I wouldn't say it loses its meaning at all.

It simply gains a new one!

It wouldn't really be "a new one," would it? Just "expanded."

Everyone is far too particular with their words.

lol

When the debates first started, (back in the late 90s) I looked up the definition of marriage in an old dictionary, just sothat when it changed, I would know what the word used to mean.

The definition back then was primary regarding the union of Husband and Wife and then there were other defintions, such as games, and econimics etc, which I have forgotten and didn't care about.

So I'm just curious how and when "husband and wife" is going to be removed from the defintion.

Offtopic: Nocht is posting! Quick, grab him!

What if we went with "(Husband+Wife)*(Wife+Husband)"? It's not removed at all! And even modernized for the tech-world.

NICE!

edit: On second thought, you really want "(Husband||Wife)+(Husband||Wife)", unless you were going for regular expresssions... but I think scripting would be more appropriate as a means to read the definition, rather than what the definition might output.

You have succeeded in leaving me confused as to whether or not you got it... well done.

I must not have got it.... as you can tell by my edit. Oh well.

http://frank.mtsu.edu/~phys2020/Lectures/L...y_demorgan.html

+ is the Or symbol, * is the And symbol. They are, indeed, the symbols I was aiming for.

(Took longer to find it since it seems Wikipedia has changed the symbols from what I was taught just a handful of years ago... ah well. Perhaps I'm behind the times. Still, I think these symbols work really well here to counter your objection. )

To be on topic, I can only say I hope no ban against same-sex marriage is put into place. It would be heartwarming to know that there is a place where people are becoming more tolerant and accepting.

As for words, I don't see how any group can lay claim to such a general word. If your personal belief in a concept is so dependent on the definition in the dictionary, well...

To each his own, I say. Each group is entitled to their own view of marriage. Don't impose your beliefs on another group, and they shouldn't impose theirs on you. Allowing homosexuals to marry doesn't impose the acceptance of homosexual relationships on anyone who doesn't like them.

But that's just my opinion, and like everybody else, I'm sure it's not perfect!

...

This would be precisely my point. The Gay activists, have decided that regardless of what the word marriage means to millions of people, from the past several hundred years, in every other group of Americans other than GLBTs, they have decided that they get to lay claim to the definition, and reddefine it for everybody else.... and anyone who dissagrees is a homophobe.

The definition in the dictionary is not the reflection of any particular group, the definition in the dictionary is the defintion set by the usage of the word in the society that the dictionary is written (thats why we get to use dictionarys to make arguments), if the definition in the dictionary changes, that would mean that the definition in the society as a whole has changed... because one group decided that what everyone else did shouldn't matter, and what they felt was correct should be done instead.

I find it ironic how people might think that somehow the "religious right" has decided to "hijack" the term and "force" it on others.... (when the reality is that the exact opposite has/is happed/ning)

What about terms that mean "happy" and "a piece of wood" getting hijacked and used as insults? To the point that society mostly doesn't even remember their original meanings? Do you or have you ever used them with their new meanings?

(Hint: You used one right here in this bit I quoted)

Why are you so up in arms over the meaning of a word? Are you that fond of the English language?

This reminds me of something funny I saw the other day, this guy at the Republican National convention was being interviewed, and the interviewer asked about his stance on gay marriage, and he said "You shouldn't have special rights just because of the kind of sex you have!"

I almost died laughing.

what about the word snapshot, or computer, or a myriad of other words which dynamically change over time via the process of communication?

or words like queer, which are first normal, then an insult, then taken back as a word of pride.

Surely you can tell the difference between a forced conversion of word for political purposes, and that of natural langauge ussage... And even if you can't, I'm sure you can tell the difference between a word which has a large societal heritage behind it, and those that are banal??

I don't really care about the english language like some who only quotes from the OED. However to deny the meaning and importance of words and their definitions is really just naive.

But to defend a word to the point that you are impeding upon someone's rights is just wrong. To not be able to admit that the meaning of words change over time is equally naive. Language is a tool of humans, we use it, not the other way around.

And, to expand on what Xenthos said, did you or would you have defended the word "gay" whenever it started gaining a new meaning?

This isn't about words, it's about intolerance of things different than yourself. You're rights end exactly where someone elses begins. The fact that a gay person wants to marry someone of their own sex does not impede upon your rights. At all. It does not affect you in anyway. If seeing two men hold hands is something that bothers you, look away. If seeing two men or women with a piece of paper that says they're married bothers you, don't go looking for those pieces of paper. It doesn't effect you.

But you trying to encroach upon their basic rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness does effect them, and it's wrong.

What about things like "timetable" versus "time horizon" then? Our current administration loves to redefine words and concepts for political purposes. Why not object about that as well?

I gave examples of other words that have changed, and pointed the fact that you're clinging to one word in particular (while using some of those changes yourself without even thinking about it). Yes, words (and their meanings) are extremely important. Most of those who read what I write on these forums probably have managed to gain the impression I believe that. However, that does not mean that there is no room for growth. Marriage, the word, is going to change in some way. I am convinced that, eventually (if civilization hasn't gotten stomped by some sort of catastrophe), that it will not remain the way it has been-- it has even already changed in some states and countries.

You even agree that there is room for growth yourself, by explaining that other words change. Why must this one in particular be left alone, when our own government is free to pick any other to redefine at whim?

So, maybe someone can help me here, when did marriage turn into a religious debate, and why is religion playing any factor at all in STATE or COUNTRY laws? Separation of Church and State anyone? That's the whole point of freedom of religion: the freedom to NOT practice a religion.

You're wrong, Rauros. Daganev says so.

Anyways, while I think most of us agree that removing all government influence in marriage is a good thing, I don't think people really realize how much that entails. It's over one thousand laws at the federal level alone. Additionally, it's not up for vote. What is up for vote is the option for same sex marriages and/or civil unions.

Now, the way I see it, there are two reasons to vote against gay rights in this regard: ignorance and bigotry. There are people who only see the word, or who only see the religious context, and they get to claim ignorance. They don't realize that extended joint living conditions pretty much require a marriage license just for legalities. On the other hand, you have people who know this, or get told this, and they still decide that gays having the ability to share joint living conditions without a handful of attorney-drafted papers is not a worthwhile cause. In essence, they're saying that homosexuality is so gravely evil that homosexuals do not deserve equal protection under the law. This is bigotry, both in its formal definition and colloquial usage. So, you can continue to debate whether or not traditional religious values should be imposed on the masses, but your actions demonstrate bigotry. You can't weasel your way out of this one by saying I hate all things religious (which is true and is news to no one). It's your own actions that condemn you. So, yes, I have no issue posting that you are a bad person for voting in such a way.