Debate : 24977


Off-Topic / Debate / 24977	24976 \| 24978

Subject:	Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Thu, 22 Jul 2004 04:50:27 GMT
Viewed:	1356 times

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allister McLaren wrote:

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allister McLaren wrote:

Shameless diversion aside, I agree. Let’s get back to biblical principles. How many wives and concubines did Soloman have again?

Relevance? (as if polygamy was a “biblical principle”).

JOHN

Well, you seem to have a problem with the term ‘marraige’ being redefined.

EUREKA! Really, is it that obscure what I’m arguing?

No. The obscurity is why you are so fixated on wishing for the permanence of that definition.

The point is that marraige has been redefined many times in the past

I don’t know what you mean. Provide examples, if you please.

and has many different definitions today. The point is that marraige is defined by whatever the conventions and traditions of the day require, and just as conventions and traditions change over time, so does marraige. I’m kind of baffled why you think this is such a problem.

I don’t think marriage, until rather recently, has ever been defined as anything other than the union of 1 man and 1 woman. But again, I am open to cites that prove to the contrary.

I understand they use a slightly different definition in Utah.

I happen to like the way marriage has been defined for the past millenia or two, and I don’t appreciate activist groups attempting to change that definition via judicial fiat for their own personal agenda.

Whether or not you or I like the definition is irrelevant. Things change, sometimes for the better, sometimes not - such is life.

Message has 3 Replies:

		Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
(...) Used. They changed it a while back, but they really only enforce it if you make a big stink about it (in other words, you have to make your crime seem that much more important to enforce than someone else's murder before they're going to come (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

		Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
Ah, see, but John wants to lock the entire world into {his} version of morality for eternity, and the rest of us can just go to hell if we don't like it. Attitudes like John's truly sicken me. (...) -- Tom Stangl (URL) Visual FAQ home (URL) Visual (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
(...) And in California and Massachusetts, but it's still illegal. (...) Change comes when the majority decide it should change, not a tiny minority. JOHN (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
(...) EUREKA! Really, is it that obscure what I'm arguing? (...) I don't know what you mean. Provide examples, if you please. (...) I don't think marriage, until rather recently, has ever been defined as anything other than the union of 1 man and 1 (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)

Entire Thread on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact

Custom Search