So, what IS marriage now?

[Bill the Cat]

But the definition of marriage didn't change. Once again:

Marriage: "Any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example, opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and arranged marriage."- Dictionary.com

What has changed is the legal recognition of SSM, not the definition of marriage itself.

Webster's 1828 dictionary:

Marriage

MAR'RIAGE, noun [Latin mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

Webster's 1913 dictionary:

Marriage

Marriage (marriage)
n.
Mar"riage
[OE. mariage, F. mariage. See Marry, v. t.]

1.The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.

"Same sex" definition didn't exist until 2003 in Merriam-Webster's dictionary. What changed was the legal definition of marriage in the US.

[JimL]

Webster's 1828 dictionary:

Marriage

MAR'RIAGE, noun [Latin mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

Webster's 1913 dictionary:

Marriage

Marriage (marriage)
n.
Mar"riage
[OE. mariage, F. mariage. See Marry, v. t.]

1.The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.

"Same sex" definition didn't exist until 2003 in Merriam-Webster's dictionary. What changed was the legal definition of marriage in the US.

Yeah, well the word marriage itself did not originate in 1828, and actual contractural unions between people began much earlier than the term used to define them. Soloman had 700 wives, i.e. he was married to 700 woman, which is more than 1 woman, so I guess marriage meant something different then than it did according to Noah Webster in 1828. The word marriage also had nothing to do with the biblical Adam and Eve, since the term didn't even exist at the time the story was written. Funny thing about that story, the omniscient God wasn't even sure what would be a suitable mate for Adam until he realized that none of the animals he created seemed to fit the bill.

[Tassman]

Webster's 1828 dictionary:

Marriage

MAR'RIAGE, noun [Latin mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

Webster's 1913 dictionary:

Marriage

Marriage (marriage)
n.
Mar"riage
[OE. mariage, F. mariage. See Marry, v. t.]

1.The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.

"Same sex" definition didn't exist until 2003 in Merriam-Webster's dictionary. What changed was the legal definition of marriage in the US.

Not really! In the 2013 case United States v. Windsor, the United States Supreme Court struck down the DOMA definition as unconstitutional, but that DOMA definition only came into being in 1996 anyway.

What's being changing over the past century is the overall concept of marriage. It used to be far more compartmentalised than now whereby the husband ruled the roost, provided the house and paid for all the necessities including utilities, food and clothing. The wife's obligations were limited to maintaining the home, doing the shopping, cooking the meals, submitting sexually to her husband and raising the children...you know, like the Duggar's.

Due to changes in society, marriage has been evolving into a more equal partnership, the wife is no longer a chattel and marriage now encompasses SSM. But the essential elements of marriage have remained the same throughout, namely: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, well the word marriage itself did not originate in 1828, and actual contractural unions between people began much earlier than the term used to define them. Soloman had 700 wives, i.e. he was married to 700 woman, which is more than 1 woman, so I guess marriage meant something different then than it did according to Noah Webster in 1828. The word marriage also had nothing to do with the biblical Adam and Eve, since the term didn't even exist at the time the story was written. Funny thing about that story, the omniscient God wasn't even sure what would be a suitable mate for Adam until he realized that none of the animals he created seemed to fit the bill.

In 1828 and 1913 'Marriage' legal definition did not include mixed race marriages. Fortunately things change.

[JimL]

In 1828 and 1913 'Marriage' legal definition did not include mixed race marriages. Fortunately things change.

Very true shunya. The problem Christians are having with this is that they think the word marriage belongs to Christians and that because "to them' the word has only and always meant one thing, and that apparently it has only to do with who is elligible to marry. Well guess what, it can still mean one thing to them. Can you imagine fighting over the ownership of a word? I tend to think though that their real fight is over homosexuality itself, not marriage.

[Bill the Cat]

Very true shunya. The problem Christians are having with this is that they think the word marriage belongs to Christians and that because "to them' the word has only and always meant one thing, and that apparently it has only to do with who is elligible to marry. Well guess what, it can still mean one thing to them. Can you imagine fighting over the ownership of a word? I tend to think though that their real fight is over homosexuality itself, not marriage.

