How To Win The Marriage Debate

[taft2012]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/how_to_win_the_marriage_debate.html

There's been much written and discussed, but I found this passage to be particularly good.



But what really is the central issue here? It isn't whether marriage is a right or a privilege; it isn't whether it is covered under the Constitution. It isn't even whether or not homosexuals have a right to "marry." The crux of the matter is this: what is this right or privilege?


If the court rules that there is a right to a certain thing, it must know what that thing is. Yet if the court accepted that the thing called "marriage" is the union between a man and woman, there would be no debate. The judges would simply state that, just like anyone else, homosexuals have a right to marry -- to form that time-honored union between themselves and a member of the opposite sex.


Now, some will say the court accepts that there has been a redefinition of marriage. If so, they had best tell us what it is. Because, you see, our leftist marriage engineers have not redefined marriage.


They have undefined it.


They have not said that marriage is the union between any two people. If they did, they'd render themselves just as "exclusionary" and "discriminatory" as those they decry and relinquish a hammer with which they bludgeon tradition. They have not offered any alternative parameters for marriage. They've simply implied that the correct definition -- the one accepted for millennia in Western civilization -- is wrong.


Yet if these leftists cannot say what marriage is, how can they be so sure about what it isn't? If they cannot offer a definition they're certain is right, how can they be so confident that the right definition is wrong?


But the point is this: the court obviously doesn't accept the definition of marriage embraced by most people worldwide today. If it did, it would have ruled as indicated earlier. Yet there also is no noted alternative definition by which to go. Thus, it seems that before the judges could rule on the right to this thing called marriage, they'd have to rule on what this thing is in the first place. So have they ruled that there is a right to they-know-not-what.


Of course, the judges certainly understand marriage to be some kind of legally sanctioned union between or among different parties. But this takes in a lot of territory. If this is all it is and everyone has a right to it, how can we deny it to polygamists (and their conception of marriage has infinitely more historical precedent than does faux marriage)?


This is where some roll their eyes and say that these things will never happen. But while such scoffing is rhetorically effective, it's not very intellectual. I'll first point out that people in the 1950s would have likewise laughed off the notion that granting homosexuals the right to "marry" would be a major social and legal movement 50 years later. More significantly, however, ideas matter. The precedents we set matter. And when you undefine something, nothing is excluded. No boundaries means no limits.

[fj1200]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/how_to_win_the_marriage_debate.html

There's been much written and discussed, but I found this passage to be particularly good.

New definition of conservatism: Big government shall protect definitions I favor and ensure benefits are available to those who fit my framework of society. Got it.

[aboutime]

New definition of conservatism: Big government shall protect definitions I favor and ensure benefits are available to those who fit my framework of society. Got it.


FJ. You took that line above, directly from the DNC (Democrat National Committee) handbook used more often than Toilet paper.

[fj1200]

FJ. You took that line above, directly from the DNC (Democrat National Committee) handbook used more often than Toilet paper.

Perhaps you missed the satire.

[aboutime]

Perhaps you missed the satire.


FJ. Today. Everything is called satire in order to give someone permission to make an ass out of themselves.
Just like most Liberal apologies. They are no longer sincere, even when they attempt to destroy someone's reputation.
The user of so-called satire has a constant, ready excuse to say, and do whatever they want. Then use the phony excuse of "SORRY" by claiming it was just SATIRE.
You bought it too?

[fj1200]

Everything is called satire in order to give someone permission to make an ass out of themselves.

Your use of satire is noted. An excellent example.

[aboutime]

Your use of satire is noted. An excellent example.


Looks like it worked really well for you. Where everyone else got the idea, and example while thinking of you here.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by taft2012 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=631043#post631043)
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...ge_debate.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/how_to_win_the_marriage_debate.html)

There's been much written and discussed, but I found this passage to be particularly good.


New definition of conservatism: Big government shall protect definitions I favor and ensure benefits are available to those who fit my framework of society. Got it.

One thing at a time. We have not redefined conversatism. We are trying to ward off the attack in the court against the actual word marriage. Big government would amend it to mean what it wants it to mean.

