response 110 of 293:

Dec 10 03:23 UTC 2003

klg, in an earlier response, stated:

"We have
 no desire to change a definition for a social institution that has
 been effective and useful for thousands of years."

so are you saying that if something has been in place for thousands of
years, that you do not think it should be changed?  That this is the
"definition" or a "definition" of conservatism.  In other words, klg is
admitting that he would have been against women's liberation and the civil
rights movement, and every other time that we have attempted to have
social change for the better.  klg thinks NO social change is for the
better then-- he'd rather blacks were still slaves, and women were still
property of men, and neither were allowed to vote or be educated.  Because
it had "been in place"  

klg is saying don't change society, don't try to make it better, stay in
the past.  well I know of conservatives who would argue with klg's
definition of "conservatism"  William Safire for one, whose column opened
this item.  Conservatism ISN'T about rejecting change, anymore than
liberalism is about changing when its not necessary.  

What you see happening is natural.  We evolved as a species, so why
shouldn't our culture evolve as well.  Why shouldn't our culture evolve
and change and grow and adapt when it seems right to do so?  Just because
something has been in place for thousands of years DOESN'T mean it
shouldn't be changed if in fact it is RIGHT to change.  If we don't have
the courage to change even our oldest institutions, then we lack the
courage of our convictions.  The insitution of marriage can be better, it
can be stronger, it can be something more people what to be a part of.
But right now, the divorce rate is escalating and many younger people
don't even see the point in marrying.  That tells you change is necessary.
That tells you that marriage, even if as an institution it has been in
place for thousands of years, is not indestructible.  

If we do not legalize gay marriage, just as if we had not legalized inter
racial marriage (which used to be illegal in many states), marriage itself
as an instutution would be under attack.  It would continue to lose
relevance to younger generations, and become outdated.  If klg CARES about
the institution of marriage, he should want it to grow and adapt with the
times.  

response 112 of 293:

Dec 10 05:40 UTC 2003

Good luck.

response 114 of 293:

Dec 10 11:46 UTC 2003

What possible difference does a sex organ have on whether
a relationship is good, and loving, and committed?  Lots
of heterosexual people don't want to create children but
they can marry.  Lots of happily married people don't 
have sex where tab A goes into slot B, yet we aren't telling
them they aren't really "married".  Orifices don't define
a marriage.  It's the relationship.  

response 116 of 293:

Dec 10 17:48 UTC 2003

re:  ". . . #113 (lk):  For starters, it was Rabbi Gershom who outlawed 
polygamy amongst Jews.  Only a mere thousand years ago (not 
thousands), . . . ."

Well, you got me there - technically. But, you full well know that in 
Judaism technical and practical often are at two ends of the spectrum.  
(For example, what is a father, according to Torah, supposed to be able 
to do to discipline a rebellious son??  Can you cite a single instance 
in which that punishment has been carried out or allowec???)  But, 
specifically to the subject at hand:

"Polygamy was permitted in the Bible.  However, already in Biblical 
times, it was viewed with some suspicion and subjected to both ethical 
and legal restrictions.  In particular, the Torah stipulated (Exodus 
21:10) that when a man took a second wife, he could not reduce the 
first wife's rightful portion of food, clothing, or conjugal 
relations.  The early rabbinic period, also, treated polygamy as 
allowed, but discouraged.  I can't recall any Talmudic rabbi that had 
more than one wife (at a time)."

http://www.kolel.org

So, as you well know, Jews have, in practical terms, been monogamists  
for thousands of years.


Furthermore, you are well aware that we are not talking about 
the "institution of marriage," but of the definition of marriage.  
While the former may have changed, the vast majority of people are not 
interested in changing the latter, i.e., one man and one woman.  


re:  "#114 (mary):  What possible difference does a sex organ have on 
whether a relationship is good, and loving, and committed? . . . ."

What possible difference does species make if the relationship is good, 
loving and committed?

response 118 of 293:

Dec 10 18:46 UTC 2003

(If, it some point in the future, we encounter intelligent alien life,
then we may have to consider the question of inter-species marriage.  I
don't expect it to come up any time soon, however.)

response 120 of 293:

Dec 10 20:29 UTC 2003

re #111..JEP, you misread my last response, I said:

Conservatism ISN'T about rejecting change, anymore than
 liberalism is about changing when its not necessary.   

So I agree with you.  In fact your diatribe should have been directed at klg,
it is KLG who sees conservatism as accepting given definitions and refusing
to change. 

And who made this definition that marriage means between a man and a woman?
as leeron points out, polygamy used to be accepted in biblical times. This
is a different world now than it was a thousand or two thousand years ago,
or even a hundred years ago.  We can't grow and develop as a society unless
we have the willingness to broaden and expand our philosophies and views to
reflect how the world has broadened and expanded.

