–noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
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.
8. Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage.
9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.
10. Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.
thats how dictionary.com defines it.

now i may have miss read how this is worded but it seems to me that under deffinition 5 that gay marriage should be allowed. i mean it is marriage by deffinition. and same with deffinition 4, hell it even says homosexual marriage. and number 2 says nothing about sex. and note there is a difference between gender and sex. with gender being sexual identity in relation to society and culture. so yeah a male could be a woman and a female could be a man.
so in reality your deffinition approach to anti gay marriage is wrong. it being religious well deffinition says its a social institution. so yeah you amy be against it but it is not constitutional wrong. first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
so yeah you cant go off of religion.
by a straight male tired of oppresion February 18, 2007
1. The legalised prostitution of women.
2. The legalised cuckolding of men.
3. Another issue the Theocratic Right uses to hold down anyone who expresses their sexuality in a manner they disapprove of (see bisexuality, homosexuality, polyamory, etcetera).

4. Another issue the Theocratic Right uses to distract the American Public from what's really going on.
Preacher: "Do you, Mary, promise to love and obey John?"
Mary: "I do."
Preacher: "And do you, John, promise to love and not lust after Mary?"
John: "I do."
by InaGoddessEye December 28, 2004
A cultural sanction that is out of date and not needed. Basically, a woman becomes a slave to her husband and must legally refuse her name thereby being robbed of her identity.
Alice Smith is now Mrs. Peter Asshole. She went through marriage yesterday.
by Thinking is not a crime May 27, 2009
the union of two people from opposite sex that are capable of reproducing on their own, not excluding those of opposite sexes that have problems with fertillity, they there for do not apply
"they can have a Marriage because one is a guy and one is a girl, not a man and a man, or a girl and a girl that i just wrong".
by somerandomkid19999999 May 28, 2008
A relationship between one man and one woman. The nucleus of the family. Ordained by God and not by governments, and therefore not definable or controllable by governments.

Little children sometimes play amusing little games in which their puppy dogs and kitty cats get married. In a similar fashion, grown-up poofters and diesel dykes sometimes pretend that they can get married to each other. Strangely, all good liberal twits pretend the same thing.

Every poofter has the God-given right to get married. He can marry any willing single woman he wants to.

Every bull dyke has the God-given right to get married. She can marry any willing single man she wants to.
Malcolm and Rebecca were united in marriage. Bruce and Donald were not.
by Cap'n Bullmoose April 30, 2005
1) A God-ordained process of ancient Hebrew origin by which a man and a woman are joined to become one flesh.

2) The act in which a man sucks it up, gets off his selfish ass, and realizes some responsibility for a change.
My wife and I celebrated the 75th aniversary of our marriage.
by Joelio November 20, 2003
1. A legal union of 2 human beings REGARDLESS OF GENDER that provides security and stability for that relationship and promotes health and longevity for people in that union as reported through studies. Despite the ranting of religious fanatics who insist otherwise, marriage is not a religious institution. The concept of marriage existed way long before christianity itself. The marriage license is issued by a civil authority not a religious one. It is a civil court, not the church, that enforces the rights of those in the union during the marriage. As it is a group of lawyers through a civil court that dissolves the union and not the church. As such, it is a civil invention that does not require religious rituals to make it legal. People do not need a church to be married but they do need a license from the state for it to be legally recognized and valid! Marriage is not specifically about rearing children either. If it was, heterosexual couples would be required by the state to have a fertility test before getting a license and those that didn't pass it would be denied. That's not the case anywhere. Further, not all married people want children.

The definition of marriage is no longer restricted to one man and woman. It was redefined NOT by "activist" judges in Massachusetts but rather in Europe by the Netherlands which has extended marriage rights to same-sex couples. That definition has been accepted by other first world countries such as Belgium, Spain and Canada. The genie is out of the bottle and no rantings by thick-headed religious extremists will ever put it back! We live in a global economy and by extention also live in a global society. We do not live in a vacuum! Sticking your head in the sand or up your ass to deny that truth won't change it either or make it go away. Isolationism ended for the USA after WWI. Only fools live as if it hasn't.

All these countries have had legalized gay marriage for years and all the predictions of chaos and the destruction of civilzation have not come to pass. In Massachusetts, where gay marriage has been legal since May 2004, the sky hasn't fallen and heterosexual marriage is as strong as ever. The lies and illogical exaggerations of extremists have proven themselves to be just that. Nothing but lies meant to promote hysteria, prejudice and hatred. Extremist groups try to come up with trumped up statistics from abroad to prove otherwise, but no legitimate source can prove a direct link between their claims and the effect of gay marriage on society. In fact, gay people who are legally married to each other in Massachusetts or those countries that recognize such marriages are transparent to heterosexual couples. You wouldn't even realize you're standing next to a couple that is legally recognized as married somewhere in the world. As such, how can that impact your marriage?

