CDZ What is "traditional marriage"?

[Derideo_Te]

Traditional marriage was way more than just a man and a women. It involved who owned what and who could sell what. Technically you could sell your own children in a traditional marriage and yes, that did happen right here in the USA.

Today we just sell eggs and sperm instead. There is no longer anything that resembles "traditional marriage" anymore. It vanished when women became emancipated.

It was always between man/woman. Again, that was an unstipulated given.

You have been provided with documented evidence that it wasn't.

 

[Mertex]

There are still racist bigots today who are opposed to mixed race marriages. I have no doubt whatsoever that there will still be bigots opposed to gay marriages 100 years from now.

Yes there are, but they can't keep them from happening.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Based on the following (when blacks were finally allowed to marry each other)......it appears that our Constitution has been changing as times change....so those that are holding on to the Contitution's pronouncement that marriage must be between a man and a woman don't realize that the Constitution is still evolving. Same sex marriage will not change the meaning of my marriage or to any other man/woman marriage. It doesn't affect me. What it does is give these same-sex couples the same rights that man/woman marriages afford.

I'm sure those that were against blacks being allowed to marry had what they thought sensible and meaningful reasons, which now just sound petty and foolish.


In 1896, an American court ruling, resulting from the Plessy vs. Ferguson case, meant that African American were allowed to marry each other. However, they were still unable to marry white people. This continued until 1967, when the Loving v. Virginia case resulted in the Supreme Court, putting an end to anti-miscegenation laws across America.
What year were African Americans allowed to marry

There are still racist bigots today who are opposed to mixed race marriages. I have no doubt whatsoever that there will still be bigots opposed to gay marriages 100 years from now.

Race and gender are apples and oranges. You need to dump that attempted argument.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Traditional marriage was way more than just a man and a women. It involved who owned what and who could sell what. Technically you could sell your own children in a traditional marriage and yes, that did happen right here in the USA.

Today we just sell eggs and sperm instead. There is no longer anything that resembles "traditional marriage" anymore. It vanished when women became emancipated.

It was always between man/woman. Again, that was an unstipulated given.

You have been provided with documented evidence that it wasn't.

No, it was. Various contractual stipulations beyond the given have come and gone relative to state laws. But the given was man/woman. Because procreation is the impetus.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Based on the following (when blacks were finally allowed to marry each other)......it appears that our Constitution has been changing as times change....so those that are holding on to the Contitution's pronouncement that marriage must be between a man and a woman don't realize that the Constitution is still evolving. Same sex marriage will not change the meaning of my marriage or to any other man/woman marriage. It doesn't affect me. What it does is give these same-sex couples the same rights that man/woman marriages afford.

I'm sure those that were against blacks being allowed to marry had what they thought sensible and meaningful reasons, which now just sound petty and foolish.


In 1896, an American court ruling, resulting from the Plessy vs. Ferguson case, meant that African American were allowed to marry each other. However, they were still unable to marry white people. This continued until 1967, when the Loving v. Virginia case resulted in the Supreme Court, putting an end to anti-miscegenation laws across America.
What year were African Americans allowed to marry

There are still racist bigots today who are opposed to mixed race marriages. I have no doubt whatsoever that there will still be bigots opposed to gay marriages 100 years from now.

Race and gender are apples and oranges. You need to dump that attempted argument.

Your deflection doesn't withstand scrutiny.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Based on the following (when blacks were finally allowed to marry each other)......it appears that our Constitution has been changing as times change....so those that are holding on to the Contitution's pronouncement that marriage must be between a man and a woman don't realize that the Constitution is still evolving. Same sex marriage will not change the meaning of my marriage or to any other man/woman marriage. It doesn't affect me. What it does is give these same-sex couples the same rights that man/woman marriages afford.

I'm sure those that were against blacks being allowed to marry had what they thought sensible and meaningful reasons, which now just sound petty and foolish.


In 1896, an American court ruling, resulting from the Plessy vs. Ferguson case, meant that African American were allowed to marry each other. However, they were still unable to marry white people. This continued until 1967, when the Loving v. Virginia case resulted in the Supreme Court, putting an end to anti-miscegenation laws across America.
What year were African Americans allowed to marry

There are still racist bigots today who are opposed to mixed race marriages. I have no doubt whatsoever that there will still be bigots opposed to gay marriages 100 years from now.

Race and gender are apples and oranges. You need to dump that attempted argument.

Your deflection doesn't withstand scrutiny.

