Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 23 Jul 2004 00:08:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1604 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
And in California and Massachusetts, but it’s still illegal.
|
I thought we were considering the definition of marraige, not the legality or
otherwise of that definition.
Even so, there is a world outside the USA. Muslim countries all over the world
permit polygamy. One woman + one man = marraige isn’t a universal definition by
any stretch of the imagination. To continue to argue that it is is baffling to
me.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Change comes when the majority decide it should change, not a tiny
minority.
|
What on Earth makes you think that? Not all changes within society or the
individuals within it are voted on in Parliament. Not all are even the result of
a conscious decision to change. In fact, hardly any are. It’s one of the joys of
living in a dynamic society. To desire things to remain static is to desire
death.
Allister
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