[taft2012]

New definition of conservatism: Big government shall protect definitions I favor and ensure benefits are available to those who fit my framework of society. Got it.

You libs have been clinging to your definitions since the founding of this nation. First, blacks could not be defined as equals to whites, all the way up to today's "fetuses are not humans" definition.

And now you want to toss out another definition that doesn't happen to match your flavor of the month.

[fj1200]

Looks like it worked really well for you. Where everyone else got the idea, and example while thinking of you here.

Thank you for another scintillating conversation where you show your lack of actual debating skill.


One thing at a time. We have not redefined conversatism. We are trying to ward off the attack in the court against the actual word marriage. Big government would amend it to mean what it wants it to mean.

There are those who are for limited government except when they're not. Definitions lose their importance when big government benefits are at stake and equal protection rules the day. If you want to "win" the marriage debate then you need to show the state's compelling interest in defining marriage IMO.


You libs have been clinging to your definitions since the founding of this nation. First, blacks could not be defined as equals to whites, all the way up to today's "fetuses are not humans" definition.

And now you want to toss out another definition that doesn't happen to match your flavor of the month.

:laugh: You slay bro'. Your big government views are clear; you desire that government mandate your approved definitions, tax to pay "your" SS benefits, and display imperialistic tendencies.

[taft2012]

:laugh: You slay bro'. Your big government views are clear; you desire that government mandate your approved definitions, tax to pay "your" SS benefits, and display imperialistic tendencies.

Not my approved definition... the definition that's existed since the founding of the republic. You, on the other hand, wish to "undefine" marriage to the point of meaninglessness. Yep, it's always the "small government" types like yourself that wish to undo the family unit and leave nothing in its place other than the government. Yep, that's real conservatism. :rolleyes:

As for SS, I wish it to deliver like any other retirement program that's paid into. Like all "small government" conservatives.... you're willing to throw the middle class off the deck to save payments for the poor. You're also willing to not hold gov't to a level of accountability approaching a fraction of a percentage that the private sector is held to.... yep, real "small government" ideology there.

And WTF are you talking about "imperialist tendencies"? Because I'm not frothing at the mouth about the annexation of Hawaii 100 years ago I'm suddenly a contemporary imperialist? Talk about knee-jerk....

Remind me again.... what exactly is it about you that's small government again?

[aboutime]

Thank you for another scintillating conversation where you show your lack of actual debating skill.



There are those who are for limited government except when they're not. Definitions lose their importance when big government benefits are at stake and equal protection rules the day. If you want to "win" the marriage debate then you need to show the state's compelling interest in defining marriage IMO.



:laugh: You slay bro'. Your big government views are clear; you desire that government mandate your approved definitions, tax to pay "your" SS benefits, and display imperialistic tendencies.


fj. As I have asked several members here. Perhaps you would be the first to answer.
Were you born as dumb as you sound, or did you learn to be dumb on your own?

[taft2012]

fj. As I have asked several members here. Perhaps you would be the first to answer.
Were you born as dumb as you sound, or did you learn to be dumb on your own?

No, his stupidity is much too pronounced and profound to be natural.

He must have studied with a master.

[aboutime]

No, his stupidity is much too pronounced and profound to be natural.

He must have studied with a master.


Right. Right. I forgot. Obama got that NOBEL prize for something. Thanks for reminding me about the MASTER BAITER!

[fj1200]

Not my approved definition... the definition that's existed since the founding of the republic. You, on the other hand, wish to "undefine" marriage to the point of meaninglessness. Yep, it's always the "small government" types like yourself that wish to undo the family unit and leave nothing in its place other than the government. Yep, that's real conservatism. :rolleyes:

Your DOMA approved definition; Your act of Congress codified it. As far as myself, I do not hinge the stability of the family unit on what government decides is best from day to day. I see plenty of stable same sex families that exist without government approval and there are plenty of unstable opposite sex families that break up even with government approval.


As for SS, I wish it to deliver like any other retirement program that's paid into. Like all "small government" conservatives.... you're willing to throw the middle class off the deck to save payments for the poor. You're also willing to not hold gov't to a level of accountability approaching a fraction of a percentage that the private sector is held to.... yep, real "small government" ideology there.

