|
|
 | | From: | Tom the Canuck | | Subject: | Haximus: the Traditional Definition of Marriage HAS changed already | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:04:00 -0600 |
|
|
 | I can see where you are coming from, in terms of not redefining the
traditional definition of marriage, but I would argue that the traditional
definition has been altered in the past one hundred or so years.
Its gone from where a man owned a woman when he married her to one where it
is more or less an equal partnership. Furthermore, women can now divorce
men, whereas a hundred years ago, they weren't unless under special extreme
circumstances. (See: http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/pdf/marriage.pdf)
Women were once considered property-and weren't allowed to divorce men. Was
this right? Absolutely not. Yet, it changed.
So the traditional defintion has changed, so what makes this change
different from the others?
"Haximus" wrote in message news:41F44B39.4090009@t.me...
> Tom the Canuck wrote:
> > As I said in another post, what gives right wingers the right to dictate
who
> > I sleep with?
> >
> > If I am not doing any harm to myself, another person, or society, who
gives
> > you the right to dictate to me who I sleep with?
> >
> > This whole issue about polygamy is truly another area where the
political
> > right wants us to behave in a certain way. Yet, in other ways the
political
> > right says that the government has no right to put gun control in place.
> >
> > What the political right wants to do is a)say that the government cannot
> > dictate to people when it comes to taxes and/or gun control; but on the
> > other hand b)dictate to me what THEY think civil marriage is-and who I
can
> > or cannot sleep with.
> >
> > Like I said, what gives anyone the right to dictate to me the person or
> > persons whom I choose to sleep with? What are you going to do
next-dictate
> > what I can think?
>
> Tom, I think you're barking up the wrong tree - the issue isn't about
> who can sleep with who but redefining the legal definition of marriage.
> Considering the current definition has been the accepted norm for
> hundreds if not thousands of years, in reality it's a case where a small
> minority wishes to impose it's beliefs on the traditionalists, and not
> the other way.
>
> Let me give you a good example: when Trudeau passed away Ottawa got the
> big idea to rename Mt. Logan in Trudeau's honour - what an insult to
> tradition and the honour bestowed upon Sir William Logan! You see, over
> time things become proprietary in nature - it is not possible to simply
> rename or redefine something without dishonouring the original intent.
|
|
| | From: | Haximus | | Subject: | Re: Haximus: the Traditional Definition of Marriage HAS changed already | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:25:23 GMT |
|
|
| Tom the Canuck wrote:
> I can see where you are coming from, in terms of not redefining the
> traditional definition of marriage, but I would argue that the traditional
> definition has been altered in the past one hundred or so years.
>
> Its gone from where a man owned a woman when he married her to one where it
> is more or less an equal partnership. Furthermore, women can now divorce
> men, whereas a hundred years ago, they weren't unless under special extreme
> circumstances. (See: http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/pdf/marriage.pdf)
>
> Women were once considered property-and weren't allowed to divorce men. Was
> this right? Absolutely not. Yet, it changed.
>
> So the traditional defintion has changed, so what makes this change
> different from the others?
The intent hasn't changed though, marriage traditionally implies family
which in turn implies children which in turn implies the parents are the
opposite . There are other rationales for marriage of course, but
this is still the traditionally accepted norm. Sure, some changes have
occurred to put women on a equal footing as men - positive changes - but
the traditional definition of marriage has always been quite explicit
about it involving strictly members of the opposite .
|
|
| | From: | Tom the Canuck | | Subject: | Re: Haximus: the Traditional Definition of Marriage HAS changed already | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:46:05 -0600 |
|
|
| I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
I will however say that at least your argument makes some sense to me-at
least its based on reason. Its too bad more people on your side were as
thoughtful and reasoned as you are.
"Haximus" wrote in message news:41F45C29.20906@t.me...
> Tom the Canuck wrote:
> > I can see where you are coming from, in terms of not redefining the
> > traditional definition of marriage, but I would argue that the
traditional
> > definition has been altered in the past one hundred or so years.
> >
> > Its gone from where a man owned a woman when he married her to one where
it
> > is more or less an equal partnership. Furthermore, women can now
divorce
> > men, whereas a hundred years ago, they weren't unless under special
extreme
> > circumstances. (See: http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/pdf/marriage.pdf)
> >
> > Women were once considered property-and weren't allowed to divorce men.
Was
> > this right? Absolutely not. Yet, it changed.
> >
> > So the traditional defintion has changed, so what makes this change
> > different from the others?
>
> The intent hasn't changed though, marriage traditionally implies family
> which in turn implies children which in turn implies the parents are the
> opposite . There are other rationales for marriage of course, but
> this is still the traditionally accepted norm. Sure, some changes have
> occurred to put women on a equal footing as men - positive changes - but
> the traditional definition of marriage has always been quite explicit
> about it involving strictly members of the opposite .
|
|
| | From: | Dennis G. | | Subject: | Re: Haximus: the Traditional Definition of Marriage HAS changed already | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 06:32:29 GMT |
|
|
| Haximus wrote:
>> So the traditional defintion has changed, so what makes this change
>> different from the others?
>
>The intent hasn't changed though, marriage traditionally implies family
>which in turn implies children which in turn implies the parents are the
>opposite . There are other rationales for marriage of course, but
>this is still the traditionally accepted norm. Sure, some changes have
>occurred to put women on a equal footing as men - positive changes - but
>the traditional definition of marriage has always been quite explicit
>about it involving strictly members of the opposite .
In Canada, that tradition has meant monogamy. No more certain way to break up a
family and a marriage then to be promiscous while in a monogamous marriage.
Dennis
|
|
| | From: | Fred Skyler | | Subject: | Re: Haximus: the Traditional Definition of Marriage HAS changed already | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:49:20 -0800 |
|
|
|
--
> So the traditional defintion has changed, so what makes this change
> different from the others?
> -----------------------------
> The difference is;; that the change in usage of the word "marriage"
> happened throughout the society over a period of time.
This change in the meaning of the word is being forced upon a society
immediately and without adequate reason.
There was no need whatever to try to change the meaning of the word.
"Marriage", and it seems to me that it was an idiotic mistake to suddenly
tell the population that the word Marriage from now on will have a
different meaning.
If they had said that same unions will be known as "Pairage"
which will carry the same rights as a marriage , then the situation would
have passed quietly, without rancor.
------------------------------
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