That's not deflection, it's logic. If you can't reason logically then we have no discussion. I can't argue with illogic.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Traditional marriage was way more than just a man and a women. It involved who owned what and who could sell what. Technically you could sell your own children in a traditional marriage and yes, that did happen right here in the USA.

Today we just sell eggs and sperm instead. There is no longer anything that resembles "traditional marriage" anymore. It vanished when women became emancipated.

It was always between man/woman. Again, that was an unstipulated given.

You have been provided with documented evidence that it wasn't.

No, it was. Various contractual stipulations beyond the given have come and gone relative to state laws. But the given was man/woman. Because procreation is the impetus.

Procreation is a strawman. Sterile couples adopt children if they want them. People marry past the age of procreation. According to your position that should also be illegal.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Based on the following (when blacks were finally allowed to marry each other)......it appears that our Constitution has been changing as times change....so those that are holding on to the Contitution's pronouncement that marriage must be between a man and a woman don't realize that the Constitution is still evolving. Same sex marriage will not change the meaning of my marriage or to any other man/woman marriage. It doesn't affect me. What it does is give these same-sex couples the same rights that man/woman marriages afford.

I'm sure those that were against blacks being allowed to marry had what they thought sensible and meaningful reasons, which now just sound petty and foolish.


In 1896, an American court ruling, resulting from the Plessy vs. Ferguson case, meant that African American were allowed to marry each other. However, they were still unable to marry white people. This continued until 1967, when the Loving v. Virginia case resulted in the Supreme Court, putting an end to anti-miscegenation laws across America.
What year were African Americans allowed to marry

There are still racist bigots today who are opposed to mixed race marriages. I have no doubt whatsoever that there will still be bigots opposed to gay marriages 100 years from now.

Race and gender are apples and oranges. You need to dump that attempted argument.

Your deflection doesn't withstand scrutiny.

That's not deflection, it's logic. If you can't reason logically then we have no discussion. I can't argue with illogic.

Both are bigotry as far as marriage is concerned. If you cannot follow that logical connection then you are arguing with your own illogical premise.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Since the issue is only relevant to the law of the US, traditional marriage would be between a man and a woman. Or women, depending upon religion. Thing is, they didn't expect the man/woman thing would need explaining so they left it out. Like needing to explain to people that socks were designed for feet.

That's not the point that opponents consistently make.

And if you want to limit the discussion to the US, then biblical reasons are not valid because the bible is not a US work.

If one wants to make up some new religion, which is what the fundie objections are based on, that's different. But, as pointed out in the OP, what we hear here is that "traditional' marriage is much older than the US.

If you want to use that argument, then you must accept or dispute the facts posted in the OP.

 

[Pop23]

How marriage has changed over centuries

Has marriage always had the same definition?
Actually, the institution has been in a process of constant evolution. Pair-bonding began in the Stone Age as a way of organizing and controlling sexual conduct and providing a stable structure for child-rearing and the tasks of daily life. But that basic concept has taken many forms across different cultures and eras. "Whenever people talk about traditional marriage or traditional families, historians throw up their hands," said Steven Mintz, a history professor at Columbia University. "We say, 'When and where?'" The ancient Hebrews, for instance, engaged in polygamy — according to the Bible, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines — and men have taken multiple wives in cultures throughout the world, including China, Africa, and among American Mormons in the 19th century. Polygamy is still common across much of the Muslim world. The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development. Until two centuries ago, said Harvard historian Nancy Cott, "monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion" of the world population, found in "just Western Europe and little settlements in North America."

The idea some have that marriage is between one man and one woman is often used as a reason for denying the Constitutionally-guaranteed right to marriage quality for all Americans. Some here have even written that "one man, one woman marriage" has existed for "thousands of years". Obviously, that's not even possible.

I have often posted this graphic to illustrate the fluidity of marriage but the above linked article goes into much greater depth.

Thoughts?

One man to one woman.

Easy enough for ya?

An opinion you are more than welcome to.

But, this thread is about facts and the fact is, there is no such thing as "traditional" marriage. Further, same sex marriage is nothing new and, in fact, has been sanctioned by religion in the past.

Sorry dude, all the above involve males/females.

