The definition of marriage in our country, since its inception, has been one man and one woman. That has also been the prevailing definition of marriage throughout the history of Western Civilization. You can't deny that fact. What you are saying is, "I reject that definition, and want a new one."
Yes...why would anyone EVER want to reject a definition of a law and change it to eliminate discrimination, hatred, bigotry, and backwards-ass thinking?
Why!!!?
We should have the same laws that were on the books "since the country's inception".
Which would mean, of course, you couldn't vote or own land.
I didn't say that definitions should never be changed. I just think it is intellectually dishonest to insist that that's not what you're trying to do here. I would have much more respect for your position if you admitted that's what you wanted to do, not try to tell me that's what "marriage" has always been.
I love studying history, and am surrounded by a family of History majors and PhDs, so don't mess with me. ;)
9 comments:
Excellent dude. I think I'm stealing this, if you don't mind.
Thieve away!
That's an emotional argument, not a rational one. Clue: "How would you *feel*"
You're trying to redefine the word "marriage" to mean something new. Did you read my post "The Institution Formerly Known as Marriage?"
That "redefinition" argument is lame, lame, lame.
There are thousands of definitions of marriage. You like to pretend that you hold the key to the one "true" definition.
Not to mention you think that definition has something to do with invisible sky fairies that care who loves who. So silly.
The Bible loves polygamy. Endorses it through and through.
Why is that definition ignored by the religious right?
Emotional? Yes....emotions tend to run high when fighting discrimination and bigotry.
How would YOU feel if the law denied you the right to marry? Probably pretty emotional I would guess.
The definition of marriage in our country, since its inception, has been one man and one woman. That has also been the prevailing definition of marriage throughout the history of Western Civilization. You can't deny that fact. What you are saying is, "I reject that definition, and want a new one."
Yes...why would anyone EVER want to reject a definition of a law and change it to eliminate discrimination, hatred, bigotry, and backwards-ass thinking?
Why!!!?
We should have the same laws that were on the books "since the country's inception".
Which would mean, of course, you couldn't vote or own land.
I didn't say that definitions should never be changed. I just think it is intellectually dishonest to insist that that's not what you're trying to do here. I would have much more respect for your position if you admitted that's what you wanted to do, not try to tell me that's what "marriage" has always been.
I love studying history, and am surrounded by a family of History majors and PhDs, so don't mess with me. ;)
Will Durant's 11-volume The Story of Civilization. I own it, I've read it, and you can borrow it, if you'd like.
We need to understand where we have come from to understand where we are going.
Yes, we should know where we have come from.
A quick study of history will tell you that any group fighting against equal rights and civil rights will lose.
All you have to do is look at ANY poll of people under the age of 30 to see that equal marriage rights are an inevitability. It WILL happen.
But keep up the fight anyway. It's always entertaining to see someone grasp at straws when trying to argue FOR discrimination!
;-)
Post a Comment