CDZ What is "traditional marriage"?

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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.

And you do the same anecdotal dance.
George Burns.

 

[Pop23]

Marriage is an institution that unites opposites. Not sames.

Okay, that is the way it has been for a while, but it used to be an institution that united only "white" couples, and that changed. Then it was an institution that did not accept interracial couples getting married, but it changed. It is not in stone, apparently since so many states have already passed laws authorizing it.

In this case the uniting of opposites can, and often does supply the world with the MOST important thing required for humanity to exist.

That is such an antiquated concept. Heterosexual couples that are infertile have turned to in vitro fertilization, surrogates, adoption and whatever means they can use to have children. It's not like humans are going to become extinct because homosexuals can't reproduce with each other.......but they can use their sperm to create a child "in vitro", and female couples can get inseminated with donor sperm....there's many ways.

Besides, I'm sure there are plenty of families that more than make up for it.

Opposite gender coupling is a requirement, same sex coupling.......Not so much, in fact, not at all.

A requirement under what law? Some states have already shown that it is okay.
I understand you feel that it should remain the way it is, you don't like change, and somehow you think that it is going to affect you and your marriage....I don't see it the same way.

These facts are absolute.

Your facts are changing all over America......might as well get used to it, or you're going to remain very angry.

I see you hope that I'm angry. Not at all. No matter how this battle ends, and it is simply that, I come out OK.

Now we'll deal with your anger. History has shown these foolish concept last for very short periods of time, then it's back to reality.

How long do you think it lasts this time?

You're absolutely correct. You DO "come out ok" because marriage equality has no effect on you UNLESS you or your partner are gay.

However, as shown in previous links, you are incorrect that "History has shown these foolish concept last for very short periods of time, then it's back to reality."

In fact, it shows just the opposite.

Over 200 years and none in the United States of America says different

Wrong again. Here's more than 400 years of US history and, in not even one instance, did the law go back to what it was before.

Not once.

WOW, newsflash

THE UNITED STATES IS 400 YEARS OLD!

Way to go luddy! You can not only present nutty arguments, you can change TIME!

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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.

And some people make sock monkeys with socks. That doesn't mean feet were irrelevant when socks were invented.

 

[Pop23]

Okay, that is the way it has been for a while, but it used to be an institution that united only "white" couples, and that changed. Then it was an institution that did not accept interracial couples getting married, but it changed. It is not in stone, apparently since so many states have already passed laws authorizing it.

That is such an antiquated concept. Heterosexual couples that are infertile have turned to in vitro fertilization, surrogates, adoption and whatever means they can use to have children. It's not like humans are going to become extinct because homosexuals can't reproduce with each other.......but they can use their sperm to create a child "in vitro", and female couples can get inseminated with donor sperm....there's many ways.

Besides, I'm sure there are plenty of families that more than make up for it.


A requirement under what law? Some states have already shown that it is okay.
I understand you feel that it should remain the way it is, you don't like change, and somehow you think that it is going to affect you and your marriage....I don't see it the same way.

Your facts are changing all over America......might as well get used to it, or you're going to remain very angry.

I see you hope that I'm angry. Not at all. No matter how this battle ends, and it is simply that, I come out OK.

Now we'll deal with your anger. History has shown these foolish concept last for very short periods of time, then it's back to reality.

How long do you think it lasts this time?

You're absolutely correct. You DO "come out ok" because marriage equality has no effect on you UNLESS you or your partner are gay.

However, as shown in previous links, you are incorrect that "History has shown these foolish concept last for very short periods of time, then it's back to reality."

In fact, it shows just the opposite.

Over 200 years and none in the United States of America says different

Wrong again. Here's more than 400 years of US history and, in not even one instance, did the law go back to what it was before.

Not once.

WOW, newsflash

THE UNITED STATES IS 400 YEARS OLD!

Way to go luddy! You can not only present nutty arguments, you can change TIME!

How many states are there, your leader thinks it's 57.

You?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Interracial marriage is no longer happening?

News flash, they are male/female, as per tradition.

News flash, there have been same-sex marriages recorded since the 13th century and of course, the whole "one man/one woman" thing is pure fiction.

Besides, how do you know all interracial marriages have been male/female?

Not in this country and recognized by this government.

Then you should be able to post a link proving what you said - that all interracial marriages have been male/female.

I never said that. But fantasize all you want that I did.

That's exactly what you wrote.

And you are wrong.

 

[Pop23]

News flash, they are male/female, as per tradition.

News flash, there have been same-sex marriages recorded since the 13th century and of course, the whole "one man/one woman" thing is pure fiction.

Besides, how do you know all interracial marriages have been male/female?

Not in this country and recognized by this government.

Then you should be able to post a link proving what you said - that all interracial marriages have been male/female.

I never said that. But fantasize all you want that I did.

That's exactly what you wrote.

And you are wrong.

This coming from someone who believes the United States is 400 years old.

Good grief.