It would be nice if SS would work as the law was written but the unfunded liabilities that are inherent tell me otherwise; you would ignore those so you can "get what's yours." As far as what you think I would like... wrong again.


And WTF are you talking about "imperialist tendencies"? Because I'm not frothing at the mouth about the annexation of Hawaii 100 years ago I'm suddenly a contemporary imperialist? Talk about knee-jerk....

Your support; your words.


Remind me again.... what exactly is it about you that's small government again?

You could try telling me what's not?

[Robert A Whit]

There are those who are for limited government except when they're not. Definitions lose their importance when big government benefits are at stake and equal protection rules the day. If you want to "win" the marriage debate then you need to show the state's compelling interest in defining marriage IMO..

The founders did not put marriage in the Federal laws.

I see no reason to change anything.

States have long defined marriage.

[fj1200]

The founders did not put marriage in the Federal laws.

I see no reason to change anything.

States have long defined marriage.

I would agree with you except until the actual lawmakers saw fit to define marriage at the Federal level.

[Robert A Whit]

I would agree with you except until the actual lawmakers saw fit to define marriage at the Federal level.

This particular system of government is not supposed to do that. The only reason I did not object is it only represented the real world.

[fj1200]

This particular system of government is not supposed to do that. The only reason I did not object is it only represented the real world.

But it does. I would be perfectly happy with removing every reference to marriage in the Federal register and leaving the issue to the states. Of course they may run into equal protection issues if they favor one over the other; adoption issues vary state to state especially in regards to gay adoption but I haven't seen any challenges to that yet.

[tailfins]

FJ. Today. Everything is called satire in order to give someone permission to make an ass out of themselves.

Works for me! (As I belch racial jokes in a crowded restaurant, followed by a few loud farts)

[Robert A Whit]

But it does. I would be perfectly happy with removing every reference to marriage in the Federal register and leaving the issue to the states. Of course they may run into equal protection issues if they favor one over the other; adoption issues vary state to state especially in regards to gay adoption but I haven't seen any challenges to that yet.

Every society all over the world knows exactly what marriage is. So why try to screw with it as the homosexuals constantly try to do?

These types of taxes we suffer today were not imposed by the founders. They gave out no federal deductions for children spouses or other things connected to marriage. This in my opinion is about nothing more than money.

[fj1200]

Every society all over the world knows exactly what marriage is. So why try to screw with it as the homosexuals constantly try to do?

These types of taxes we suffer today were not imposed by the founders. They gave out no federal deductions for children spouses or other things connected to marriage. This in my opinion is about nothing more than money.

Maybe so but we've got to deal with what is.

[Robert A Whit]

Maybe so but we've got to deal with what is.

Precisely so. And in the real world, everybody knows what marriage means.

[taft2012]

You could try telling me what's not?

Certainly.

Like a liberal... you're eager to see the family unit dissolved by removing all parameters that have been in place since the republic was founded, leaving the government as the only structured entity for the people to relate to.

Like a liberal.... you're willing to overlook actions by the government that would have sent private sector individuals to prison, such as Bernie Madoff. You gloss over the continual redesigning of a retirement until it reaches the point of a welfare program, and then tell middle class folks who've paid into the system their entire lives to "go scratch off! This program is for the poor!"

Like a liberal....you're willing to let our enemies position themselves all of over this global chessboard until we're hopelessly boxed in, because frankly, you don't like this country very much. Like Obama, you're eager to see the United States cut down to size once and for all.

[fj1200]

Certainly.

Like a liberal... you're eager to see the family unit dissolved by removing all parameters that have been in place since the republic was founded, leaving the government as the only structured entity for the people to relate to.

Nope.


Like a liberal.... you're willing to overlook actions by the government that would have sent private sector individuals to prison, such as Bernie Madoff. You gloss over the continual redesigning of a retirement until it reaches the point of a welfare program, and then tell middle class folks who've paid into the system their entire lives to "go scratch off! This program is for the poor!"

