you're wrong

again

Care to point out exactly what about the post was wrong?

I suppose "wrong" was an ill-advised choice of word

It should have read "incomplete and therefore dishonest"

already did

I'm not repeating myself for the retarded in the class

they have a different classroom

No wonder you gave up teaching.

garysher:

How has marriage been redefined in the western world since America was founded?

surely you are more interested in your own country.

the english laws are as follows.

before 1670, marriage was strictly a religious institution, without state sanction or state intervention. records were kept at the local parish, and ceremonies required a priest. marriage was nothing to do with the government or law. divorce allowed the parties to separate and have no responsibility for each other and was only allowed in specific circumstances and they were not allowed to remarry until one died.

1670 laws introduced to allowed men to divorce his wife. each divorce required an act of parliament.

1837 laws introduced to allowed civil ceremonies to validate marriage rather than requiring a religious ceremony. this is a fundamental redefninition of marriage as something sanctioned by the state rather than God.

1857 laws introduced to allow divorce on grounds of desertion, infidelity, different rules for women and men though. (men had the better deal)

1923. divorce on same grounds for both sexes. again, redefined marriage as something that men and women were in together, rather than a relationship where the husband ruled the wife.

1969 divorce allowed due to irreconcileable breakdown of relationship without having to prove infidelity or desertion. redefined marriage as something the parties can end by mutual decision. stopped marriage being defined as 'till death.

1971 nullity of marriage act. this was the FIRST TIME MARRIAGE WAS DEFINED IN ENGLAND AS BETWEEN A MAN AND WOMAN. any marriage that was not between a man and woman was annulled.

1973 laws passed that assumed the wife was entitled to 50% of the marital assets. priot to this, she was entitled to limited support only. marriage redefined as an equal relationship where the woman involved contributed equally and benefited equally, rather than being subservient.

2004 civil partnerships introduced which give same sex unions all the benefits, status and legal recognition of a marriage.

it was one man-one woman then and it remains the same today.

factually incorrect

marriage has been, over the last 500 years, considered strictly a religious convention or a civil commitment. it has been an arrangement where women are subservient to men or an equal relationship with equal responsibilities and rights. it has been a lifelong commitment and something one can break whenever one pleases. it has been between 2 people or between man and woman.

it has been redefined several times, in your own country. why is it inconcieveable that it could be redefined again?

garysher:

How has marriage been redefined in the western world since America was founded?

well, see above post. it has been redefined in terms of its religious significance, its equality between man and woman and the terms of divorce. and the one man-one woman thing is recent.

then you changed your question, rather than accept that you were demonstrably incorrect.

and ignored the rest of the post to focus on the singe issue of civil partnerships.

perhaps you should have written

"well, i never knew marriage had been such a fluid and changeable institution. It has always been my opinion that it was a fixed and immutable tradition, thank you for educating me on this issue. I will endeavour to remain more informed in the future before i post questions that make me look like such an ass"

no wonder tristanrobin gave up teaching. educating the wilfully ignorant is such a thankless task.

If you could spin a cricket ball as much as you try to spin words you could play for Australia!

Despite all the subtle nuances you desperately try to invent, the fact is that none of the things you mentioned have had any impact on changing the definition of marriage as being a union of one man and one woman.

That is a "fixed and immutable tradition" in the western world until the last decade when a handful of countries have adopted homosexual marriage.

Thankfully America is not one of those countries, nor is Australia. Britain has a form of legal agreement to placate its homosexuals, but it is specifically and legally defined as NOT being a marriage.

Americans vote against homosexual "marriage" every chance they get, so the chances of marriage being redefined for homosexuals looks extremely bleak.

BTW please sign the petition in support of the California Marriage Amendment to protect traditional marriage:

Protect Marriage

We have almost reached our goal of 1.1M signatures.