CDZ What is "traditional marriage"?

[Pop23]

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.

Love that you had to put quotes around marriage.

Kinda like, but not the same

Kinda like being in a same sex marriage is "kinda like", but NOT at all the same as being in a opposing sex marriage.

Been my argument all along.

Having a CDL is kinda like having a pilots license, but we don't allow truck drivers to fly airliners.

 

[Yurt]

it is false to state that the ban in interracial marriages is considered a "traditional" marriage. it came along only recently, in terms of history, and didn't even last long. further, it was applied only in the US, it was not a world wide prohibition.

the "traditional" argument is probably the best argument those who oppose gay marriage have. there is no doubt that throughout history marriage has virtually always, if not entirely, been between a man and a woman. i no of no other culture, society or government that has sanctioned gay marriage. if there is, i would be interested to see it.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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.

No, you're the one with the straw man. Procreation is the defining element. When you remove that you open the door to infinite alternatives including marrying animals.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

No, you're the one with the straw man. Procreation is the defining element. When you remove that you open the door to infinite alternatives including marrying animals.

Thanks for the but that deflection is so far out of bounds I won't even bother asking you to try and substantiate it.

So far you have failed to substantiate that procreation is a requirement for marriage. That has already been established. We have also established that there is historical evidence for same sex marriages provided in this thread.

If you can't come up with anything better than a deflection to beastiality then we can both just agree that you have nothing further of any value to contribute.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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.

No, you're the one with the straw man. Procreation is the defining element. When you remove that you open the door to infinite alternatives including marrying animals.

Thanks for the but that deflection is so far out of bounds I won't even bother asking you to try and substantiate it.

So far you have failed to substantiate that procreation is a requirement for marriage. That has already been established. We have also established that there is historical evidence for same sex marriages provided in this thread.

If you can't come up with anything better than a deflection to beastiality then we can both just agree that you have nothing further of any value to contribute.

Procreation is the impetus for legal marriage. Read more closely.
Without that criteria, all alternatives become feasible. Logic. You want to be selective. That's your agenda.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

No, you're the one with the straw man. Procreation is the defining element. When you remove that you open the door to infinite alternatives including marrying animals.

Thanks for the but that deflection is so far out of bounds I won't even bother asking you to try and substantiate it.

So far you have failed to substantiate that procreation is a requirement for marriage. That has already been established. We have also established that there is historical evidence for same sex marriages provided in this thread.

If you can't come up with anything better than a deflection to beastiality then we can both just agree that you have nothing further of any value to contribute.

Procreation is the impetus for legal marriage. Read more closely.
Without that criteria, all alternatives become feasible. Logic. You want to be selective. That's your agenda.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

70 year old people getting married have zero "impetus" for procreation.

 

[Mertex]

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.

Love that you had to put quotes around marriage.

Kinda like, but not the same

Kinda like being in a same sex marriage is "kinda like", but NOT at all the same as being in a opposing sex marriage.

Been my argument all along.

Having a CDL is kinda like having a pilots license, but we don't allow truck drivers to fly airliners.

Of course it's not the same........DUH!

Same sex marriage you have two people of the same sex, heterosexual marriage you have one man and one woman....no need to feel special because you knew that all along.......I'm sure everyone else did, too!

It's not that anyone is trying to make them the same......they're just trying to make them.....in areas where some are still fighting it.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Love that you had to put quotes around marriage.

Kinda like, but not the same

Kinda like being in a same sex marriage is "kinda like", but NOT at all the same as being in a opposing sex marriage.

Been my argument all along.

Having a CDL is kinda like having a pilots license, but we don't allow truck drivers to fly airliners.

Of course it's not the same........DUH!

Same sex marriage you have two people of the same sex, heterosexual marriage you have one man and one woman....no need to feel special because you knew that all along.......I'm sure everyone else did, too!

It's not that anyone is trying to make them the same......they're just trying to make them.....in areas where some are still fighting it.

Oh, but they are. The question really is why? The demographic groups are completely different. To argue that is stoopid.