Huh? I don't even know where that came from but; Nope. However, like a liberal, you desire to extend entitlements to "get yours." Conservatism, of which you are not too well acquainted, doesn't seek to create welfare for middle and upper classes.


Like a liberal....you're willing to let our enemies position themselves all of over this global chessboard until we're hopelessly boxed in, because frankly, you don't like this country very much. Like Obama, you're eager to see the United States cut down to size once and for all.

:laugh:

[taft2012]

Every society all over the world knows exactly what marriage is. So why try to screw with it as the homosexuals constantly try to do?


As the essayist pointed out, they're not redefining marriage, they're undefining it.

They're saying "marriage is not a union between a man and a woman,".... yet then they're not offering any definition to take its place.

[taft2012]

Nope.



Huh? I don't even know where that came from but; Nope. However, like a liberal, you desire to extend entitlements to "get yours." Conservatism, of which you are not too well acquainted, doesn't seek to create welfare for middle and upper classes.



:laugh:

"No", "nope", and giggly icon are not enough to undo your liberalness.

I am not looking for an entitlement. I am looking for something I paid for.

I paid for it.
My employer matched my payments.

Then you liberals came and took the monies and spent it on other things, leaving a treasury note as an IOU.

Then you liberals come back to me, not as a Social Security client, but as a taxpayer, to pay off the IOU owed to myself.
And you come back to my employer to do the same.

People who lost with Madoff only paid in once and got ripped off.

You're willing to allow Americans to pay into the system *FOUR TIMES* throughout their entire lives and get ripped off, and then merely shrug your shoulders at this unconscionable government abuse.

Why? Because you love the government and have nothing but contempt for the people.

Why is it you alleged libertarians always advocate positions that will inevitably benefit the ever-expanding government?

[fj1200]

... are not enough to undo your liberalness.

:rolleyes: Your imagination is not enough to create mine. Your justification for your welfare is on you.

[taft2012]

:rolleyes: Your imagination is not enough to create mine. Your justification for your welfare is on you.

Please.

Please. A retirement program paid for 4 times over and reneged on by the government causes you to "Tee Hee!" and clap your little hands like a 3 year-old handed a lollipop. You got the new welfare program for the poor you've wanted all along, and the middle-class gets yet another royal screwing.

Madoff causes you scream for blood, because he represents the private sector screwing people out of money, when it could have been the government screwing those people out of that money. The horror!

Your liberal hypocrisy is self-evident.

[fj1200]

Please.

Please. A retirement program paid for 4 times over and reneged on by the government causes you to "Tee Hee!" and clap your little hands like a 3 year-old handed a lollipop. You got the new welfare program for the poor you've wanted all along, and the middle-class gets yet another royal screwing.

Madoff causes you scream for blood, because he represents the private sector screwing people out of money, when it could have been the government screwing those people out of that money. The horror!

Your liberal hypocrisy is self-evident.

You know my Madoff position? I don't recall screaming blood. :dunno: Also please point out which welfare program I wanted "all along."

Nevertheless you wish for the poor to subsidize your lifestyle while enjoying the benefits of excess spending for the last two decades.*

*since the Reagan "reform" that is.

[taft2012]

You know my Madoff position? I don't recall screaming blood. :dunno: Also please point out which welfare program I wanted "all along."

Nevertheless you wish for the poor to subsidize your lifestyle while enjoying the benefits of excess spending for the last two decades.*

*since the Reagan "reform" that is.

You clearly must have wanted a welfare program for the elderly because you've said you wanted Social Security means tested. At that point it's no longer a retirement program and clearly a welfare program.

Meaning those who have lived responsibly and planned for their retirements will get screwed out of a retirement program that's been paid for 4 times, while those who lived as spendthrifts and arrive at the finish line with nothing will be rewarded for living irresponsibly and ceding their dependency to the government.

I do not want "the poor to subsidize" my lifestyle. I want what was assured to me in exchange for what was taken from me.

If you're not a liberal, why do you cream your shorts about the government screwing the middle class?

As for Madoff... what? You support what he did? Rather unlikely, but if you do I retract my hypocrisy accusation. If you support Madoff screwing people like the government does, you are, at the very least, the model of consistency.

