What is the historical definition of the word 'marriage'?

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author

Comment

clone911

What is the historical definition of the word 'marriage'?

Lead

[-]

Posts: 445

(05/30/09 06:01:37)

famous for
telling Cheney
to go f*** himself.

Tags : sex, marriage, gay, rights, homosexual, heterosexual, government

I frequently write articles and diaries over at opednews.com which is an allegedly 'progressive liberal' site but recently I was not allowed to post the following very simple poll asking a very simple question:

What is the historical definition of the word 'marriage'?

and so I thought I would post it here where ya'll will hopefully be patient enough to let the poll play itself out. I have a point to prove and it is essentially a point that has been blatantly ignored by the Lamestream Media....so here goes

What is the historical definition of the word 'marriage'? (Result)

ColonelLee

[-]

Posts: 26918

(05/30/09 10:38:37)

Discovered Elvis

When I was getting married the first time...I was getting lots of info about what marriage was about. The best info I got was "marriage....there ain't nothing like it".

That Guy David

[-]

Posts: 1530

(05/30/09 15:42:37)

we're using
code names now

Steve Haugh

[-]

Posts: 8776

(05/31/09 03:37:26)

middle name is Hussein

To whose history and which version of it are you referring?

clone911

well...

[-]

Posts: 446

(05/31/09 05:39:14)

famous for
telling Cheney
to go f*** himself.

To whose history and which version of it are you referring? the question is very simple so don't read too much into it but if you wish think GLOBAL HISTORY OF HUMANITY prior to the 1990's...choose whichever of the 3 answers your prefer or none if you don't want to help me demonstrate my point

www.hurricanekatrinasucked.com

HatefulMusic

[-]

Posts: 2816

(05/31/09 08:51:06)

Nicehole®

There is a point?

Theo
HatefulMusic.com

ColonelLee

[-]

Posts: 26930

(05/31/09 12:03:20)

Discovered Elvis

As far as choosing one of the 3 answers....the poll does not have an ambivalent choice....like "I don't know" or "hunh?". Polls without a full range of choices do not give correct results. As an example a poll that asked if one was a Democrat or a Republican would not be a good poll. You would need to have the choice of "other".

MIKE BURN

[-]

Posts: 4351

(06/01/09 05:01:47)

rMTV
producer

What is the historical definition of the word 'marriage'?

The word "marriage" was first used in 1297 in Old French texts.

The word derives from the older latin "maritatus" and describes the founding of a household between a man and a woman.

The modern english word "wedding" derives from the Old German word "wadhjojan", which changed later to the New German word "wettōn". The neighbouring Dutch made of that "wedden" and it meant/means in all listed languages "young man and young woman - a pair".

MIKE
mikeburn and friends

clone911

well...

[-]

Posts: 448

(06/01/09 06:07:08)

famous for
telling Cheney
to go f*** himself.

apparently after much debate they finally decided to allow my poll to appear @
http://www.opednews.com/P...MarbleMD-090528-428.html

interestingly enough the poll results there are much different than the results we have here so far which I think proves you guys are way more realistic....still I am not surprised by their results as they are pretty much as I predicted they would be when I said "This poll seeks to clarify that simple fact but in all likelihood it will clarify who tows the PC Fascist line vs. those who can be realistic i.e. who can think for themselves!" So basically the first answer was intended to be chosen by those who are REALISTS + the pseudo-christian right wingers, the second answer was designed to be chosen by those who are PC FASCISTS who will choose it just as an 'in your face' fuck you choice, the 3rd answer was designed to be chosen by those who are PC FASCISTS who want 'gay marriage' legalized i.e. they are choosing to NOT answer but instead are saying they want to force the word 'marriage' to be redefined to suit their narrow minded agenda. I'm quite sure they don't realize they are proving my point for me in that the REAL issue in the 'gay marriage' debate is the simple fact that those who favor it basically want the word 'marriage' to be REDEFINED. In other words, the LAMESTREAM MEDIA has allowed this debate to be MIS-FRAMED by the PC FASCISTS as a 'gay rights' issue but there is nothing in the US Constituion (or any other US law) that says it is a 'right' for certain minority groups to have words redefined to suit their agendas. Furthermore when taking the historical defintion of the word marriage into account the phrase 'gay marriage' literally translates as this.....
gay=homosexual
marriage = heterosexual union
so translates as
gay marriage = HOMOSEXUAL HETEROSEXUAL UNION
and that is a PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY aka an OXYMORON
I think my point explains why the majority of Americans oppose 'gay marriage' i.e. they are either conciously or subconciously aware of the historical definition of the word therefore it doesn't make sense to them...so don't fall for the PC FASCIST line that 'you must be an uneducated bigot if you oppose gay marriage" bc that is a LOAD OF CRAP!
Now don't get me wrong I do believe homosexuals deserves all the same legal rights as heterosexuals and if those who favor 'gay marriage' would just be honest and say 'hey we want this word redefined so we can have some legal rights' then we could possibly have an honest debate. Still I say legal CIVIL UNIONS for all (hetero and homo) is the obvious best long term solution.

www.hurricanekatrinasucked.com

Last Edited By: clone911 06/01/09 06:19:38. Edited 2 times.