What we need is a institution that celebrates that difference while leaving traditional alone.

^^^^ that makes everybody happy. But we don't want that do we? Making sense does not allow this to be a wedge issue does it?

 

[Pop23]

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.

No, you're the one with the straw man. Procreation is the defining element. When you remove that you open the door to infinite alternatives including marrying animals.

Thanks for the but that deflection is so far out of bounds I won't even bother asking you to try and substantiate it.

So far you have failed to substantiate that procreation is a requirement for marriage. That has already been established. We have also established that there is historical evidence for same sex marriages provided in this thread.

If you can't come up with anything better than a deflection to beastiality then we can both just agree that you have nothing further of any value to contribute.

Procreation is the impetus for legal marriage. Read more closely.
Without that criteria, all alternatives become feasible. Logic. You want to be selective. That's your agenda.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

70 year old people getting married have zero "impetus" for procreation.

Comparing 20 year old gays to 70 year old hetros is how you compare demographic groups?

Ok, so let's look at it this way:

Only one of the subject demographic groups have produced ALL human kind. That being opposite sex couples and their couplings.

Doesn't matter how old the members are in the same sex demographic, their coupling has never produced a single child. E V E R ( hint, that's an absolute)

 

[Yurt]

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.

Love that you had to put quotes around marriage.

Kinda like, but not the same

Kinda like being in a same sex marriage is "kinda like", but NOT at all the same as being in a opposing sex marriage.

Been my argument all along.

Having a CDL is kinda like having a pilots license, but we don't allow truck drivers to fly airliners.

Of course it's not the same........DUH!

Same sex marriage you have two people of the same sex, heterosexual marriage you have one man and one woman....no need to feel special because you knew that all along.......I'm sure everyone else did, too!

It's not that anyone is trying to make them the same......they're just trying to make them.....in areas where some are still fighting it.

Oh, but they are. The question really is why? The demographic groups are completely different. To argue that is stoopid.

What we need is a institution that celebrates that difference while leaving traditional alone.

^^^^ that makes everybody happy. But we don't want that do we? Making sense does not allow this to be a wedge issue does it?

in the US, we would need to get government out of marriage completely. this is core issue that many overlook. in the US, in every jurisdiction, a marriage is a contract. nothing more. i speak solely to the legality of the issue, not the morality. marriage laws in the US are not about morality, in most jurisdictions. granted a few have some morality clauses. but most are now are "irreconcilable difference" states. that means, regardless of morality, you can divorce your spouse. be it one minute, three days or thirty years, you need no moral reason to get a divorce.

in order to get married, there is also no moral clause you need to sign in the US. you don't have to be a christian, an atheist or a buddhist. you don't even have to marry just to procreate. you can marry for love, money, sex, or virtually any other reason that doesn't violate the law.

denying same sex people the right to marry violates our constitution. our laws. to keep marriage traditional, if you will, then get government out of marriage and have government issue a civil union. because in reality, that is all it is when you go to court seeking divorce.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Love that you had to put quotes around marriage.

Kinda like, but not the same

Kinda like being in a same sex marriage is "kinda like", but NOT at all the same as being in a opposing sex marriage.

Been my argument all along.

Having a CDL is kinda like having a pilots license, but we don't allow truck drivers to fly airliners.

Of course it's not the same........DUH!

Same sex marriage you have two people of the same sex, heterosexual marriage you have one man and one woman....no need to feel special because you knew that all along.......I'm sure everyone else did, too!

It's not that anyone is trying to make them the same......they're just trying to make them.....in areas where some are still fighting it.

Oh, but they are. The question really is why? The demographic groups are completely different. To argue that is stoopid.

What we need is a institution that celebrates that difference while leaving traditional alone.