[fj1200]

You clearly must have wanted a welfare program for the elderly because you've said you wanted Social Security means tested. At that point it's no longer a retirement program and clearly a welfare program.

That is the stupidest example of logic not seen since... well, earlier this morning but because I understand that SS cannot exist as written doesn't mean I wanted a welfare program for the elderly. :slap:


Meaning those who have lived responsibly and planned for their retirements will get screwed out of a retirement program that's been paid for 4 times, while those who lived as spendthrifts and arrive at the finish line with nothing will be rewarded for living irresponsibly and ceding their dependency to the government.

There's a cost to the country for kicking the can down the street for so long. You just want one more kick until you're dead apparently.


I do not want "the poor to subsidize" my lifestyle. I want what was assured to me in exchange for what was taken from me.

What you say you don't want and what is reality are the same thing at this point.


If you're not a liberal, why do you cream your shorts about the government screwing the middle class?

What? The shorts are fine.


As for Madoff... what? You support what he did? Rather unlikely, but if you do I retract my hypocrisy accusation. If you support Madoff screwing people like the government does, you are, at the very least, the model of consistency.

Who supports Madoff you doof? He's a criminal and should be in jail. Government has screwed everyone on a grand scale and you support it's continued confiscatory policies in some misguided idea of fairness to the detriment of the country. BTW, I looked up my Madoff position and it shows your continued grasping at straws.

[taft2012]

Who supports Madoff you doof? He's a criminal and should be in jail. Government has screwed everyone on a grand scale and you support it's continued confiscatory policies in some misguided idea of fairness to the detriment of the country. BTW, I looked up my Madoff position and it shows your continued grasping at straws.

You know what?

Your "positions" are thinner than toilet paper, if one generously designates them as "positions".

You're a troll, poking, snickering, running away....

"And you were angered by Madoff...."
"Hey, who said I was angered by Madoff?"

"So you supported Madoff?"
"Hey, who said I supported Madoff?"

There's basically two positions available, and you disown them both. You win. You're not a hypocrite. You're a troll.

Consider yourself a troll turd, officially flushed down my bin.

[fj1200]

You know what?

I know that you're imagination lost again.

[Noir]

As the essayist pointed out, they're not redefining marriage, they're undefining it.

They're saying "marriage is not a union between a man and a woman,".... yet then they're not offering any definition to take its place.

I thought the 'offering' of a redefinition was - Marriage is a union between two adults.

[DragonStryk72]

One thing at a time. We have not redefined conversatism. We are trying to ward off the attack in the court against the actual word marriage. Big government would amend it to mean what it wants it to mean.

Really? Hm, I thought was marriage about 10,000 years old, was used as medium of trade at times, a contractual obligation, and even pluralistic at times (Noah, Lot, etc.), up to present day.

BTW, since the government is trying to redefine marriage (to specifically refer to monogamous heterosexual marriage), his point on the matter was valid.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=631241#post631241)
One thing at a time. We have not redefined conversatism. We are trying to ward off the attack in the court against the actual word marriage. Big government would amend it to mean what it wants it to mean.


Really? Hm, I thought was marriage about 10,000 years old, was used as medium of trade at times, a contractual obligation, and even pluralistic at times (Noah, Lot, etc.), up to present day.

BTW, since the government is trying to redefine marriage (to specifically refer to monogamous heterosexual marriage), his point on the matter was valid.

Not sure it is 10,000 years old but it is very old indeed. Marriage did as you say have some commercial aspects, mostly in other countries. However, globally it has long been one man to one or more women at the same time.

I know of no law that defines what homosexuals want to do as marriage other than perhaps in a few sort of against the wind areas. You may agree with him on a point but that does not mean that marriage means a man to a man or woman to a woman.

Thus far the Feds have not gone that far.

[logroller]

Not sure it is 10,000 years old but it is very old indeed. Marriage did as you say have some commercial aspects, mostly in other countries. However, globally it has long been one man to one or more women at the same time.