Steve Haugh

[-]

Posts: 8777

(06/01/09 06:25:00)

middle name is Hussein

Before it was changed sometime in the previous century, marriage meant a union between a man and as many women as he wanted. Not everyone practiced it that way, but, it was legal, for awhile, in the US.

In many parts of the world, that still holds true.

Aaron Garner

[-]

Posts: 2000

(06/01/09 06:42:32)

takes after
his mom

Language is a funny thing, language morphs and changes, and words expand their definitions or change altogether. The English language in particular does this on an almost daily basis.

Marriage in terms of the traditional understanding of the term seems to be undergoing such a transformation in my opinion. Marriage to many people in this day seems to be more about the formal, and in the context of this discussion civil, recognition of a committed relationship between two people.

The cartoon above David posted illustrates some good points (had a good laugh about the Cheney one). The institution of marriage has been used in many circumstances that aren't about the real idea behind the union (reinforcing geo-political alliances? Pass the champagne and chocolates...), which is LOVE as far as I've been raised to believe.

There are many unaltruistic reasons to get married: money, power, greed...........why did love wind up so low on the list of acceptable criteria? Just because there are people out there who prefer things I'm not into sexually, doesn't mean that I think they should be excluded from being married expecially if love is the driving force.

If it's all about compatible body parts and who does what to whom in the bedroom, I think we're missing the point....even though I do see yours Ben.

Last Edited By: Aaron Garner 06/01/09 06:46:13. Edited 1 times.

RhythmStar

[-]

Posts: 2637

(06/01/09 07:08:16)

House is in the house!

I think Ben over thinks this issue.

Sir Reel

[-]

Posts: 5880

(06/01/09 07:38:59)

Large Cock

I think he's stuck on an equate between language definitions and math definitions. Language has always been fluid. The definitions of words follow majority practice, not vice versa, regardless of what English teachers might desire. It's wishful lawyer-speak.

Their expectations will meet with vacuity

That Guy David

[-]

Posts: 1541

(06/01/09 07:44:09)

we're using
code names now

> over thinks

Yeah. I don't really find it plausible that people oppose gay marriage because they get all confused by an apparent contradiction in terms. People oppose gay marriage because they're just not comfortable with the idea that homosexual relationships are as legitimate as heterosexual relationships. It absolutely is an issue of rights, whether gays have the same rights as straights to marry. This has all been rehashed over and over, it's not just political correctness and it's nothing at all like fascism.

HatefulMusic

[-]

Posts: 2820

(06/01/09 10:24:40)

Nicehole®

"you must be an uneducated bigot if you oppose gay marriage"
No, you can be an educated bigot as well.

Theo
HatefulMusic.com

clone911

lol

[-]

Posts: 449

(06/01/09 14:10:22)

famous for
telling Cheney
to go f*** himself.

and of course the PC FASCISTS whined and the poll was removed....

"The definitions of words follow majority practice, not vice versa, regardless of what English teachers might desire. It's wishful lawyer-speak."

Well of course words change definitions over time but we are talking about our GOVERNMENT MANDATING a definition change AGAINST the MAJORITIES opinion merely to pander to an extremist minority and that is an entirely different thing. For example- imagine the 'gay marriage' OXYMORON is made legal and sets the legal precedent of having the govt. redefine words ....then imagine that there is a great wonderful scholarship for albinos only....a non-albino could use this precedent to sue the government to redefine the word albino to include non-albinos so that they would then qualify for the scholarship......or imagine there is a hetero guy in the military and he is about to get deployed he could sue the govt to redefine the word 'homosexual' to include heterosexuals so that he would then be ellligible to get kicked out of the military thus avoiding deployment....it's a bad precedent to set is the bottom line

and I was not implying that people are confused about the defintion of the word. I am saying that most Americans oppose it bc they are either conciously or subconciously aware of the FACT that the word 'marriage' has ALWAYS defined a HETEROSEXUAL UNION and therefore to their subconcious a HOMOSEXUAL HETEROSEXUAL UNION does NOT make sense.... and alas the shooting the messenger routine is the old standby routine the PC FASCISTS love to use when they come up against an argument they can't win so once again I will point out the fact that I did not creat the word 'marriage' nor am I in any way responsible for the thousands of years of history during which it was only used to describe a HETEROSEXUAL UNION!

so yes I do think homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals but once again that does NOT include redefining words and that is why I think legal CIVIL UNIONS for heteros and homos is the best way to go.....Hell I'd even consider agreeing to legalizing the 'gay marriage' OXYMORON if those who favor it would be honest and just say YES WE WANT THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD MARRIAGE CHANGED FOR US with the caveat that this would be the one and only time we should allow the government to force the redefining of a word

www.hurricanekatrinasucked.com

Last Edited By: clone911 06/01/09 16:13:46. Edited 2 times.