^^^^ that makes everybody happy. But we don't want that do we? Making sense does not allow this to be a wedge issue does it?

in the US, we would need to get government out of marriage completely. this is core issue that many overlook. in the US, in every jurisdiction, a marriage is a contract. nothing more. i speak solely to the legality of the issue, not the morality. marriage laws in the US are not about morality, in most jurisdictions. granted a few have some morality clauses. but most are now are "irreconcilable difference" states. that means, regardless of morality, you can divorce your spouse. be it one minute, three days or thirty years, you need no moral reason to get a divorce.

in order to get married, there is also no moral clause you need to sign in the US. you don't have to be a christian, an atheist or a buddhist. you don't even have to marry just to procreate. you can marry for love, money, sex, or virtually any other reason that doesn't violate the law.

denying same sex people the right to marry violates our constitution. our laws. to keep marriage traditional, if you will, then get government out of marriage and have government issue a civil union. because in reality, that is all it is when you go to court seeking divorce.

You make the claim, correctly by the way, that same sex couples are not allowed to marry, that's because they opt out of marriage, which by the way is open and available to all.

I have considered the possibility of getting rid of marriage as you propesed and that idea is interesting, but at the same time that institution has lasted for 1000 years plus. Seems a risky experiment.

 

[Mertex]

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.

Love that you had to put quotes around marriage.

Kinda like, but not the same

Kinda like being in a same sex marriage is "kinda like", but NOT at all the same as being in a opposing sex marriage.

Been my argument all along.

Having a CDL is kinda like having a pilots license, but we don't allow truck drivers to fly airliners.

Of course it's not the same........DUH!

Same sex marriage you have two people of the same sex, heterosexual marriage you have one man and one woman....no need to feel special because you knew that all along.......I'm sure everyone else did, too!

It's not that anyone is trying to make them the same......they're just trying to make them.....in areas where some are still fighting it.

Oh, but they are. The question really is why? The demographic groups are completely different. To argue that is stoopid.

No, they are not. Homosexuals marrying homosexuals will remain homosexuals and heterosexuals will remain heterosexuals, marriage doesn't change who they are. What those who do not oppose same sex marriages want is to allow homosexuals to have the same rights when married as do heterosexuals.
And that is the reason why. Right now, homosexuals may be living together but they don't get the same rights that heterosexuals marriages get.

What we need is a institution that celebrates that difference while leaving traditional alone.

And what is that supposed to be? What is it about marriage that you feel is going to change if homosexuals are allowed to get married? What is going to change that affects you or your marriage?

^^^^ that makes everybody happy. But we don't want that do we? Making sense does not allow this to be a wedge issue does it?

I don't what "that" is. An institution meaning what? Why does it matter that they call it "marriage"? "Marriage" is just a word, and many heterosexuals drag it (their marriages) through the mud, why doesn't that bother you?

 

[Yurt]

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.

Love that you had to put quotes around marriage.

Kinda like, but not the same

Kinda like being in a same sex marriage is "kinda like", but NOT at all the same as being in a opposing sex marriage.

Been my argument all along.

Having a CDL is kinda like having a pilots license, but we don't allow truck drivers to fly airliners.

Of course it's not the same........DUH!

Same sex marriage you have two people of the same sex, heterosexual marriage you have one man and one woman....no need to feel special because you knew that all along.......I'm sure everyone else did, too!

It's not that anyone is trying to make them the same......they're just trying to make them.....in areas where some are still fighting it.

Oh, but they are. The question really is why? The demographic groups are completely different. To argue that is stoopid.

What we need is a institution that celebrates that difference while leaving traditional alone.

^^^^ that makes everybody happy. But we don't want that do we? Making sense does not allow this to be a wedge issue does it?

in the US, we would need to get government out of marriage completely. this is core issue that many overlook. in the US, in every jurisdiction, a marriage is a contract. nothing more. i speak solely to the legality of the issue, not the morality. marriage laws in the US are not about morality, in most jurisdictions. granted a few have some morality clauses. but most are now are "irreconcilable difference" states. that means, regardless of morality, you can divorce your spouse. be it one minute, three days or thirty years, you need no moral reason to get a divorce.

in order to get married, there is also no moral clause you need to sign in the US. you don't have to be a christian, an atheist or a buddhist. you don't even have to marry just to procreate. you can marry for love, money, sex, or virtually any other reason that doesn't violate the law.

denying same sex people the right to marry violates our constitution. our laws. to keep marriage traditional, if you will, then get government out of marriage and have government issue a civil union. because in reality, that is all it is when you go to court seeking divorce.