I know of no law that defines what homosexuals want to do as marriage other than perhaps in a few sort of against the wind areas. You may agree with him on a point but that does not mean that marriage means a man to a man or woman to a woman.

Thus far the Feds have not gone that far.
Here’s a list of where same-sex marriage is legal (and year the law passed):
Argentina – 2010
Belgium – 2003
Canada – 2005
Iceland – 2010
Netherlands – 2001
Norway – 2008
Portugal – 2010
South Africa – 2006
Spain – 2005
Sweden – 2009
Denmark – 2012


Legal status of polygamy
Recognized under civil law
Afghanistan
Algeria
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Brunei
Burkina Faso
Cameroon
Chad
CAR
Comoros
Congo
Djibouti
Egypt
Ethiopia
Gabon
The Gambia
India1
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jordan
Kuwait
Libya
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Mauritania
Morocco
Myanmar
Niger
Oman
Pakistan
Palestine
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Singapore1
Somalia
Sri Lanka1
Sudan
Syria
Tanzania
Togo
Uganda
UAE
Yemen
Zambia



Which list of countries is more civilized from your perspective?

[Noir]

^ To add to the list, Uruguay passed a same-sex marriage law only a few days ago.

And legislation is currently going through the UK parliament, the second reading (which was held a few weeks ago) was passed by over 200 vote majority.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=631642#post631642)
Not sure it is 10,000 years old but it is very old indeed. Marriage did as you say have some commercial aspects, mostly in other countries. However, globally it has long been one man to one or more women at the same time.

I know of no law that defines what homosexuals want to do as marriage other than perhaps in a few sort of against the wind areas. You may agree with him on a point but that does not mean that marriage means a man to a man or woman to a woman.

Thus far the Feds have not gone that far.


Here’s a list of where same-sex marriage is legal (and year the law passed):
Argentina – 2010
Belgium – 2003
Canada – 2005
Iceland – 2010
Netherlands – 2001
Norway – 2008
Portugal – 2010
South Africa – 2006
Spain – 2005
Sweden – 2009
Denmark – 2012


Legal status of polygamy
Recognized under civil law
Afghanistan
Algeria
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Brunei
Burkina Faso
Cameroon
Chad
CAR
Comoros
Congo
Djibouti
Egypt
Ethiopia
Gabon
The Gambia
India1
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jordan
Kuwait
Libya
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Mauritania
Morocco
Myanmar
Niger
Oman
Pakistan
Palestine
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Singapore1
Somalia
Sri Lanka1
Sudan
Syria
Tanzania
Togo
Uganda
UAE
Yemen
Zambia



Which list of countries is more civilized from your perspective?

The last group. I notice that none that allow homosexuals to contract in a similar way to heterosexuals allows a man to marry over one woman. That is more natural by far than what the top list allows.

[aboutime]

^ To add to the list, Uruguay passed a same-sex marriage law only a few days ago.

And legislation is currently going through the UK parliament, the second reading (which was held a few weeks ago) was passed by over 200 vote majority.


Noir. Your interest in this silently tells all of us something. So. When will you and your best bud be getting married?

[Robert A Whit]

Legal status of polygamy
Recognized under civil law
Afghanistan
Algeria
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Brunei
Burkina Faso
Cameroon
Chad
CAR
Comoros
Congo
Djibouti
Egypt
Ethiopia
Gabon
The Gambia
India1
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jordan
Kuwait
Libya
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Mauritania
Morocco
Myanmar
Niger
Oman
Pakistan
Palestine
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Singapore1
Somalia
Sri Lanka1
Sudan
Syria
Tanzania
Togo
Uganda
UAE
Yemen
Zambia

46 pro polygamy
USA 0

Yet the homosexual lobby is not promoting polygamy.

Makes you wonder, huh?

[logroller]

The last group. I notice that none that allow homosexuals to contract in a similar way to heterosexuals allows a man to marry over one woman. That is more natural by far than what the top list allows.
You'll find a great number of those countries on the lower list punish homosexuals with death, perhaps because its "unnatural", but I wouldn't consider that "civilized"... As per my question, which list of countries is more civilized?

