Friday, July 22, 2011

Should We Redefine Marriage?

The definition of marriage has been between one man and one women. Liberals want to change the nuclear family that has been successful at raising children and raising society. We have seen what has happened to children when we take away the father or the mother. Now liberals want to mess with what has worked so well for our society once again. They want to change what marriage is. So why not go all the way and make marriage whatever the individual wants it to be. Should a man be aloud to have as many wives as he wants? Should we follow Sharia Law and let men marry girls as young as 9? Why stop at changing the definition to just one man to one man or one women to one women? Why not push it to so that marriage becomes undefinable? That is the outcome that liberals want in the end.
Liberals have been pushing towards the destruction of the family for decades now. Maybe we need to pull them instead of pushing back just to show the slippery slope they have put us on. If you need any more proof of the importance of the nuclear family just look at the black culture. They have embraced the liberal ideology that a father and mother are but a thing of the past and unnecessary for child development. How has that worked out for them?
Liberals want to keep breaking what has been working for our society for millennium. We need to ask why they keep trying to break what works? Every professional will tell us that one man and one women is the best thing for child rearing. Why is it that liberals want the destruction of babies, marriage, education and our childrens inharitance? Why do liberals always go after the children as if they are lesser people? If we want to make this country great we need to start with ourselves and then our children. The liberals are wantingly destroying the next generation, that is a fact. The debate is why?


  1. Chris,
    a definition is basically a worthless arbitrary thing, not something set in stone. Families and the way they have come to be differ all over this world. There is no one single definition that stands for all families and all marriages.

    Why a sizable amount of families were arranging marriage here and all over the world as close as 50 years ago and yet as a society and culture we stopped accepting that within the majority.

    And if you understood debate you would understand that Slippery slope is a fallacy, not a thoughtful point of debate. It only appeals to those who have little to no ability to defend their case against other points. One can not assume that if A happens that Z will also happen.

    Besides we are referring to an position of legality under the government, not within outside groups. Definitions of legal frameworks change all the time and you are aware of this.

  2. Joe it is not a fallacy at all. It is reality and well known that that which a generation excepts the next will embrace. That is fact. Our society has been going down a slippery slope for a long time and it is the liberals that have been poutting us on it. Just look at how gay has come from being excepted in the past as a fringe group now is considered normal.

    At least you have debated this instead of your normal tactics. Thanks.

  3. Once the definition of marriage is no longer between 'one man and one woman' there is no way you can allow gays to marry and not allow Mormons (or anyone else for that matter) the right to have more than one wife.... the precedent is set - camel's nose is under the tent - enjoy the New America (and coming soon to an elementary school near you - text books explaining all this to your children)

  4. Chris,
    Since your against changing the definition of things please don't change the definition of Slippery Slope.

    Theoretical discussions of fallacies have failed to produce an agreed upon taxonomy of fallacies, but the set of fallacies discussed in informal logic contexts typically includes formal fallacies like affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent; and informal fallacies like ad hominem ("against the person"), slippery slope, "ad bacculum" ("appeal to force"), "ad misericordiam" ("appeal to pity"), "hasty generalization," and "two wrongs" (from "two wrongs make a right"). Some textbook authors use nomenclature designed to highlight the properties of particular kinds of fallacious arguments ("misleading vividness" designates vivid anecdotal evidence used as the basis of hasty generalizations, and so on.)

    Besides Slippery slope isn't from A to B to C to D and so on but from a to z without understanding that one doesn't make the other happen. So perhaps you meant to argue something other than Slippery Slope.

  5. For a guy that talks about cut and paste it sure does seem like you like to use it.

    As Firebird has pointed out B is B not Z.

    Marriage has been defined this way in this country since the begining. Should we change everything oince a fringe group thinks it should?

    It's not just the definition of marriage but the social impact of marriage on the next generation. For years liberals have been trying to devalue marriage and the family unit. Look at how that has worked out for the next generation? Look at how the lack of marriage has effected the next generation of blacks? That is an experament gone totaly wrong. What more proof do you liberals need for the importance of marriage in the procreation of a society?

    You liberals can do what you want too each other but leave what has worked for millenium alone. That is unless destruction of society is your perpose?


Please keep it clean and nice. Thank you for taking the time to post you thought. It means a lot to me that you do this.