You make the claim, correctly by the way, that same sex couples are not allowed to marry, that's because they opt out of marriage, which by the way is open and available to all.

I have considered the possibility of getting rid of marriage as you propesed and that idea is interesting, but at the same time that institution has lasted for 1000 years plus. Seems a risky experiment.

the only risk is getting our government that is bound not to favor religion out of religious marriage. let's face it, the opposition to gay marriage is for religious reasons. sure, there may be other reasons, but the vast majority of those who oppose gay marriage do so out of their religious beliefs. and contrary to some liberals on this board, that opposition is not solely from conservatives.

simple solution: civil union from the government. privately, anyone can get married and uphold their religious vows. of course the government will not allow your religious beliefs to supersede the government laws regarding divorce, so back to civil unions we are. do you see what i mean?

 

[Yurt]

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.

Love that you had to put quotes around marriage.

Kinda like, but not the same

Kinda like being in a same sex marriage is "kinda like", but NOT at all the same as being in a opposing sex marriage.

Been my argument all along.

Having a CDL is kinda like having a pilots license, but we don't allow truck drivers to fly airliners.

Of course it's not the same........DUH!

Same sex marriage you have two people of the same sex, heterosexual marriage you have one man and one woman....no need to feel special because you knew that all along.......I'm sure everyone else did, too!

It's not that anyone is trying to make them the same......they're just trying to make them.....in areas where some are still fighting it.

Oh, but they are. The question really is why? The demographic groups are completely different. To argue that is stoopid.

No, they are not. Homosexuals marrying homosexuals will remain homosexuals and heterosexuals will remain heterosexuals, marriage doesn't change who they are. What those who do not oppose same sex marriages want is to allow homosexuals to have the same rights when married as do heterosexuals.
And that is the reason why. Right now, homosexuals may be living together but they don't get the same rights that heterosexuals marriages get.

What we need is a institution that celebrates that difference while leaving traditional alone.

And what is that supposed to be? What is it about marriage that you feel is going to change if homosexuals are allowed to get married? What is going to change that affects you or your marriage?

^^^^ that makes everybody happy. But we don't want that do we? Making sense does not allow this to be a wedge issue does it?

I don't what "that" is. An institution meaning what? Why does it matter that they call it "marriage"? "Marriage" is just a word, and many heterosexuals drag it (their marriages) through the mud, why doesn't that bother you?

and this is why the government should not grant a marriage license. civil unions to all. and if you want to marry in the "traditional" sense, go for it. the problem is government involvement in marriage in the first place. you don't need any religious reason to get a divorce in any state in the US. so why should the government be involved in the morality or religion of marriage to begin with?

does this post mean i made your shit list again Mertex

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

No, you're the one with the straw man. Procreation is the defining element. When you remove that you open the door to infinite alternatives including marrying animals.

Thanks for the but that deflection is so far out of bounds I won't even bother asking you to try and substantiate it.

So far you have failed to substantiate that procreation is a requirement for marriage. That has already been established. We have also established that there is historical evidence for same sex marriages provided in this thread.

If you can't come up with anything better than a deflection to beastiality then we can both just agree that you have nothing further of any value to contribute.

Procreation is the impetus for legal marriage. Read more closely.
Without that criteria, all alternatives become feasible. Logic. You want to be selective. That's your agenda.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

70 year old people getting married have zero "impetus" for procreation.

Comparing 20 year old gays to 70 year old hetros is how you compare demographic groups?

Ok, so let's look at it this way:

Only one of the subject demographic groups have produced ALL human kind. That being opposite sex couples and their couplings.

Doesn't matter how old the members are in the same sex demographic, their coupling has never produced a single child. E V E R ( hint, that's an absolute)

You failed, yet again, to substantiate that procreation is the impetus for marriage when that is clearly not the case when it comes to senior citizens.