[Robert A Whit]

You'll find a great number of those countries on the lower list punish homosexuals with death, perhaps because its "unnatural", but I wouldn't consider that "civilized"... As per my question, which list of countries is more civilized?

I told you. The list that allows a man to marry over one woman.

I read today that a man will be punished in the USA for having two wives. Seems very uncivil to me.

[logroller]

I told you. The list that allows a man to marry over one woman.

I read today that a man will be punished in the USA for having two wives. Seems very uncivil to me.
I didn't ask for your definition of polygyny; repeating it doesn't answer my question. Its like if I asked, what's two plus two, and you answered that math deals with numbers. The answer is clear as day-- the latter list is comprised of very uncivilized countries. The former isn't. Clearly you find that your position is correlated with the likes of North Africa, the Middle East and other highly oppressive cultures....so you avoid answering and attempt to obfuscate the issue. I don't wonder why these two concepts of marriage are divergent, I believe that social and individual freedom, in general, is more prevalent in countries that accept gay marriage, whereas countries that accept polygamy are less free, especially in regards to women. The facts support this belief.

[Kathianne]

I didn't ask for your definition of polygyny; repeating it doesn't answer my question. Its like if I asked, what's two plus two, and you answered that math deals with numbers. The answer is clear as day-- the latter list is comprised of very uncivilized countries. The former isn't. Clearly you find that your position is correlated with the likes of North Africa, the Middle East and other highly oppressive cultures....so you avoid answering and attempt to obfuscate the issue. I don't wonder why these two concepts of marriage are divergent, I believe that social and individual freedom, in general, is more prevalent in countries that accept gay marriage, whereas countries that accept polygamy are less free, especially in regards to women. The facts support this belief.

I think polygamy is more civilized than beheadings, stonings, and forced marriages. Don't you? Now where gay marriage falls within these parameters? :dunno: However I'll go along with above beheadings, stonings, and forced marriages. That still doesn't answer your question, does it?

[logroller]

I think polygamy is more civilized than beheadings, stonings, and forced marriages. Don't you? Now where gay marriage falls within these parameters? :dunno: However I'll go along with above beheadings, stonings, and forced marriages. That still doesn't answer your question, does it?
And yet those cultures which behead, stone and force marriages allow, even encourage polygyny, also kill and behead homosexuals. Neither is civil. If I were to rank countries by oppression, i submit that those countries that allow homosexual marriage would be represented towards the higher end, and polygamist accepting countries towards the bottom. Just an observation really. however, what I ask myself is whether we see our country as a beacon of freedom, or a beacon of oppression?

[Robert A Whit]

I didn't ask for your definition of polygyny; repeating it doesn't answer my question. Its like if I asked, what's two plus two, and you answered that math deals with numbers. The answer is clear as day-- the latter list is comprised of very uncivilized countries. The former isn't. Clearly you find that your position is correlated with the likes of North Africa, the Middle East and other highly oppressive cultures....so you avoid answering and attempt to obfuscate the issue. I don't wonder why these two concepts of marriage are divergent, I believe that social and individual freedom, in general, is more prevalent in countries that accept gay marriage, whereas countries that accept polygamy are less free, especially in regards to women. The facts support this belief.

Your question is, so I must remind you, which of the two lists is the more civilized. That question has nothing at all to do with the topic, but still I told you that so far as marriage goes, the second list is the more civilized.

Hell, 49 countries approve what the USA puts men in prison for. And you think of the USA as civilized, don't you?

You make the mistake of treating one issue as the only barometer of civilization and besides that is not what determines marriage.

Take the way the USA wages so many wars. I don't think that is very civilized. The shitty way it treats republicans is one more example.

[Kathianne]

And yet those cultures which behead, stone and force marriages allow, even encourage polygyny, also kill and behead homosexuals. Neither is civil. If I were to rank countries by oppression, i submit that those countries that allow homosexual marriage would be represented towards the higher end, and polygamist accepting countries towards the bottom. Just an observation really. however, what I ask myself is whether we see our country as a beacon of freedom, or a beacon of oppression?

So you are for Gay marriages, stonings, beheadings, but against polygamy?

