Working on my traditional marriage argument.

You can post any number of reasons you dont like a tradition nobody is forcing it on others. I dont believe the state due to the thoughts of some 50% of only one generation in 2000+ years should be able to force a legal change to a traditions meaning. Clearly you think your 50% of just one generation knows better than all those that came before them. Its not about what percentage dilutes its, its forcing change of its definition by law. Its not changed just by a tiny little percent its changed by 100%.

You point out the high value put on the institution of, or the word marriage.....why is it valued so much higher than other laws or registrations? Ahh thats right, tradition and culture. You say marriage is valued then sight evidence of people divorcing that it isnt, are you saying gays wont divorce? If they will then by your own argument they mustnt really value it anyway, so whats the big deal in a name?

All your so called well thought out argument boils down to is 'i dont think its fair, its not all inclusive'. (As i said the term women doesnt include men, men doesnt include women but both are equally and fairly treated under the law). For that reason you're prepared to force by law a change to the tradition/ cultural definition to create it into something that suits you. You can carry on all you like insinuating i must have problems in my own marriage, i must be scared of gays (at least you didnt say i want to kill them all, bravo) - all that means nothing to me other than leftist insult tactics.

 

Yeah, and if you could pick the nations you'd like to live in, most of them would be the 15 that allow same sex marriage.

 

That is quite a rant. You still seem rather agitated. However, it is still lacking in any sort of coherent, logical argument that deals with the points that I made in any sort of rational way. Please try to put some thought and organization into your posts

 

Suggestion: Try to remain calm and address the most basic issue that I raised...Why should "traditional marriage" remain stagnant rather than evolve with changing norms and values and how is doing so harmful? Consider that many other tradition have changed over time, and many others have fallen by the wayside, perhaps because they failed to evolve. Also , how do you justify allowing tradition to take precedent over the law and concepts of fairness?

 

Do you expect anyone to believe that your question is serious and that you're totally unfamiliar with colloquialisms? When someone says that protesters believe the sky is falling, do you really interpret that literally as well?

Seems like you're just trying to derail the thread.

 

And still, 15 nations is not "most" of the civilized world.

 

I don't think we should give out tax breaks and governmental entitlements because they are not harmful. We could give the tax breaks and governmental entitlements to anyone who desires them without causing any harm. There needs to be some benefit to society.

 

It's our culture,and the cultures that are nearest to our culture that have added same sex marriage to their traditions.
So where in the world would you rather live? Canada or Iran? Belgium or Russia? England or Uganda? Sweden or Saudi Arabia?
Are you getting any of this?

 

How do you benefit society?? For that matter how do you benefit this forum? I don't see how myself

 

?????I am not given tax breaks and governmental entitlements because I am me.

 

So you now admit that was said? Interesting. Earlier you argued that it was never said.

Then you decided it was said, but just not by people from Massachusetts.

So why are you commenting and responding over an over to a point that you thought was a colloquialism in the first place? I would have thought if you really thought that, you would have just said that to begin with, not argue about if the people who said that were really from Massachusetts or not.

 

Unlike you, where I desire to live isn't dictated by the nations policy on gay marriage. And more relevant comparisons would be Canada or the US, Belgium or Denmark, England or Ireland, Sweden or Germany. ALL nations within the civilized world.

 

I couldn't tell you if those were their exact words but that was the sentiment they were describing would occur.

AboveAlpha

 

Ah, an answer. Thank you.

 

How many are first-world democracies?

 

That depends on your subjective interpretation of the comparative term "civilized".

 

Sooooo you think there are less than 30 "civilized" countries in the world? There are 35 "ADVANCED" nations.

 

So now you seem to agree that the original figure you provided (193 nations) was not a viable comparison... Overshot by at least 158.
Classy.

As for there being 35 "advanced" nations (presumably you're getting stats from IMF, though you don't bother to post them), let's list them:
Australia - has recently flip-flopped on gay marriage, which is clearly supported by the popular vote.
Austria - Issue is currently before the Constitutional Courts (their version of SCOTUS).
Belgium - legalized same-sex marriage.
Canada - legalized same-sex marriage.
Cyprus - is legalizing same-sex marriage on Monday.
Czech Republic - majority support same-sex marriage, and "registered partnerships" have been given almost all marriage rights.
Denmark - legalized same-sex marriage.
Estonia - does not have same-sex marriage, but is one of the least religious countries in the world and is part of the EU (in which same-sex marriage is spreading quickly).
Finland - same-sex marriage is currently before Parliment, and has been gathering popularity for several years.
France - legalized same-sex marriage.
Germany - does not have same-sex marriage, but most political parties support it, and it is overwhelmingly supported by the voters. Stay tuned.
Greece - does not have same-sex marriage
Hong Kong - does not have same-sex marriage
Iceland - legalized same-sex marriage.
Ireland - legalized same-sex marriage.
Israel - recognizes same-sex marriages that occur in other countries, but doesn't allow them to be performed internally (yet).
Italy - does not nationally support same-sex marriage on religious grounds, but voters overwhelmingly support it and the Pope's recent comments in regards to homosexuality further deteriorate the national conservative position.
Japan - does not have same-sex marriage
Luxembourg - The current government of Luxembourg intends to legalize same-sex marriage by the end of 2014.
Malta - does not have same-sex marriage
Netherlands - legalized same-sex marriage.
New Zealand - legalized same-sex marriage.
Norway - legalized same-sex marriage.
Portugal - legalized same-sex marriage.
San Marino - recognizes same-sex marriages that occur in other countries, but doesn't allow them to be performed internally (yet).
Singapore - does not have same-sex marriage
Slovakia - does not have same-sex marriage
Slovenia - does not have same-sex marriage
South Korea - does not have same-sex marriage
Spain - legalized same-sex marriage.
Sweden - legalized same-sex marriage.
Switzerland - Interesting one... Domestic partnerships offer all the same rights to same-sex couples as straight couples as marriage... but then again you can choose to have your sex legally changed without having it physically changed. So two (biological) men can be have a marriage and adopt. In other words, they've legalized marriage between parterns of the same biological sex.
Taiwan - does not have same-sex marriage, which is par for the course of Asian countries, but same-sex marriage has overwhelming support from voters and faces opposition primarily from a Christian minority.
United Kingdom - legalized same-sex marriage.
United States - In 10 years, one third of the country's states (representing about 38% of the US population) have legalized same-sex marriage.

Seeing a trend in "advanced" nations yet?

 

????? No its still 178 out of 193 nations that limit marriage to men and women.

 

Ireland hasn't legalised SSM yet... We have civil partnerships but they enjoy less legal rights and protections. Our constitutional convention has recently recommended that the constitution should be ammended to allow it. Which would require a referendum. Which the government has tentatively committed to.

 

And comparing first-world democracies to third-world countries is valid.... why?

BTW, on what basis do these countries choose to define marriage in this way?

 

No one is comparing and the 178 nations aren't all third world contries

 

They certainly aren't all first-world democracies either. False comparison.

 

What is traditional marriage?

Grown men marrying 14 year olds?

Racially segregated marriage?

Multiple wives?

Male domination?

You ought to research the history of your imaginary "traditional marriage" before pretending it exists as you pretend it does.

 

Husbands and wives. Been that way for thousands of years.