Arlo and Craig, The term socialism is very broad and holds a connotational propensity (connotational propensity?? whew!) towards "social" which includes every single society ever thought up or followed. Hence opportunity for endless debate among the various uses of the term.
So confining the term to the economic realm is a good idea, if you want a meaningful debate. For instance, Arlo, wiki contradicts your assertion that Nazism wasn't socialism. Nazism combined aspects of socialism and capitalism. It definitely used state control of industry, and biology and intellect, for that matter. > [Arlo] > Personally I think the state should only concern itself with "civil > unions", > let "marriage" become just a "church" term. I think that is the best solution also. Let people find the terms they like and use them. Personally, when I got married it was something that had true meaning and definition between the two of us. We jumped through the societal hoops (mainly because she wanted it) but in my mind we were as married as any two coyotes (which mate for life) without any comment or aknowledgement needed from the rest of the world. To my thinking then, this strident insistence of the gay community for obtaining the label "marriage" is kinda silly in a craving for acceptance way. J -- ------------ The self is a point along a dynamic continuum, evolving toward Quality by Choice. ------------ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