Massachusetts has one of the lowest levels of divorce in the nation while many states that enacted constitional amendments against gay marriage have the highest divorce rates!

The allegations that chaos would ensue if gay marriage were allowed to spread to other states that don't recognize it is also another bunch of bullshit! Currently 26 states recognize marriage between first cousins. Some of those states only do so if the couple doesn't have children. But that isn't causing chaos in the 24 states that don't recognize such marriages or making the children in such marriages illegitimate is it? Further, 16 states recognize common-law marriage between heterosexual couples while 34 states do not. Yet none of these non-traditional forms of marriage have devalued heterosexual marriage in anyway despite their recognition in only a handful of states. Neither have they caused chaos. They are in fact, transparent to most people who are in traditional heterosexual marriages as are those who are in gay marriages or civil unions.

As for saying that a gay person can currently get married to someone as long as it's someone of the opposite sex... that is about as hollow, callous and useless an alternative to a gay person as saying to a christian that they can worship freely as long as they only worship allah or buddah instead of Jesus!

2. A civil right unfairly denied to two people of the same gender in most places in the United States. Even if you call it a civil union, it would still lack protections at the Federal Level because of DOMA (So-called Defense of Marriage Act) which won't allow recognition of same-sex marriage or the benefits of marriage. A fair compromise would be to pass a federal bill recognizing civil unions for same-sex couples across the USA that grants all the rights, responsibilities and benefits of marriage allowing people that don't like using the word marriage for gay couples to keep it. But of course irrational right-wing extremists will have none of it thinking they can force the issue to go away by forcing through Constitutional Amendments that would deny gay people the right to any form of legal recognition of their relationships.

Further, it is unprecedented in the history of civil rights that such social issues be voted upon at the ballot box as a way to bypass court decisions or legislative and executive actions that would legalize gay unions. It is a bullshit premise to call such a vote democracy. People did not have a direct vote to decide who would be granted freedom of religion. If they had, christianity may have been the only religion permitted in this country today. Jews, Muslims and Hindus would have no such rights.

The racist white majorities of past centuries did not have a vote on slavery, racial integregation or extending civil rights to racial minorities through a direct ballot vote. Yet why wasn't that a democratic right given how profoudly these issue impacted society then? The right of Rosa Parks to ride the bus and sit where she wanted was not decided by a direct democratic vote of the people of Alabama but by what was then labeled an "activist" court of judges on the Supreme Court. An end to school segregation was also decided by the Supreme Court and not put to a direct vote by a white majority that was highly against it.

Interracial marriage was also declared a constitutional right by the Supreme Court of the US despite the fact that states had laws prohibiting it and many people were against it and some still are. It wasn't put up to a democratic vote by the people despite how radical a concept that was back then to most people.

It is therefore obnoxious, unprecedented, condescending and insulting to gay Americans that they should be treated as children or animals and have their civil rights provided or denied by the whims of an often prejudiced majority. Courts were setup to protect the rights of the minority from such prejudices and whims and establish an equal playing field for all. To abandon those principles now weakens our democracy and what makes America better than most countries in the world.

Further, if you allow the masses to decide the issue of who can get legally married through a ballot initiative you open the Pandra's box to have the general public vote on all social issues from now on. That includes abortion, your right to privacy, your right to die, your right to bear arms and so forth. Voters and not a spouse would decide whether someone like Terri Schiavo's husband could let her die. A private family matter becomes the business of everyone. There is no end to it and prevailing social prejudices will impact your lives in all such matters.
Marriage is a civil right not an exclusive religious right.

Loud-mouth right-wing extremists consistently make up lies about gay marriage that are proven false everyday such marriages are legal.

Right-Wing extremists relentlessly try to destroy the marriages of gay couples through constitutional amendments. Try waking up one day after being legally married for several years to find out people have voted to dissolve your marriage and see how you feel about it! Real people, real lives, real impact on them!

Christians care more about preventing the recongition of all gay relationships and the security and stability that recognition provides such couples than they care about defining marriage or the truth.
by Like It Is November 16, 2005

Free Daily Email

Type your email address below to get our free Urban Word of the Day every morning!

Emails are sent from daily@urbandictionary.com. We'll never spam you.