 

[Pop23]

No, you're the one with the straw man. Procreation is the defining element. When you remove that you open the door to infinite alternatives including marrying animals.

Thanks for the but that deflection is so far out of bounds I won't even bother asking you to try and substantiate it.

So far you have failed to substantiate that procreation is a requirement for marriage. That has already been established. We have also established that there is historical evidence for same sex marriages provided in this thread.

If you can't come up with anything better than a deflection to beastiality then we can both just agree that you have nothing further of any value to contribute.

Procreation is the impetus for legal marriage. Read more closely.
Without that criteria, all alternatives become feasible. Logic. You want to be selective. That's your agenda.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

70 year old people getting married have zero "impetus" for procreation.

Comparing 20 year old gays to 70 year old hetros is how you compare demographic groups?

Ok, so let's look at it this way:

Only one of the subject demographic groups have produced ALL human kind. That being opposite sex couples and their couplings.

Doesn't matter how old the members are in the same sex demographic, their coupling has never produced a single child. E V E R ( hint, that's an absolute)

You failed, yet again, to substantiate that procreation in the impetus for marriage when that is clearly not the case when it comes to senior citizens.

You want to make this about a subset of one demographic group compared to a full demographic group.

Yet, only one demographic group has created all human life, the other, none.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Love that you had to put quotes around marriage.

Kinda like, but not the same

Kinda like being in a same sex marriage is "kinda like", but NOT at all the same as being in a opposing sex marriage.

Been my argument all along.

Having a CDL is kinda like having a pilots license, but we don't allow truck drivers to fly airliners.

Of course it's not the same........DUH!

Same sex marriage you have two people of the same sex, heterosexual marriage you have one man and one woman....no need to feel special because you knew that all along.......I'm sure everyone else did, too!

It's not that anyone is trying to make them the same......they're just trying to make them.....in areas where some are still fighting it.

Oh, but they are. The question really is why? The demographic groups are completely different. To argue that is stoopid.

No, they are not. Homosexuals marrying homosexuals will remain homosexuals and heterosexuals will remain heterosexuals, marriage doesn't change who they are. What those who do not oppose same sex marriages want is to allow homosexuals to have the same rights when married as do heterosexuals.
And that is the reason why. Right now, homosexuals may be living together but they don't get the same rights that heterosexuals marriages get.

What we need is a institution that celebrates that difference while leaving traditional alone.

And what is that supposed to be? What is it about marriage that you feel is going to change if homosexuals are allowed to get married? What is going to change that affects you or your marriage?

^^^^ that makes everybody happy. But we don't want that do we? Making sense does not allow this to be a wedge issue does it?

I don't what "that" is. An institution meaning what? Why does it matter that they call it "marriage"? "Marriage" is just a word, and many heterosexuals drag it (their marriages) through the mud, why doesn't that bother you?

Marriage is an institution that unites opposites. Not sames.

In this case the uniting of opposites can, and often does supply the world with the MOST important thing required for humanity to exist. Opposite gender coupling is a requirement, same sex coupling.......Not so much, in fact, not at all.

These facts are absolute.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Love that you had to put quotes around marriage.

Kinda like, but not the same

Kinda like being in a same sex marriage is "kinda like", but NOT at all the same as being in a opposing sex marriage.

Been my argument all along.

Having a CDL is kinda like having a pilots license, but we don't allow truck drivers to fly airliners.

That is a direct quote. I did not add anything to it. Those are NOT quotation marks and do not mean what you think they mean. As we all learned in grade school,

Use a pair of single quotation marks (' ') to enclose a title, direct quotation, or piece of dialogue that appears within another quotation...

You asked "Hey, where in your OP is there any arrangement that males plus females are not involved?" and I showed it to you.

You are welcome to your opinion but, as I've said before, this thread concerns FACTS.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Love that you had to put quotes around marriage.

Kinda like, but not the same

Kinda like being in a same sex marriage is "kinda like", but NOT at all the same as being in a opposing sex marriage.

Been my argument all along.