Carry on

 

[Luddly Neddite]

How marriage has changed over centuries

Has marriage always had the same definition?
Actually, the institution has been in a process of constant evolution. Pair-bonding began in the Stone Age as a way of organizing and controlling sexual conduct and providing a stable structure for child-rearing and the tasks of daily life. But that basic concept has taken many forms across different cultures and eras. "Whenever people talk about traditional marriage or traditional families, historians throw up their hands," said Steven Mintz, a history professor at Columbia University. "We say, 'When and where?'" The ancient Hebrews, for instance, engaged in polygamy — according to the Bible, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines — and men have taken multiple wives in cultures throughout the world, including China, Africa, and among American Mormons in the 19th century. Polygamy is still common across much of the Muslim world. The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development. Until two centuries ago, said Harvard historian Nancy Cott, "monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion" of the world population, found in "just Western Europe and little settlements in North America."

The idea some have that marriage is between one man and one woman is often used as a reason for denying the Constitutionally-guaranteed right to marriage quality for all Americans. Some here have even written that "one man, one woman marriage" has existed for "thousands of years". Obviously, that's not even possible.

I have often posted this graphic to illustrate the fluidity of marriage but the above linked article goes into much greater depth.

Thoughts?

One man to one woman.

Easy enough for ya?

An opinion you are more than welcome to.

But, this thread is about facts and the fact is, there is no such thing as "traditional" marriage. Further, same sex marriage is nothing new and, in fact, has been sanctioned by religion in the past.

Sorry dude, all the above involve males/females.

Carry on

No, its not.

Read the FACTS in the OP.

Again, you are welcome to your opinion but I'm talking about FACTS. This thread concerns FACTS - not opinions.

If you want to prove the FACTS posted in the link in the OP, then do it.

OR

Admit you're stuck in your own opinion and don't want to be distracted by FACTS.

 

[Ravi]

Since the beginning of time. Marriage has always been between men and women; regardless if it was monogamous or polygamous. .....

No, it has often been between "men" and girls. See Mo and his followers.

 

[Pop23]

How marriage has changed over centuries

Has marriage always had the same definition?
Actually, the institution has been in a process of constant evolution. Pair-bonding began in the Stone Age as a way of organizing and controlling sexual conduct and providing a stable structure for child-rearing and the tasks of daily life. But that basic concept has taken many forms across different cultures and eras. "Whenever people talk about traditional marriage or traditional families, historians throw up their hands," said Steven Mintz, a history professor at Columbia University. "We say, 'When and where?'" The ancient Hebrews, for instance, engaged in polygamy — according to the Bible, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines — and men have taken multiple wives in cultures throughout the world, including China, Africa, and among American Mormons in the 19th century. Polygamy is still common across much of the Muslim world. The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development. Until two centuries ago, said Harvard historian Nancy Cott, "monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion" of the world population, found in "just Western Europe and little settlements in North America."

The idea some have that marriage is between one man and one woman is often used as a reason for denying the Constitutionally-guaranteed right to marriage quality for all Americans. Some here have even written that "one man, one woman marriage" has existed for "thousands of years". Obviously, that's not even possible.

I have often posted this graphic to illustrate the fluidity of marriage but the above linked article goes into much greater depth.

Thoughts?

One man to one woman.

Easy enough for ya?

An opinion you are more than welcome to.

But, this thread is about facts and the fact is, there is no such thing as "traditional" marriage. Further, same sex marriage is nothing new and, in fact, has been sanctioned by religion in the past.

Sorry dude, all the above involve males/females.

Carry on

No, its not.

Read the FACTS in the OP.

Again, you are welcome to your opinion but I'm talking about FACTS. This thread concerns FACTS - not opinions.

If you want to prove the FACTS posted in the link in the OP, then do it.

OR

Admit you're stuck in your own opinion and don't want to be distracted by FACTS.

Hey, where in your OP is there any arrangement that males plus females are not involved?

Good god.

 

[JoeMoma]

I've noticed that a lot of people are now having a lot of trouble knowing which end of a extension cord should be plugged into an outlet. Go figure!

 

[Moonglow]

What is "traditional marriage"?

A pain in the ass for 50% of those married........

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Traditional marriage was way more than just a man and a women. It involved who owned what and who could sell what. Technically you could sell your own children in a traditional marriage and yes, that did happen right here in the USA.

Today we just sell eggs and sperm instead. There is no longer anything that resembles "traditional marriage" anymore. It vanished when women became emancipated.

It was always between man/woman. Again, that was an unstipulated given.

You have been provided with documented evidence that it wasn't.

No, it was. Various contractual stipulations beyond the given have come and gone relative to state laws. But the given was man/woman. Because procreation is the impetus.