[Robert A Whit]

I didn't ask for your definition of polygyny; repeating it doesn't answer my question.
Another bite at the apple. Nope and that is perhaps why I did not define it.

Its like if I asked, what's two plus two, and you answered that math deals with numbers.
I did not do that.

The answer is clear as day-- the latter list is comprised of very uncivilized countries.
Marriage has nothing to do with that. But you seemed to not understand that.

The former isn't.

You asked a lousy question as if the difference between them and the longer list was only about marriage. The topic is marriage and not the rest of your stuff.

Clearly you find that your position is correlated with the likes of North Africa, the Middle East and other highly oppressive cultures...
My position on marriage has nothing to do with the list as such, it has to do with the fact that for millenia, marriage has a man and one or more women. The USA has since it's inception been based on a man with one or more women. It abandoned the more than one woman part of this around 1890.


.so you avoid answering and attempt to obfuscate the issue. I don't wonder why these two concepts of marriage are divergent, I believe that social and individual freedom, in general, is more prevalent in countries that accept gay marriage, whereas countries that accept polygamy are less free, especially in regards to women. The facts support this belief.

Nice to know you see the USA in the same breath as those African countries pal. See, they still don't allow homosexuals to have this thing you call marriage but I claim does not exist in Federal law. Where do you get the idea that a man to a man = marriage?

[logroller]

So you are for Gay marriages, stonings, beheadings, but against polygamy?
No. I'm against government defining marriage and surreptitiously oppressing personal freedom.

[logroller]

Nice to know you see the USA in the same breath as those African countries pal. See, they still don't allow homosexuals to have this thing you call marriage but I claim does not exist in Federal law. Where do you get the idea that a man to a man = marriage?

Where did you get the idea that marriage means one man and one women, or one man and many women?....I suspect that from the same source you've also heard that marriage is a holy union, until death. Yet that tradition has certainly changed. So tell me what, exactly, makes one component commutable and another definitive? Tradition? Still believe in the rule of thumb too?

[taft2012]

I thought the 'offering' of a redefinition was - Marriage is a union between two adults.

That's fine. However, as the essayist points out, if you're arguing that one definition is wrong, you also have explain why the one you're offering is the right definition.

Why is "two adults" right?
Would "Two adults" exclude incestuous marriages? If so, why would that be a correct definition?

[taft2012]

Here’s a list of where same-sex marriage is legal (and year the law passed):
Argentina – 2010
Belgium – 2003
Canada – 2005
Iceland – 2010
Netherlands – 2001
Norway – 2008
Portugal – 2010
South Africa – 2006
Spain – 2005
Sweden – 2009
Denmark – 2012




Telling.

The "small government libertarians" holding up big government Euro-socialist cesspools as examples for us to follow.

In this case, as part of a en effort to destroy the most localized social unit; the family. Leaving big government as the only structure in peoples' lives.

How much more evidence is needed? Everything these alleged "small government libertarians" propose is designed to advance the cause of bigger government. How much longer are conservatives going to backslap with these ideological Trojan Horses?

[fj1200]

Telling.

The "small government libertarians" holding up big government Euro-socialist cesspools as examples for us to follow.

In this case, as part of a en effort to destroy the most localized social unit; the family. Leaving big government as the only structure in peoples' lives.

How much more evidence is needed? Everything these alleged "small government libertarians" propose is designed to advance the cause of bigger government. How much longer are conservatives going to backslap with these ideological Trojan Horses?

Considering that you repeatedly misdefine "small government libertarians" you'll notice that the most localized social unit has already been "destroyed" over the past decades. Now if you could point out where your "small government libertarians" were while that was happening because it certainly wasn't anywhere near the policy levers of this country.

EDIT:

nvm, probably too deep.

[Noir]

By way of an update to that list, again, today New Zealand passed am equality bill (77 to 44) to allow gays to marry.

[Robert A Whit]

By way of an update to that list, again, today New Zealand passed am equality bill (77 to 44) to allow gays to marry.

So what. Do they still outlaw polygamy?

[logroller]

So what. Do they still outlaw polygamy?
I believe they recognize it if performed elsewhere.