-sex marriages, those that want to conduct them should be free to do so."

What is unreasonable about that?

What is unreasonable is the hi-jacking of the long-understood definition of 'marriage' ... that is the official union of a man and a woman.

If homosexuals wish to create a new word to describe their own union, that is fine. What extra rights will homosexuals gain that they don't already enjoy under Civil Partnerships? Even Ferretfancy admits to not being sure. So why should the 'rest of us' have to change the accepted definition of words to suit a plainly agenda-driven minority?

You think that is reasonable ... ?

[John Skelton]

And you don't have an agenda? The Roman Catholic Church doesn't have an agenda? Who the hell are "the rest of us"?

If your precious (notion of) marriage is so flimsy it can't survive same-sex marriages then it's a pretty worthless thing. Isn't it?

[amateur51]

a plainly agenda-driven minority

Scotty turns with the ball ... takes aim ... and to the surprise of Ratzinger in goal pumps the ball to the top right-hand corner of his own goal!

[scottycelt]

Don't get your knickers in a twist, S_A (pun entirely intentional!) ... maybe an admittedly more sensitive phrase might have been 'those in positions of power'? ...

[scottycelt]

Scotty turns with the ball ... takes aim ... and to the surprise of Ratzinger in goal pumps the ball to the top right-hand corner of his own goal!

Yup, but Papa Benny tips it over the bar and the referee shows the red-card to the opposing amateur attacker for blatant 'diving' in the penalty-box ...

[amateur51]

Yup, but Papa Benny tips it over the bar and the referee shows the red-card to the opposing amateur attacker for blatant 'diving' in the penalty-box ...

[MrGongGong]

What is unreasonable is the hi-jacking of the long-understood definition of 'marriage' ... that is the official union of a man and a woman.

I guess that's like the hi-jacking of a long understood tradition of child abuse by these johnny come lately sex offenders who have the cheek not even to believe in god

the "agenda" is equal treatment under the law, tolerance and understanding which obviously are qualities totally absent from many so called "christians" ............ and as John says (not THAT John )

"If your precious (notion of) marriage is so flimsy it can't survive same-sex marriages then it's a pretty worthless thing. Isn't it?"

[Bryn]

Can't be bothered to read through the whole thread but:

Etymology

From Old French mariage, from marier (“to marry”), from Latin marito (“to marry", literally “give in marriage”), from maritus (“lover", "nuptial”), from mas (“male", "masculine", "of the male sex”)

from:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/marriage

[JFLL]

It's just a question of how you define the word. Words do change their meaning, circumstances change over time, so I think that basing an argument on the constancy of meaning of a word is pointless. You may then argue that words "should not change their meaning", or some other similar argument, based on unwillingness to change or adapt. Of course, if you believe that some external agency (perhaps a god) gave us words, and defined their meaning for us in some absolute way, then your argument might work. In that case I would expect all languages to have exactly the same word for the same concept - particularly ones which would be deemed to be important, in an absolute way. Basically I just do not agree with you, though I do think it would be confusing if words changed their meaning very rapidly. They evolve at a pace which generally fits with society.

There is/will be no need to put quotation marks around the word in the title.

Words can change their meaning, but almost always by common concensus over a relatively long period. What people might object to is to be told to accept new meanings of such well-established words as 'husband' and 'marriage' because of a socio-political agenda (and still more to use the words in that sense themselves.) There are, after all, lots of pressure groups who would like to re-define words to their own advantage. Manipulation of the language for political ends seems just a bit too Orwellian for me.