Why shouldn't the word ';marriage'; be redefined to include same-sex marriage?

I often hear the ';Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman'; argument from those who are against same-sex marriage. I don't get why this is supposed to be such a compelling argument. We change the definitions of words all the time. What's the big deal?Why shouldn't the word ';marriage'; be redefined to include same-sex marriage?
One of the main reasons people want same sex marriage instead of civil unions, is that separate and equal isn't. Just look into the history of the black civil rights movement... they found that separate and equal isn't and the black schools were in appalling condition physically.





Also, until DOMA is repealed, marriage or civil unions are inherently unequal.





Bottom line... This is all about CIVIL RIGHTS of ALL the people in this country.Why shouldn't the word ';marriage'; be redefined to include same-sex marriage?
Marriage is and should be considered only a religious practice based upon belief. No one should be married by the government (separation of church and state) and no laws should exist regarding the practice.





Everyone should get/have a civil union if they need or want the government involved in their relationship for any legal reason. These unions should be completely equal and not discriminate in any way or form based on any of the protected status for discrimination; race, creed, color, nation of origin, sex or family status.





This should shut the bigots up who demand that marriage remain between a man and woman only. Remember less then 100 years ago it was illegal for any other race to marry a white woman. That was decided to be illegal and the same sex marriage thing will be too.
When GOD gave us marriage, HE defined it as the fleshly and spiritual union between a man and a woman whereby they become ';one flesh';.





Two men and/or two women cannot become one flesh. It is physically impossible.





Any union between two people of the same sex is at best a civil union.





Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;








Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.








Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.








Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
It's not like it never been redefined before:


Marriage- One man + multiple brides


Marriage- Parents arrange marriage for political or financial reasons during the betrothed's childhoods


Marriage- Matchmaker arranges marriages


Marriage- fathers arrange marriage and pay the groom.





oooh, and I forgot the most recent one:


Marriage- two immature people get married out of lust and boredom, which inevitably leads to divorce only months later.
Do you have any standards? Do you stand for anything? We are destroying ourselves with this ';nothing matters'; attitude. Some things do matter, and the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman is one of them. Don't be convinced to destroy everything that is good because there are those whose intent it is to do just that.
I actually asked this question awhile ago, didn't get all of the responses I was hoping for...


But, I think it should be. Because than Christians and bigots can't use ';the definition of marriage'; as a legit reason to discriminate.





It should be changed to something like: ';The legal union and bond between two people.';
Not a big deal, really, just xtians fear that their god will destroy the earth if they allow it.





xtians misunderstand the sodom and gomorrah story. Its a story about rape and violence, and God destroys s%26amp;g for being cruel and violent to strangers. xtians think its about homosexuality?!?!





So, actually, xtians aren't really anti-same sex marriage, they're afraid.
Marriage is a sacrament....I dont want the government to tell me who to Baptize and not..I dont want the government to tell me eho to give confirmation to. The government should not be IN the marriage business to begin with. Call it a civil union or whatever you want...I have no problem with that,,but Marriage is a sacrament
I don't believe marriage should be redefined, my friend.............I simply stick to the Bible.............God doesn't sanctify the union of a couple of men or a couple of women --- he never told a couple of the same sex to be fruitful and multiply..................





God Bless...................
Should we change the definition of ';car'; to include motorcycles? ';Computer'; to include typewriters? ';Paper'; to include canvas? I mean, honestly, do you see how absurd it is to change the definition of a word simply because a select group wants it?
Marriage is a social institution that has changed throughout history. The big deal is a bunch of idiots who don't realize that we are a secular country and their religious beliefs have absolutely no place in our laws.
marriage is a religious sacrament it should be up to the various religions to redefine it.





the government should have no say in the matter
Marriage is one word that should be protected from redefinition. That's why we still arrange our daughters' marriages, pay the husband a hefty dowry prior to the wedding and do not listen to any input from the bride.
It doesn't need to be ';re-defined'; to include same-sex couples because it wasn't ';defined'; to specifically to exclude them until they wanted to get married.
Marriage should be defined in the way we need it to be defined, in accordance with our changing times and mores.
I agree that the argument from tradition is a poor one. Think about it when applied to other areas.


The argument below is poor, as well.
Merriam-Webster seems to think so.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar鈥?/a>


Works for me.
The big deal is our Creator, Jehovah told mankind homosexuality is WRONG and to live that life style will keep a person from living in God's Kingdom!
Do we really want to change the meaning of all the words? Heck, Gay used to mean happy by definition.....
kind of like changing the word fetus for baby? We go to great lengths to do the things we ought not do.
TRUE.. if that's as far as their argument goes and there is NO other basis.. then you are right. BUT I think you have over simplified the other sides argument.





Generally their is MORE to their arugment than just that. It may START that way..but they usually go on to explain.





Basically it comes down to 2 camps of thinking.





1) Purely for religious reasons..the minority feel SSM is wrong because it violates their religious principles. Of this group, Christians are the most vocal, but not the only group.





2) For social reasons, there is concern over the long term implications of this decision. Many decisions are made with good intentions..but not all good intentions result in good results. Various studies point to some unforseen negative results of allowing SSM. Some point to issues in Sweden (or is it Norway) which has already legalized SSM. Some point to the conflicting studies and say ';see we don't know and shouldn't experiment like this on our society';


So for the majority, it comes down to arguing over the impact it will have.








MOST of those who are against SSM would support Same Sex Unions.... legal status but not marriage.





SSM advocates have repeatedly rejected this compromise.





Beyond 1%26amp;2, some people personally have issue with how SSM advocates are trying to push Marriage as a RIGHT and not a social institution, yet when their argument fails..they fall back to the idea that it is a social institution and therefore totally definable.


They want to portray it as a right..because by doing so, they can attach their cause to the Equal Rights movement of the 1960s...therefore making it a discrimination issue.


Personally, for some people this has actually created a backlash where people now oppose them on the grounds that they DON'T feel it is a right, but a priveledge. AND that is it NOT an equal rights issue.





Secondily, many people are angry over how SSM advocates are forcing the issue thru the courts and getting advocate judges and even city politicians to pass laws, circumventing our democracy.





SO.. the bid deal is Religious, Social, and Political. Pretty much the big 3 most people care about.





______________________________________鈥?br>




I'm just outlining the other sides viewpoint..not trying to convince anyone.