Surely you can see that JEP.  And no being liberal doesn't mean thinking that
ANY change that is a change is good either.  We each have to decide for
ourselves what is right and what is wrong, and those judgements have to be
made every day, and we should make those judgements based on how the world
is today, now how the world was two thousand years ago.  

response 122 of 293:

Dec 10 20:39 UTC 2003

And JEP you are hypocritical if you defend conservatives as honest, passionate
and thoughtful, and don't see liberals as being such too.  But you did, you
belittled me for being a liberal when in fact I specifically noted William
Safire, whose column I posted, is a conservative who disagrees with klg.  

I think that a "realistic" political philosophy is one that accepts a world
where change is constant and people are continually growing and developing.
So I really don't know where you are coming from.

And Other, what was that "good luck" comment you posted for? klg is the one
who still wants to live in biblical times

response 124 of 293:

Dec 10 21:04 UTC 2003

Re 121 (I know the point that was being made. I'm still curious as to 
what Jewish fathers are allowed to do to their rebellious sons)

response 126 of 293:

Dec 11 05:18 UTC 2003

I stepped into something I shouldn't have; the klg-richard debate, 
which doesn't really matter to me.  Sorry.  I'm out of that one again.

response 128 of 293:

Dec 11 16:36 UTC 2003

Klg, I'll concede the point that what is permitted is not always what
is practiced -- since that isn't a point I made.

In the specific case of polygamy amongst Jews, you might recall that
Yemenite Jews didn't receive R. Gershom's letter and continued to
practice polygamy into the 20th century (a custom not foreign to the
Muslim world in which they lived, though I'm not sure how widespread
this practice was amongst the Jews -- but it did happen.).

So at least amongst Yemenite Jews this did change in the last 100
years, which builds up to the rest of what I said which you ignored:

More widely and to the point, the institution of marriage has changed
dramatically in the last hundred and some years. Few here enter into
arranged marriages. In fact, most people marry for love.  Scandalous!!

Even more recently, as Richard correctly points out, we've come to
accept inter-faith and inter-racial marriages.

Let me clarify that these are changes of definitions. Your new
definition just happens to be a superset of the old definitions.

Christians defined marriage as a wedding between a Christian man
and a Christian woman.

Likewise marriage was commonly defined (as practiced!) as being
between a man and a woman of the same "race".

In turn, my definition is a superset of yours.  (Shall we call
this the evolution of an idea and institution?)

The point is that both practices and definitions have changed over the
past 100-150 years.

Those who value marriage shouldn't be asking if the institution has been
"effective and useful for thousands of years" but if it will continue to
be so.

I ask (again): how does the marriage of homosexuals weaken the institution?
Does the marriage of atheists, "infidel Muslims" or pagans not likewise
offend your God and weaken the institution?

response 130 of 293:

Dec 11 17:12 UTC 2003

for mynxcat:

When a man has a son who is stubborn and a rebel one who does not 
listen to the voice of his father or to the voice of his mother and 
they discipline him and he still does not listen to them.
Then his father and his mother are to grab him and drag him to the town 
elders in the gates of his place And they are to say to the town 
elders, "Our son is stubborn and a rebel he does not listen to our 
voice he is a glutton and a drunkard!"
Then all the men of the town are to pelt him with stones so that he 
dies.  So shall you burn the evil out of your midst's and all Israel 
will hear and be awed.
. . . 
These are later rabbis' interpretations of my verse from the Torah:

When a man has a wayward and rebellious son who does not obey his 
father or mother, they shall have him flogged. If he still does not 
listen to them, then his father and mother must grasp him and bring him 
to the elders of the city and say "Our son is a wayward and rebellious 
child, he does not listen to us and he is an exceptional glutton and 
drunkard"

In order to be stoned, the boy must be between the ages of 13 and 13 
and one quarter. The law does not apply to girls. The boy will be 
flogged with 39 lashes only if he eats the meal of the rebellious son 
which is forbidden.

Both the mother and father must agree to bring him to the local Supreme 
Court of 23 judges.

By tradition, the rebellious son must steal money from his father, and 
buy 50 dinars of meat, and eat it rare outside of his father's property 
in bad company. This is the act which must be witnessed by two 
additional people besides his parents in order for the son to be put to 
death. He must also drink a half a log (5 ounces) of wine with the 
meal. It is forbidden for a boy of this age to eat such a meal at any 
time.

If the punishment is carried out, the boy will be hung up by his hands 
just before sunset for the town to see and immediately taken down again 
after sunset.

These laws have been put in by rabbis in earlier centuries and changed 
and made into an interpretation of what the words mean so that there 
will never be a child killed.

response 132 of 293:

Dec 11 17:27 UTC 2003

Why 13 and 13 and 3/4?

response 134 of 293:

Dec 11 17:46 UTC 2003

Oh, you mean you can *start* between 13 and 13 and 1/4? The way i read
it was you can only stone boys between 13 and 13 and 1/4.