Fallacy of the excluded middle. It's over both.

[shunyadragon]

Fallacy of the excluded middle. It's over both.

Needs explanation. The validity of your claim to the 'excluded middle' lacks and adequate consistent definition of 'marriage' over time.

[Bill the Cat]

Needs explanation. The validity of your claim to the 'excluded middle' lacks and adequate consistent definition of 'marriage' over time.

The fight is going on NOW. And NOW, the fight is both over public acceptance of homosexual behavior AND same sex marriage. Jim set the two as opposite goals, which they aren't. Ergo fallacy of the excluded middle. QED

[JimL]

The fight is going on NOW. And NOW, the fight is both over public acceptance of homosexual behavior AND same sex marriage. Jim set the two as opposite goals, which they aren't. Ergo fallacy of the excluded middle. QED

Hmm, the O.P. is yours. "So what is the definition of marriage now?" There is nothing in that title indicating your rejection of homosexual behavior per se, only their right to be married because you believe that marriage pertains to the union of one man and one woman. But you have confirmed my suspicion that in truth your real fight is against the reality of homosexuality and the equal rights that you don't believe they deserve. Might be a good topic for another thread though.

[Bill the Cat]

Hmm, the O.P. is yours. "So what is the definition of marriage now?"

To which I said I needed to reconsider my argument.

There is nothing in that title indicating your rejection of homosexual behavior per se, only their right to be married because you believe that marriage pertains to the union of one man and one woman.

This thread focuses on marriage. But the fight is larger than just what is in this thread.

But you have confirmed my suspicion that in truth your real fight is against the reality of homosexuality and the equal rights that you don't believe they deserve.

I've never called what has occurred "equal rights". It's EXPANDED rights.

Might be a good topic for another thread though.

Indeed.

[Tassman]

The fight is going on NOW. And NOW, the fight is both over public acceptance of homosexual behavior AND same sex marriage. Jim set the two as opposite goals, which they aren't. Ergo fallacy of the excluded middle. QED

The fight over homosexuality might be going on "NOW" in Evangelical circles but it's a losing battle in most of the developed world where it's increasingly being accepted as a normal part of the sexual spectrum...as well it should be. "There is broad acceptance of homosexuality in North America, the European Union, and much of Latin America... Spain (88% say it should be accepted by society), Germany (87%), Czech Republic (80%), Canada (80%), Australia (79%), France (77%), Britain (76%), Argentina (74%), Italy (74%) and Philippines (73%)".

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/...homosexuality/

And just look at the calibre of the nations that share your negative viewpoint on the subject: "Nigeria (1%), Tunisia (2%), Ghana (3%), Senegal (3%), Egypt (3%), Jordan (3%), Indonesia (3%), Uganda (4%), Palestinian territories (4%) and Kenya (8%).

And, with regard to SSM: "Based on polling in 2015, a majority of Americans (55%) support same-sex marriage, compared with 39% who oppose it." This is virtually an exact reversal of the polling figures of just 15 years ago. So, again, opposition to SSM in the US and the developed world, seems to be coming mainly from a steadily decreasing Evangelical base.

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/g...-gay-marriage/

[Bill the Cat]

The fight over homosexuality might be going on "NOW" in Evangelical circles but it's a losing battle in most of the developed world where it's increasingly being accepted as a normal part of the sexual spectrum...as well it should be. "There is broad acceptance of homosexuality in North America, the European Union, and much of Latin America... Spain (88% say it should be accepted by society), Germany (87%), Czech Republic (80%), Canada (80%), Australia (79%), France (77%), Britain (76%), Argentina (74%), Italy (74%) and Philippines (73%)".

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/...homosexuality/

And just look at the calibre of the nations that share your negative viewpoint on the subject: "Nigeria (1%), Tunisia (2%), Ghana (3%), Senegal (3%), Egypt (3%), Jordan (3%), Indonesia (3%), Uganda (4%), Palestinian territories (4%) and Kenya (8%).

