CDZ What is "traditional marriage"?

[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.

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.

The quote indicated that it was a quasi marriage. Not one in fact

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

The quote indicated that it was a quasi marriage. Not one in fact

You write "it".

What do you mean by "it"? The paragraph describes several hundred years of same-sex marriage.

The reason for your confusion is that you have not read the article and are not looking at that paragraph in context. Indeed, from your posts, it seems you did not even read that paragraph.

If you refuse to learn how to use the language correctly, you will continue to make these mistakes. You might want to read up on the use of scare quotes.

Every point you have brought up has been proven to be either factually incorrect or an opinion. Please educate yourself as to the difference.

Once again, the purpose of this thread was to look at the FACTS of marriage in history.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Ironic given that you want to make this about only the one subset that is able to procreate.

There is no state requirement to procreate when you receive a marriage license.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Ironic given that you want to make this about only the one subset that is able to procreate.

There is no state requirement to procreate when you receive a marriage license.

No, I am comparing demographic groups in whole.

One can procreate, and most importantly does.

One can't procreat, and most importantly can't.

 

[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.

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.

The quote indicated that it was a quasi marriage. Not one in fact

You write "it".

What do you mean by "it"? The paragraph describes several hundred years of same-sex marriage.

The reason for your confusion is that you have not read the article and are not looking at that paragraph in context. Indeed, from your posts, it seems you did not even read that paragraph.

If you refuse to learn how to use the language correctly, you will continue to make these mistakes. You might want to read up on the use of scare quotes.

Every point you have brought up has been proven to be either factually incorrect or an opinion. Please educate yourself as to the difference.

Once again, the purpose of this thread was to look at the FACTS of marriage in history.

Historic burps don't interst me.

 

[Sunni Man]

The main difference between a 'Traditional marriage' and a 'Sodomite marriage' is the possibility of procreation within a Traditional marriage of a man and a woman. .....

 

[Yurt]

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.

marriage and civil unions are not the same thing luddly. they have two very different legal definitions. what i offered was simply a compromise. everybody wins. you don't need to ram gay marriage down anyone's throat if everyone gets civil unions and if they want they can find a private institution to get married in.

 

[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.

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.

The quote indicated that it was a quasi marriage. Not one in fact

You write "it".

What do you mean by "it"? The paragraph describes several hundred years of same-sex marriage.

The reason for your confusion is that you have not read the article and are not looking at that paragraph in context. Indeed, from your posts, it seems you did not even read that paragraph.

If you refuse to learn how to use the language correctly, you will continue to make these mistakes. You might want to read up on the use of scare quotes.

Every point you have brought up has been proven to be either factually incorrect or an opinion. Please educate yourself as to the difference.

Once again, the purpose of this thread was to look at the FACTS of marriage in history.

Historic burps don't interst me.

Then why are you in this thread?

Please stop trying to derail it to fit your agenda.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Ironic given that you want to make this about only the one subset that is able to procreate.

There is no state requirement to procreate when you receive a marriage license.

No, I am comparing demographic groups in whole.

One can procreate, and most importantly does.

One can't procreat, and most importantly can't.

You make whatever fallacious claims you like but the fact is that you not comparing whole demographic groups at all. You are defining your demographics to suit your own agenda while ignoring the fact that only a subset of your demographic group actually procreates.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

marriage and civil unions are not the same thing luddly. they have two very different legal definitions. what i offered was simply a compromise. everybody wins. you don't need to ram gay marriage down anyone's throat if everyone gets civil unions and if they want they can find a private institution to get married in.

"marriage and civil unions are not the same thing..."

Yes, you are correct. I meant to go back and edit my post.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The main difference between a 'Traditional marriage' and a 'Sodomite marriage' is the possibility of procreation within a Traditional marriage of a man and a woman. .....

Needless to say, the term "sodomite" is meaningless, inaccurate and has nothing at all to do with the topic of the thread.

Instead of trying to derail the thread, perhaps you would like to read the links and actually address them?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Ironic given that you want to make this about only the one subset that is able to procreate.

There is no state requirement to procreate when you receive a marriage license.

No, I am comparing demographic groups in whole.

One can procreate, and most importantly does.

One can't procreat, and most importantly can't.

