Ghug, marriage is defined. Already. So why both redefining it?

You're right Putin, sorry for the mis-characterization. Hard to keep track of who is responding to who in these sort of threads!

"Oh yes, so very simple, that's why countries which recognize gay marriage like Sweden don't recognize the civil unions of the UK."

Well, Sweden can make any law it wants. Aren't you Mister Sovereignty? I guess it only applies when Russia wants to steal some land and not be criticized.

If we had gone down the road of civil unions being 100% indistinguishable from marriage in all aspects but the name I *highly* doubt such an issue would exist. You're using a current problem which exists from the current way the laws exist to criticize a hypothetical situation where the issue doesn't arise. It makes no sense.

"Ghug, marriage is defined. Already. So why both redefining it?"

It's not a question of redefining it or not. It's a question of redefining it or defining something new and entirely redundant to serve the same purpose.

"and we should have a culture so supportive of free speech that there should not be social sanctions for expressing a dissenting, unpopular view, no matter how vile."

http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=1182963&page-thread=2#threadPager

"No, it's very "I don't like him, so don't care whether what happened was 'fair'" of me."

In response to a ban in this very forum over speech rules.

Right, but you're some free speech absolutist. Bull. Shit.

"Well, Sweden can make any law it wants. Aren't you Mister Sovereignty? I guess it only applies when Russia wants to steal some land and not be criticized."

You're a buffoon. Yes Sweden can make any law it wants, which is why your stupid civil union scheme would be a bureaucratic mess because it'd cause all sorts of confusion about recognition.

"You're using a current problem which exists from the current way the laws exist to criticize a hypothetical situation where the issue doesn't arise. It makes no sense."

You're simply asserting these problems wouldn't exist out of some sheer fantasy, because you live in a fantasy world where no policy suggestion you ever make is problematic.

TIL the real wars on webdiplomacy take place in the forum, not the in-game.

1. Not government sanction.

2. Being opposed to "social sanctions" doesn't refer to someone getting kicked off a stupid website. It means not losing your job for, oh I don't know, your boss finding out you openly support the Assad regime. It means not having Twitter lynch mobs pop up whenever someone says something that cracks the left liberal consensus which supposedly exists. You know, things that MATTER.

Yeah right. You only give a shit when the right is called out for being a bunch of racist, misogynist, pieces of garbage. Communists can go jump in a lake.

King man... what is with you today? You're being crazy.

I'm sure twitter lynch mobs against women's rights activists are just fine. After all, they're "speaking truth to power" and advocating the rape and murder of women.

No, you can go jump in a lake. Communists should and are free to say whatever they like. While generally people are employees-at-will in this country and can be fired or face some other social sanction for expressing their views, we should have a culture that is tolerant of dissent and does not suppress it.

I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU since this summer. You can't just put people in boxes, Putin33.

"I'm sure twitter lynch mobs against women's rights activists are just fine. After all, they're "speaking truth to power" and advocating the rape and murder of women."

You're a crazy person. How much more clear can I be? People advocating for those horrible things are pieces of shit. It's illegal to threaten people, you know. One of those exceptions.

I don't trust a goddam thing you say. You can posture all you want, you have no credibility on defending anybody on free speech grounds.

No, it's not. You're a legal ignoramous. People have to be in imminent danger, which is an insanely high threshold.

"No, you can go jump in a lake."

Invictus has got done by Putin ..... someone throw in the white towel to prevent further damage, and I used to think he was a contender

"I like free speech!"

"No, *I* like free speech! You hate free speech. Also puppies and rainbows!"

"No, *you* hate free speech and puppies and rainbows! And chocolate too!"

I have perfect credibility. You're the one who wants to junk the First Amendment, bro. Not me.

Invictus - sorry mate but you have been called out big time in your free speech credentials #feeltheshame
Don't let him own you like that, offer him a re-match, let yourself go away, soothe that bruised and battered ego and come back stronger ...... you'll be back!

Hardly. Supporting free speech doesn't mean I need to go to bat for everyone who may or may not be facing a *non-governmental* sanction for how they behave.

But he did you bro', just feel the shame and come back fighting, ain't it bro'

The Linguistical Leftie has taken on the Mighty Righty and wiped the floor with him.

The moment the instigator enters the room and starts feeding the flames http://i.imgur.com/RRiz3.gif

@ghug:

It's not just Christianity. Christianity stemmed from Judiasm, and even Islam agrees with rules for marriage.

It's not an issue with the word marriage, but the institution. Think about it like this: Let's look at the definitions of what it means to be a man and a woman. We define men based on physical characteristics, but it goes deeper than that. It goes even to a chromosomal level. We attempt to change the definition of things, but the natural order that has been set forward clearly defines things differently.

Just because we want to call marriage something else, doesn't mean that it changes. A rose by any other name is still a rose. Mankind can call marriage whatever they want, but the truth of it is that one man was designed for one woman in any facet.

When God instituted marriage, it was as a covenant between man and wife to allow for a deeper connection, including a physical union between the two. If we dissolve marriage or allow it to be defined willy-nilly, then what is to prevent people from being joined with animals in a similar union? What about multiple husbands or wives?

An appropriate definition has been established from the beginning of time as to what marriage is, what it was intended for. Humans are selfish creatures. We want things to be OUR way. We cannot understand when something isn't permissible because we fail to understand the purpose and origin of marriage.

Marriage, in it's perfect God-designed format, eliminates sexually transmitted diseases, eliminates broken homes caused by infidelity and divorce, creates a healthy, stable environment to raise children, promotes a positive self-worth among the married couples, establishes a deep bond between two individuals, and does so in a fashion that is life-long. In it's purest form, it is a perfect institution.

We, as humans, destroy it when we are selfish, covetous, envious, adulterous, and self-centered. Because of our sinful limitations, we attempt to do away with the perfect design of marriage so that we can please ourselves. We don't want to have a life-long committment, so we say that we should create civil unions. We don't want to limit ourselves to one spouse, so we say that polygamy should be permitted. We don't like the definition of what marriage is, so we attempt to redefine it to suit ourselves, so that we don't have to feel guilt when we do something that hurts other people.

While that monologue sounds beautiful to some and disturbing to others, it's meaningless to most since it starts with a premise that quite a bunch of people will outright reject and a lot of people will at least not take for granted:

"When God instituted marriage"

Prove or at least give some valid arguments to your claim that God instituted marriage and your monologue might get significant meaning, rather than being a cliché from a movement which is dying out.

No, I'm not anti-Christian.

No, you're confused.

Tru, ignoring the numerous other fallacies in your argument, what's your point? Everything in your second to last paragraph is just as true of gay marriage as it is of straight marriage, but then you call gay marriage "something that hurts other people."

That means that your entire argument comes down to "I'm so intolerant that the mere thought of gay people hurts me, so they don't deserve rights." Mask that in religion all you want, but it's still an indefensible position.

@Zmaj: Go on.

I didn't take Tru for a bigot. I guess now we know.

Yeah I was kinda surprised too.