The War of the Words: Are Heterosexual Monogamists the Patent Holders on ‘Marriage’?

Written by Martin Winer

There is much debate of late as to who isrepparttar patent holder onrepparttar 132330 term ‘Marriage’. Conservative heterosexual monogamists have put their moral stake inrepparttar 132331 ground claiming that 'Marriage' is their intellectual property. The proponents of a traditional definition can be subdivided intorepparttar 132332 religious, who claim divine rights torepparttar 132333 word, and traditionalists that appeal torepparttar 132334 naturalistic fallacy thatrepparttar 132335 definition is as it ought to be, proven and tested by time.

First, let us set things straight. What isrepparttar 132336 traditional definition of marriage? The short answer is: one woman, one man, for life. Yet, is thisrepparttar 132337 definition that both proponents ofrepparttar 132338 traditional definition truly espouse?

Those religiously minded who claim a divine definition for marriage point you conveniently torepparttar 132339 Bible. Yet, weren’t many ofrepparttar 132340 biblical greats polygamists?! Clearly some historical modification of this divine lexicon has occurred.

The traditionalists have also modified matrimonial definitions over time. As recently as 1997, Ireland legalized divorce, reducingrepparttar 132341 certainty ofrepparttar 132342 ‘for life’ part ofrepparttar 132343 definition. Throughout most of recorded history, divorce was simply, ‘not an option’ yet it seems that societal needs have forced us to alter that definition.

So whatrepparttar 132344 proponents of a traditional definition of marriage present as an immutable and timeless definition, turns out, upon closer inspection to be a shifting definition which is a product ofrepparttar 132345 defining times.

Having knockedrepparttar 132346 moral ascendancy ofrepparttar 132347 conservatives down a peg, we move on to possible solutions to this problem. Most people believe in homosexual marriage-style rights, leavingrepparttar 132348 word used to describe this solution asrepparttar 132349 only sticking point to be debated. They turn to homosexuals and say: what’s in a name? Wouldn’t ‘a marriage by any other name be as sweet?’ They give themrepparttar 132350 rights but just wish that they’d stay out of their lexical backyard.

Same sex marriage proponents contend this would be tantamount torepparttar 132351 tenets ‘different but equal’ and point back torepparttar 132352 inequalities such thinking created in civil rights history. While they have a point on this issue, I believe thatrepparttar 132353 semantic battle forrepparttar 132354 word ‘marriage’ is a bid to gain popular acceptance and I believe that their opponents see it as such. I would like to see advocates forrepparttar 132355 broadened definitions of marriage speak to why homosexuality should be accepted in general. In dealing withrepparttar 132356 issues atrepparttar 132357 core ofrepparttar 132358 debate they haverepparttar 132359 best chances of evoking understanding, hence change.

The main points atrepparttar 132360 core ofrepparttar 132361 debate as to whether to accept homosexuality are: 1) is it natural 2) is it evil and 3) is it a choice or endemic? We’ll examine each point in turn.

First what is natural? There are two aspects to natural, firstrepparttar 132362 examples taken from nature around us and nextrepparttar 132363 notion thatrepparttar 132364 way things are, even inrepparttar 132365 human (not natural) world arerepparttar 132366 'natural' way they should be. Looking to nature we see some examples of heterosexual monogamy in say,repparttar 132367 Bald Eagle. However, more often we see examples of harems (polygamy) and loose monogamy (infidelity, or pair bonding for only a few mating seasons). Whilerepparttar 132368 traditional definition of marriage does exist inrepparttar 132369 animal kingdom, it is a minority player amongst many other definitions of bonding. Further, in nature we see examples of homosexuality amongst, say, male mice who often make female sexual displays in high population densities. Thus to say that heterosexual monogamy is nature's way is tunnel sighted and uninformed.

Next we look torepparttar 132370 idea that homosexual marriage is not natural sincerepparttar 132371 heterosexual definition has beenrepparttar 132372 prevailing one acrossrepparttar 132373 centuries. This is a classic example ofrepparttar 132374 naturalistic fallacy which says thatrepparttar 132375 way things are, isrepparttar 132376 way things ought to be. If we subscribe torepparttar 132377 belief thatrepparttar 132378 way things are isrepparttar 132379 way things they ought to be then we are forced to conclude thatrepparttar 132380 world we currently live in cannot, and/or should not, be improved upon or changed in any way. Imagine if we all had subscribed to this belief, as many did, when it came time to review our ways inrepparttar 132381 face of slavery. Imagine again telling many suffering couples that they were stuck together for life becauserepparttar 132382 definition of marriage wasrepparttar 132383 way it was meant to be. Yet today we tell homosexuals that marriage is as it ought to be and if you want your rights, well then fine, but go do it on another page ofrepparttar 132384 dictionary please. If we wantrepparttar 132385 rights of deep, fulfilling, long term relationships to be extended to all humanity, heterosexuals must not drinkrepparttar 132386 stupefying elixir of a ‘natural’ definition of marriage, because no such definition exists.

FahrenHYPE 9/11

Written by Rocky Ramsey

This documentary analyzes Fahrenheit 9/11 point by point. It's not just a dispute ofrepparttar facts in Fahrenheit 9/11, it has interviews with people who appeared in Fahrenheit 9/11 who either felt mislead by Michael Moore or didn't know that they would be in his movie at all.

FahrenHYPE 9/11 begins with Michael Moore declaring "There is no terrorist threat," which setsrepparttar 132327 tone forrepparttar 132328 movie.

Nearrepparttar 132329 end of FahrenHYPE 9/11 there is a discussion about Fahrenheit 9/11 as propaganda and how it compares to Nazi propaganda films. When Fahrenheit 9/11 was shown in Poland, Polish reviewers raised similar points. After seeingrepparttar 132330 unrealistic portrayal of Baghdad in Fahrenheit 9/11, it's no wonder that people feel this way.

If someone did a documentary about World War II and all they included about Nazi Germany prior to D-Day was images of happy partygoers in Berlin during Oktoberfest without any mention ofrepparttar 132331 concentration camps, I think it would strike most people as strange.

That's basically what Michael Moore did with happy images of people in Baghdad prior torepparttar 132332 US-led invasion of Iraq with no mention ofrepparttar 132333 thousands of Kurds Saddam killed with chemical weapons orrepparttar 132334 hundreds of thousands of people found in mass graves.

Cont'd on page 2 ==> © 2005
Terms of Use