And, with regard to SSM: "Based on polling in 2015, a majority of Americans (55%) support same-sex marriage, compared with 39% who oppose it." This is virtually an exact reversal of the polling figures of just 15 years ago. So, again, opposition to SSM in the US and the developed world, seems to be coming mainly from a steadily decreasing Evangelical base.

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/g...-gay-marriage/

OMG!! The world is going to hell in a handbasket!! When did that happen?

We Christians have known this day was coming for a long time:

2 Timothy 3New American Standard Bible (NASB)

1 But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come.
2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy,
3 unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good,
4 treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,

[Psychic Missile]

The fight over homosexuality might be going on "NOW" in Evangelical circles but it's a losing battle in most of the developed world where it's increasingly being accepted as a normal part of the sexual spectrum...as well it should be. "There is broad acceptance of homosexuality in North America, the European Union, and much of Latin America... Spain (88% say it should be accepted by society), Germany (87%), Czech Republic (80%), Canada (80%), Australia (79%), France (77%), Britain (76%), Argentina (74%), Italy (74%) and Philippines (73%)".

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/...homosexuality/

And just look at the calibre of the nations that share your negative viewpoint on the subject: "Nigeria (1%), Tunisia (2%), Ghana (3%), Senegal (3%), Egypt (3%), Jordan (3%), Indonesia (3%), Uganda (4%), Palestinian territories (4%) and Kenya (8%).

And, with regard to SSM: "Based on polling in 2015, a majority of Americans (55%) support same-sex marriage, compared with 39% who oppose it." This is virtually an exact reversal of the polling figures of just 15 years ago. So, again, opposition to SSM in the US and the developed world, seems to be coming mainly from a steadily decreasing Evangelical base.

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/g...-gay-marriage/

It's almost like gay rights and homosexual acceptance are the result of a more moral society.

[Joel]

Yeah, well the word marriage itself did not originate in 1828, and actual contractural unions between people began much earlier than the term used to define them. Soloman had 700 wives, i.e. he was married to 700 woman, which is more than 1 woman, so I guess marriage meant something different then than it did according to Noah Webster in 1828.

All you can achieve here is to argue that the definition has changed more than once. But its having changed in the past does not negate the fact that it changed this time too.


JimL I thought we were getting somewhere when you acknowledged that it did change (and said, "So what. Whats your point?"), and then you went right back to denying that it changed. And then you switch to nearly the opposite, suggesting that it has changed multiple times in history.

In 1828 and 1913 'Marriage' legal definition did not include mixed race marriages. Fortunately things change.

Very true shunya.

So why can't you just say, "Yes, it changed, and it's a good change."?

Can you imagine fighting over the ownership of a word?

The only reason there is a fight over the definition of the word (and both/multiple sides have been fighting) is because it's being defined by the government. When something is imposed on everyone, then that creates a political fight. Your are acknowledging that the word means different things to different people, and imposing one of them creates a war of all against all. It need not exist. If the government gets out of the marriage business, then the political fight disappears.

What's being changing over the past century is the overall concept of marriage.

!!
You too switch very fast between "It didn't change" and "It has been changing."

[shunyadragon]

All you can achieve here is to argue that the definition has changed more than once. But its having changed in the past does not negate the fact that it changed this time too.


JimL I thought we were getting somewhere when you acknowledged that it did change (and said, "So what. Whats your point?"), and then you went right back to denying that it changed. And then you switch to nearly the opposite, suggesting that it has changed multiple times in history.


So why can't you just say, "Yes, it changed, and it's a good change."?


The only reason there is a fight over the definition of the word (and both/multiple sides have been fighting) is because it's being defined by the government. When something is imposed on everyone, then that creates a political fight. Your are acknowledging that the word means different things to different people, and imposing one of them creates a war of all against all. It need not exist. If the government gets out of the marriage business, then the political fight disappears.

Still have not responded to the problem. If the government gets out of the marriage business, who then is responsible, and define marriage for everyone?