Don't preach about historic fact then tell us about our 400 year old country.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Okay, that is the way it has been for a while, but it used to be an institution that united only "white" couples, and that changed. Then it was an institution that did not accept interracial couples getting married, but it changed. It is not in stone, apparently since so many states have already passed laws authorizing it.

That is such an antiquated concept. Heterosexual couples that are infertile have turned to in vitro fertilization, surrogates, adoption and whatever means they can use to have children. It's not like humans are going to become extinct because homosexuals can't reproduce with each other.......but they can use their sperm to create a child "in vitro", and female couples can get inseminated with donor sperm....there's many ways.

Besides, I'm sure there are plenty of families that more than make up for it.


A requirement under what law? Some states have already shown that it is okay.
I understand you feel that it should remain the way it is, you don't like change, and somehow you think that it is going to affect you and your marriage....I don't see it the same way.

Your facts are changing all over America......might as well get used to it, or you're going to remain very angry.

I see you hope that I'm angry. Not at all. No matter how this battle ends, and it is simply that, I come out OK.

Now we'll deal with your anger. History has shown these foolish concept last for very short periods of time, then it's back to reality.

How long do you think it lasts this time?

You're absolutely correct. You DO "come out ok" because marriage equality has no effect on you UNLESS you or your partner are gay.

However, as shown in previous links, you are incorrect that "History has shown these foolish concept last for very short periods of time, then it's back to reality."

In fact, it shows just the opposite.

Over 200 years and none in the United States of America says different

Wrong again. Here's more than 400 years of US history and, in not even one instance, did the law go back to what it was before.

Not once.

WOW, newsflash

THE UNITED STATES IS 400 YEARS OLD!

Way to go luddy! You can not only present nutty arguments, you can change TIME!

What?

You think we all got here on July 4th 1776?

What do you believe to be the date of the very first marriage in the USA?

And, please - a link.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

http://solidarity-us.org/node/370

News flash, there have been same-sex marriages recorded since the 13th century and of course, the whole "one man/one woman" thing is pure fiction.

Besides, how do you know all interracial marriages have been male/female?

Not in this country and recognized by this government.

Then you should be able to post a link proving what you said - that all interracial marriages have been male/female.

I never said that. But fantasize all you want that I did.

That's exactly what you wrote.

And you are wrong.

This coming from someone who believes the United States is 400 years old.

Good grief.

Don't preach about historic fact then tell us about our 400 year old country.

You can't be serious.

Please tell me you know better than this.


1691: Virginia enacts a law stating that if a white person (bond or free) marries a person of color (Negro, mulatto, or Indian), the couple will be banished from the colony. Banishment means almost certain death in the woods.


1724: Article VIII of the Louisiana Black Code forbids marriages between slaves without the consent of the slave master.


1769: American colonies based their laws on the English common law, which said, “By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in the law. The very being and legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated into that of her husband under whose wing and protection she performs everything.”


and


Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639

 

[Luddly Neddite]

That is no longer true in 37 of the 50 states.

Sounds like winning a battle, the war is TRADITIONALLY the goal.

The war will be over in July when the SCOTUS upholds the 14th Amendment and all citizens will have their equal rights under the Constitution granted in the matter of same sex marriage.

If true the war ended during the time luddy pointed out, right. Or was that a battle?

You mean in the time since the first recorded marriage, 4000 years ago in Mesopotamia?

No, since the last time same sex "marriage" was legitimized by a government.

"...same sex "marriage" was legitimized by a government."


Oh. Well, that would be before the 13th century.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

History has shown these foolish concept last for very short periods of time, then it's back to reality.

Interracial marriage is no longer happening?

News flash, they are male/female, as per tradition.

News flash, there have been same-sex marriages recorded since the 13th century and of course, the whole "one man/one woman" thing is pure fiction.

Besides, how do you know all interracial marriages have been male/female?

Not in this country and recognized by this government.

Or do you think the SCOTUS will rule on ancient civilizations?

No. I think they will rule on the 14th amendment to the US Constitution.

 

[MaryL]

I don't care. A man and a woman has kids. That simple, easy as pie. No, we want to LOVE our aunt or a dog or a couch and then adopt a child (from a straight union even) and create these artificial arguments FOR protecting children in a union. A total fraud. Love what ever ya want. Nix on the marriage argument. No kids from that intercourse , why marriage?

 

[Vandalshandle]

I don't care. A man and a woman has kids. That simple, easy as pie. No, we want to LOVE our aunt or a dog or a couch and then adopt a child (from a straight union even) and create these artificial arguments FOR protecting children in a union. A total fraud. Love what ever ya want. Nix on the marriage argument. No kids from that intercourse , why marriage?

Well, I guess that ends marriage for the sterile or even for those past child bearing years....

 

[MaryL]

I don't care. A man and a woman has kids. That simple, easy as pie. No, we want to LOVE our aunt or a dog or a couch and then adopt a child (from a straight union even) and create these artificial arguments FOR protecting children in a union. A total fraud. Love what ever ya want. Nix on the marriage argument. No kids from that intercourse , why marriage?

