lexi,
The 5 words you quoted in your last post have not changed in my lifetime nor, I suspect, in my fathers and grandfathers time either.

Few words, out of all the words we use actually change their meanings.

I do fight to stop, or slow down, the Americanization of our language, which is a constant losing battle because of the vast influence of the US entertainment industries.

The use of the words gay and guy came from the US, as did the change to the word surfing which still only means the original to me. Just because Americans use a word or phrase their way does not mean we have to follow suit. Should we call footpaths sidewalks or car bonnets hoods or car boots trunks, I think not. I hope I am long gone before an official at an Anzac service refers to our diggers as GIs. It is all part of our culture and is what makes us different to others.

Therefore I will still maintain that the word marriage has a definate meaning of a union of a male and female.

Proponants of same sex unions can come up with their own words to mean just that. Interesting to see if Aussies come up with our own slang words for same sex unions.

Dear Banjo,

I repeat that you need to Google the meaning and
origin of words and
names to fully comprehend the point that I am making.
Words change their meaning - and dictionary entries
are updated to reflect the changes. The word "gay" has
changed its meaning in the course of the last 100 years.
And the meaning of marriage has likewise shifted - from
it's original meaning to which you refer.
The Oxford Dictionaries online explains how it is
currently used. But you need to do your own research on
the topic. You don't have to take my word for it.

lexi,
Have done a bit of family history and the meaning of the word marriage has not changed in the last 500 years. Parish records verify that.

Dear Banjo,

The only constant in life is change.
Parish records are only a very limited source
or indication of marriage patterns. As you know
they are weddings performed by religious officials.
However there are registrations of unions by a judge
or other government servants, marriage celebrants,
and so on. Same sex marriages are slowly being accepted
in places around the globe - and undoubtedly its only
a question of time before this is done in this country.
The matter is already being discussed in our Parliament
and suggestions of a "conscience vote" are being made.

However, as I stated in my earlier post - each society
views its own patterns of marriage as self-evidently
right and proper, and usually as God-given as well.
Much of the current concern about the fate of
marriage stems from this kind of ethnocentrism.
If you assume there is only one "right" marriage form,
then naturally any change will be interpreted as
heralding the doom of the whole institution.

I don't happen to see things as you do. However, you
are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine.
See you on another thread.

Nothing against them, but I'd be pleased if they were gay - most seem to be pretty miserable types.

Lexi,
Positions against changing the definition of marriage which come from an ethnocentric or religious point of view are automatically dismissed, your side is not open to discussion or challenge on those points so this idea of "tolerance" in the debate is farcical since we're not allowed to put forth any argument in defence of our principles, your side is not tolerant nor is it inclusive.
Heterosexual marriage has been the most effective vehicle for the growth in population and social stability of my ethnic group, on that basis I reject any changes to the law which diminish or demean the importance of those institutions which are most beneficial to the continued health of people of White Australian ethnicity.