That Guy David

[-]

Posts: 1544

(06/01/09 14:39:52)

we're using
code names now

> sets the legal precedent of having the govt. redefine words

So... if gays are allowed to marry, some soldier might file a lawsuit that tricks the military into kicking out all its heterosexual members? That's a spectacularly unconvincing argument.

First, laws define things all the time, for legal purposes. Tomatoes are legally considered vegetables, but that doesn't stop botanists or anyone else from calling them fruit.

Second, we're not talking about government legislating the dictionary, we're talking about government extending civil marriage and its associated legal rights to same-sex couples. Going on about the "historical definition" is just naturalistic fallacy. ("That's the way it should be because that's the way it is.")

> therefore to their subconcious a HOMOSEXUAL HETEROSEXUAL UNION does NOT make sense

I still think this is just a silly word game. What's going on is that consciously or subconsciously, some people are just uncomfortable with homosexual unions.

But ya know, Dick Cheney is in the news today saying he supports same-sex marriage! Maybe you'll want to tell him to... ?

clone911

nope

[-]

Posts: 450

(06/01/09 16:37:46)

famous for
telling Cheney
to go f*** himself.

u merely refuse to admit the FACT that the word "marriage" is and has ALWAYS been a HETEROSEXUAL term and that fact really pisses off those people who are pro gay marriage and makes them want to lash out at anyone who dare bring that fact up (basically bc it destroys their entire delusional argument).....i..e. since the word "MARRIAGE" is a HETEROSEXUAL term it has no application to HOMOSEXUALS and yes I know that should be a 'no fucking duh' moment but the LAMESTREAM MEDIA won't touch it with a 10 foot pole
this whole 'gay marriage' think is like comparing apples and oranges.....for ex imagine there is a word that stand for a man putting his dick in another mans ass.....we'll call that word 'Dickenmanarse' now that word 'Dickenmanarse' has no APPLICATION TO HETEROSEXUALS so a man trying to tell his girlfriend he wants her to give him the ole 'dickenmanarse' is an IDIOT bc he is asking for something that is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE and since the phrase "gay marriage" literally means "HOMOSEXUAL HETEROSEXUAL UNION" I am here to tell you that is also a PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY and so those people who think it is a good idea are IDIOTS just like the man who wants the ole 'dickenmanarse' from his girlfriend.

www.hurricanekatrinasucked.com

Last Edited By: clone911 06/01/09 16:40:40. Edited 1 times.

Sir Reel

[-]

Posts: 5881

(06/01/09 17:00:13)

Large Cock

The definition of marriage is not strictly a joining of man and woman- here are some other definitions (from good ole dictionary.com):

4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.

Which part of a song is the man and which is the woman?
Which of the two companies wears the pants?
Does the lipstick have a dick and the perfume a vagina? (...not going to argue too strenuously on that one)

Marriage should be properly read as a merger, more or less.

The government (no part of it that I know of) is not trying to redefine the word. The word already has many meanings. The government only has to do with defining contractual obligations and legal benefits between whatever two parties are in a marriage. As matters stand, those obligations and benefits apply only to mergers between heterosexual partners. The argument is not over the word (although gay couples rightly want to be able to use it for their mergers), it's over whether two merged people of the same sex should have the same rights and benefits (and yes, obligations) as two merged people of different sexes. It's patently unfair to deny those privileges to any two people of the age of consent who love one another and want to stand before the world as a merge. The only justification for that is the prejudice of the heterosexual majority.

Their expectations will meet with vacuity

That Guy David

[-]

Posts: 1545

(06/01/09 18:22:15)

we're using
code names now

> u merely refuse to admit the FACT that the word "marriage" is and has ALWAYS been a HETEROSEXUAL term and that fact really pisses off those people who are pro gay marriage and makes them want to lash out

Well, let me freely "admit" that marriage has conventionally meant a socially recognized heterosexual union. The reason for that is homosexual unions have historically been excluded from that recognition. That doesn't mean that same-sex unions can't be recognized, and it doesn't mean the word "marriage" can't be used for same-sex unions just as it is for opposite-sex unions.

> since the phrase "gay marriage" literally means "HOMOSEXUAL HETEROSEXUAL UNION"

Only if you start out by insisting that "marriage" has to be restricted to heterosexual unions. But there's no reason to insist that. Words change definitions over time, like you said. There's nothing inherently heterosexual about the word marriage, and the phrase "gay marriage" is not an oxymoron, it simply involves an expanded notion of the concept of marriage that is not limited to homosexuals. Resistance to gay marriage does not result from some kind of linguistic paradox in the phrase "gay marriage," it comes from resistance to expanding the idea of marriage to include same-sex unions.

> I am here to tell you that is also a PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY

Same-sex marriages already exist in several countries and US states. It's not only possible, it's happening.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

What is the historical definition of the word 'marriage'?

What is the historical definition of the word 'marriage'?

What is the historical definition of the word 'marriage'? (Result)

Quick Reply