Well, I guess that ends marriage for the sterile or even for those past child bearing years....

This a game. . What I don't think some of you get is the symbology. Male-Female union and the link to reproduction. It's not to much of a stretch. Same sex couples don't produce children under any pretext. Society should protect straight unions, whether they produce children or not because it is symbolic of survival.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

0

I don't care. A man and a woman has kids. That simple, easy as pie. No, we want to LOVE our aunt or a dog or a couch and then adopt a child (from a straight union even) and create these artificial arguments FOR protecting children in a union. A total fraud. Love what ever ya want. Nix on the marriage argument. No kids from that intercourse , why marriage?

Well, I guess that ends marriage for the sterile or even for those past child bearing years....

As well as sex for fun.

There are many more reasons for marriage than just procreation but, MaryL I posted this thread as a HISTORY OF MARRIAGE and to show there is no such thing as "traditional" marriage.

Why YOU choose to marry is your business.

Why OTHERS choose to marry is THEIR business.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I don't care. A man and a woman has kids. That simple, easy as pie. No, we want to LOVE our aunt or a dog or a couch and then adopt a child (from a straight union even) and create these artificial arguments FOR protecting children in a union. A total fraud. Love what ever ya want. Nix on the marriage argument. No kids from that intercourse , why marriage?

Well, I guess that ends marriage for the sterile or even for those past child bearing years....

This a game. . What I don't think some of you get is the symbology. Male-Female union and the link to reproduction. It's not to much of a stretch. Same sex couples don't produce children under any pretext. Society should protect straight unions, whether they produce children or not because it is symbolic of survival.

if you are arguing that procreation is the reason for marriage, you are arguing that I, at age 70, have no right to marry, either. Consequently, you are ....oops, this is the CDZ... You are flat out wrong.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I don't care. A man and a woman has kids. That simple, easy as pie. No, we want to LOVE our aunt or a dog or a couch and then adopt a child (from a straight union even) and create these artificial arguments FOR protecting children in a union. A total fraud. Love what ever ya want. Nix on the marriage argument. No kids from that intercourse , why marriage?

Well, I guess that ends marriage for the sterile or even for those past child bearing years....

This a game. . What I don't think some of you get is the symbology. Male-Female union and the link to reproduction. It's not to much of a stretch. Same sex couples don't produce children under any pretext. Society should protect straight unions, whether they produce children or not because it is symbolic of survival.

if you are arguing that procreation is the reason for marriage, you are arguing that I, at age 70, have no right to marry, either. Consequently, you are ....oops, this is the CDZ. You are flat out wrong.

And I, at age 68 had no right to marry or to have sex with my spouse.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I don't care. A man and a woman has kids. That simple, easy as pie. No, we want to LOVE our aunt or a dog or a couch and then adopt a child (from a straight union even) and create these artificial arguments FOR protecting children in a union. A total fraud. Love what ever ya want. Nix on the marriage argument. No kids from that intercourse , why marriage?

Well, I guess that ends marriage for the sterile or even for those past child bearing years....

This a game. . What I don't think some of you get is the symbology. Male-Female union and the link to reproduction. It's not to much of a stretch. Same sex couples don't produce children under any pretext. Society should protect straight unions, whether they produce children or not because it is symbolic of survival.

if you are arguing that procreation is the reason for marriage, you are arguing that I, at age 70, have no right to marry, either. Consequently, you are ....oops, this is the CDZ. You are flat out wrong.[/QUOT


And I, at age 68 had no right to marry or to have sex with my spouse.

HOW DARE YOU?!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I don't care. A man and a woman has kids. That simple, easy as pie. No, we want to LOVE our aunt or a dog or a couch and then adopt a child (from a straight union even) and create these artificial arguments FOR protecting children in a union. A total fraud. Love what ever ya want. Nix on the marriage argument. No kids from that intercourse , why marriage?

Well, I guess that ends marriage for the sterile or even for those past child bearing years....

This a game. . What I don't think some of you get is the symbology. Male-Female union and the link to reproduction. It's not to much of a stretch. Same sex couples don't produce children under any pretext. Society should protect straight unions, whether they produce children or not because it is symbolic of survival.

if you are arguing that procreation is the reason for marriage, you are arguing that I, at age 70, have no right to marry, either. Consequently, you are ....oops, this is the CDZ. You are flat out wrong.[/QUOT


And I, at age 68 had no right to marry or to have sex with my spouse.

HOW DARE YOU?!

Hate to think what the Big Government, Big Laws, nutter right would do if they could.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I want to marry my CAT, sez Mr. HAT. And say adopt like is normal, sez Mr Snormal. Who needs or sperm, says Mr. Nerm? We will change the laws, say they are flawed, sez Ms. Snicked. How dare they say we are wicked?

Uh, in order to stay on topic, would you mind posting a link to how that very weird nonsense relates to the history of marriage?

Thanks.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I think that MaryL is suggesting that Dr. Suess was a liberal.....(?)