Not true at all but, if we follow the current wishes of the radical right, procreation could become a requirement in marriage. That could lead to a law against any sex that does not have pregnancy as its goal.

OTOH, there are some who believe that's the only reason for sex.

 

[Sunni Man]

Needless to say, the term "sodomite" is meaningless, inaccurate and has nothing at all to do with the topic of the thread.

The word 'Sodomite' is a old descriptive term used in the Bible to denote people who engaged in abnormal same sex pairings.

And predates the modern word Homosexual by thousands of years.

So yes, it's both accurate and germane to the topic of the thread. ......

 

[Pop23]

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.

Ironic given that you want to make this about only the one subset that is able to procreate.

There is no state requirement to procreate when you receive a marriage license.

No, I am comparing demographic groups in whole.

One can procreate, and most importantly does.

One can't procreat, and most importantly can't.

You make whatever fallacious claims you like but the fact is that you not comparing whole demographic groups at all. You are defining your demographics to suit your own agenda while ignoring the fact that only a subset of your demographic group actually procreates.

Ignoring the fact that only one of the demographic groups does.

 

[Pop23]

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.

The quote indicated that it was a quasi marriage. Not one in fact

You write "it".

What do you mean by "it"? The paragraph describes several hundred years of same-sex marriage.

The reason for your confusion is that you have not read the article and are not looking at that paragraph in context. Indeed, from your posts, it seems you did not even read that paragraph.

If you refuse to learn how to use the language correctly, you will continue to make these mistakes. You might want to read up on the use of scare quotes.

Every point you have brought up has been proven to be either factually incorrect or an opinion. Please educate yourself as to the difference.

Once again, the purpose of this thread was to look at the FACTS of marriage in history.

Historic burps don't interst me.

Then why are you in this thread?

Please stop trying to derail it to fit your agenda.

Traditions stand the test of time. Your op with quotes indicate "it" did not.

Get it now?

 

[Pop23]

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.

Ironic given that you want to make this about only the one subset that is able to procreate.

There is no state requirement to procreate when you receive a marriage license.

No, I am comparing demographic groups in whole.

One can procreate, and most importantly does.

One can't procreat, and most importantly can't.

Not true at all but, if we follow the current wishes of the radical right, procreation could become a requirement in marriage. That could lead to a law against any sex that does not have pregnancy as its goal.

OTOH, there are some who believe that's the only reason for sex.

No, I don't think that's true at all. One group, AND ONLY ONE can. The importance of that ABSOLUTE can not be ignored.

 

[Pop23]

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.

marriage and civil unions are not the same thing luddly. they have two very different legal definitions. what i offered was simply a compromise. everybody wins. you don't need to ram gay marriage down anyone's throat if everyone gets civil unions and if they want they can find a private institution to get married in.

Compromise is for us moderates. Radicals can't bring themselves to consider such.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Traditions stand the test of time.

Marriage today is not what traditional marriage was a century ago. It isn't even what marriage was half a century ago. Marriage has evolved and continues to evolve. That is indisputable fact.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

marriage and civil unions are not the same thing luddly. they have two very different legal definitions. what i offered was simply a compromise. everybody wins. you don't need to ram gay marriage down anyone's throat if everyone gets civil unions and if they want they can find a private institution to get married in.

Compromise is for us moderates. Radicals can't bring themselves to consider such.

Ironic!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

The quote indicated that it was a quasi marriage. Not one in fact

You write "it".

What do you mean by "it"? The paragraph describes several hundred years of same-sex marriage.

The reason for your confusion is that you have not read the article and are not looking at that paragraph in context. Indeed, from your posts, it seems you did not even read that paragraph.

If you refuse to learn how to use the language correctly, you will continue to make these mistakes. You might want to read up on the use of scare quotes.

Every point you have brought up has been proven to be either factually incorrect or an opinion. Please educate yourself as to the difference.

Once again, the purpose of this thread was to look at the FACTS of marriage in history.

Historic burps don't interst me.

Then why are you in this thread?

Please stop trying to derail it to fit your agenda.

Traditions stand the test of time. Your op with quotes indicate "it" did not.

Get it now?

IOW, there is no such thing as "traditional" marriage.

THANK YOU for finally getting it.