Having a CDL is kinda like having a pilots license, but we don't allow truck drivers to fly airliners.

Of course it's not the same........DUH!

Same sex marriage you have two people of the same sex, heterosexual marriage you have one man and one woman....no need to feel special because you knew that all along.......I'm sure everyone else did, too!

It's not that anyone is trying to make them the same......they're just trying to make them.....in areas where some are still fighting it.

Oh, but they are. The question really is why? The demographic groups are completely different. To argue that is stoopid.

No, they are not. Homosexuals marrying homosexuals will remain homosexuals and heterosexuals will remain heterosexuals, marriage doesn't change who they are. What those who do not oppose same sex marriages want is to allow homosexuals to have the same rights when married as do heterosexuals.
And that is the reason why. Right now, homosexuals may be living together but they don't get the same rights that heterosexuals marriages get.

What we need is a institution that celebrates that difference while leaving traditional alone.

And what is that supposed to be? What is it about marriage that you feel is going to change if homosexuals are allowed to get married? What is going to change that affects you or your marriage?

^^^^ that makes everybody happy. But we don't want that do we? Making sense does not allow this to be a wedge issue does it?

I don't what "that" is. An institution meaning what? Why does it matter that they call it "marriage"? "Marriage" is just a word, and many heterosexuals drag it (their marriages) through the mud, why doesn't that bother you?

and this is why the government should not grant a marriage license. civil unions to all. and if you want to marry in the "traditional" sense, go for it. the problem is government involvement in marriage in the first place. you don't need any religious reason to get a divorce in any state in the US. so why should the government be involved in the morality or religion of marriage to begin with?

does this post mean i made your shit list again Mertex

Marriage already is a civil union.

You don't need a religious reason to get married OR divorced. Marriage in a church is not legally recognized. Religion actually does not enter into it at all EXCEPT as a social construct.

I do agree that consenting adults should not need the permission of government to either marry or divorce. Marriage to another consenting adult, several consenting adults or marriage to a bridge is not the business of the state.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Love that you had to put quotes around marriage.

Kinda like, but not the same

Kinda like being in a same sex marriage is "kinda like", but NOT at all the same as being in a opposing sex marriage.

Been my argument all along.

Having a CDL is kinda like having a pilots license, but we don't allow truck drivers to fly airliners.

Of course it's not the same........DUH!

Same sex marriage you have two people of the same sex, heterosexual marriage you have one man and one woman....no need to feel special because you knew that all along.......I'm sure everyone else did, too!

It's not that anyone is trying to make them the same......they're just trying to make them.....in areas where some are still fighting it.

Oh, but they are. The question really is why? The demographic groups are completely different. To argue that is stoopid.

No, they are not. Homosexuals marrying homosexuals will remain homosexuals and heterosexuals will remain heterosexuals, marriage doesn't change who they are. What those who do not oppose same sex marriages want is to allow homosexuals to have the same rights when married as do heterosexuals.
And that is the reason why. Right now, homosexuals may be living together but they don't get the same rights that heterosexuals marriages get.

What we need is a institution that celebrates that difference while leaving traditional alone.

And what is that supposed to be? What is it about marriage that you feel is going to change if homosexuals are allowed to get married? What is going to change that affects you or your marriage?

^^^^ that makes everybody happy. But we don't want that do we? Making sense does not allow this to be a wedge issue does it?

I don't what "that" is. An institution meaning what? Why does it matter that they call it "marriage"? "Marriage" is just a word, and many heterosexuals drag it (their marriages) through the mud, why doesn't that bother you?

Marriage is an institution that unites opposites. Not sames.

In this case the uniting of opposites can, and often does supply the world with the MOST important thing required for humanity to exist. Opposite gender coupling is a requirement, same sex coupling.......Not so much, in fact, not at all.

These facts are absolute.

One is a fact, the other is an opinion.

Its certainly true that its heterosexual coupling that produces offspring, including gays, btw.

But what you say is the factual definition of "marriage" is actually just an opinion, a custom. As we see in the OP, customs change.

(Note the correct use of quotation marks.)