Procreation is a strawman. Sterile couples adopt children if they want them. People marry past the age of procreation. According to your position that should also be illegal.

Your anecdotes are the straw man.
What's more, those sterile couples provide structure as long as they're man/woman.

 

[Mertex]

Based on the following (when blacks were finally allowed to marry each other)......it appears that our Constitution has been changing as times change....so those that are holding on to the Contitution's pronouncement that marriage must be between a man and a woman don't realize that the Constitution is still evolving. Same sex marriage will not change the meaning of my marriage or to any other man/woman marriage. It doesn't affect me. What it does is give these same-sex couples the same rights that man/woman marriages afford.

I'm sure those that were against blacks being allowed to marry had what they thought sensible and meaningful reasons, which now just sound petty and foolish.


In 1896, an American court ruling, resulting from the Plessy vs. Ferguson case, meant that African American were allowed to marry each other. However, they were still unable to marry white people. This continued until 1967, when the Loving v. Virginia case resulted in the Supreme Court, putting an end to anti-miscegenation laws across America.
What year were African Americans allowed to marry

There are still racist bigots today who are opposed to mixed race marriages. I have no doubt whatsoever that there will still be bigots opposed to gay marriages 100 years from now.

Race and gender are apples and oranges. You need to dump that attempted argument.

They are the same in that bigots make up their own reasons why they don't think either one should be allowed.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

How marriage has changed over centuries

Has marriage always had the same definition?
Actually, the institution has been in a process of constant evolution. Pair-bonding began in the Stone Age as a way of organizing and controlling sexual conduct and providing a stable structure for child-rearing and the tasks of daily life. But that basic concept has taken many forms across different cultures and eras. "Whenever people talk about traditional marriage or traditional families, historians throw up their hands," said Steven Mintz, a history professor at Columbia University. "We say, 'When and where?'" The ancient Hebrews, for instance, engaged in polygamy — according to the Bible, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines — and men have taken multiple wives in cultures throughout the world, including China, Africa, and among American Mormons in the 19th century. Polygamy is still common across much of the Muslim world. The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development. Until two centuries ago, said Harvard historian Nancy Cott, "monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion" of the world population, found in "just Western Europe and little settlements in North America."

The idea some have that marriage is between one man and one woman is often used as a reason for denying the Constitutionally-guaranteed right to marriage quality for all Americans. Some here have even written that "one man, one woman marriage" has existed for "thousands of years". Obviously, that's not even possible.

I have often posted this graphic to illustrate the fluidity of marriage but the above linked article goes into much greater depth.

Thoughts?

One man to one woman.

Easy enough for ya?

An opinion you are more than welcome to.

But, this thread is about facts and the fact is, there is no such thing as "traditional" marriage. Further, same sex marriage is nothing new and, in fact, has been sanctioned by religion in the past.

Sorry dude, all the above involve males/females.

Carry on

No, its not.

Read the FACTS in the OP.

Again, you are welcome to your opinion but I'm talking about FACTS. This thread concerns FACTS - not opinions.

If you want to prove the FACTS posted in the link in the OP, then do it.

OR

Admit you're stuck in your own opinion and don't want to be distracted by FACTS.

Hey, where in your OP is there any arrangement that males plus females are not involved?

Good god.

Gay 'marriage' in medieval Europe
Same-sex unions aren't a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples' gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as "spiritual brotherhoods" — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. Some historians believe these unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. But Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment, says it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned." That happened in 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

"Traditional" marriage?

Isn't that when Ugmu clubbed Mugda over the head and drug her back to the cave?


Why people think "tradition" is reason enough to continue any specific practice is beyond me.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Traditional marriage was way more than just a man and a women. It involved who owned what and who could sell what. Technically you could sell your own children in a traditional marriage and yes, that did happen right here in the USA.

Today we just sell eggs and sperm instead. There is no longer anything that resembles "traditional marriage" anymore. It vanished when women became emancipated.

It was always between man/woman. Again, that was an unstipulated given.

You have been provided with documented evidence that it wasn't.

No, it was. Various contractual stipulations beyond the given have come and gone relative to state laws. But the given was man/woman. Because procreation is the impetus.

Procreation is a strawman. Sterile couples adopt children if they want them. People marry past the age of procreation. According to your position that should also be illegal.

Your anecdotes are the straw man.
What's more, those sterile couples provide structure as long as they're man/woman.

Your tacit concession that you cannot defend your procreation strawman is acknowledged.