CDZ What is "traditional marriage"?

[Pop23]

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.

Doubling down huh?

Please submit a link that backs up your contention that the United states is 400 years old.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Same could be said for polygamy, since this is a history lesson, you understand that the federal government sent troops into the Utah territory to insure marriage remained between...........

Wait for it.........

One man and one woman.

Interesting aye?

 

[Pop23]

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?

How could you marrying your cat effect my marriage?

These are fun little games.

 

[Agit8r]

Courtship Sex and the Single Colonist The Colonial Williamsburg Official History Citizenship Site

 

[Pop23]

Common now, Amerika is only 600 years old, dawin proved it with her theory of relativity.

The colonist fought the Indians while riding on dinosaurs.

Well that's what I heard!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Okay, so ... bottom line is no one has been able to dispute the OP - that there is no such thing as "traditional" marriage.

 

[Pop23]

Okay, so ... bottom line is no one has been able to dispute the OP - that there is no such thing as "traditional" marriage.

IN the United states there is, from my earlier post. The United States military was sent into the Utah Territories to insure the institution of marriage remained between one man and one woman.

 

[Mertex]

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.

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.

I'm glad to hear that.

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.

Now you're stretching....I've never been angry about it. Like I've said, it doesn't affect me, and I like "fairness" - so how could I be angry? Maybe you don't realize you are the one that is angry as you keep fighting it.

How long do you think it lasts this time?

How long do I think what will last? Same-sex marriage? Or the concept that it is okay? I think both, maybe until another group of bigoted conservatives are able to take control of government and change it back.....like they would like to undo the civil rights.

 

[Pop23]

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.

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.

I'm glad to hear that.

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.

Now you're stretching....I've never been angry about it. Like I've said, it doesn't affect me, and I like "fairness" - so how could I be angry? Maybe you don't realize you are the one that is angry as you keep fighting it.

How long do you think it lasts this time?

How long do I think what will last? Same-sex marriage? Or the concept that it is okay? I think both, maybe until another group of bigoted conservatives are able to take control of government and change it back.....like they would like to undo the civil rights.

Oh, I see, so it's fair to treat a demographic group that has created every single human being that ever walked the face of the earth as a demographic group that's never supplied a single one.

Is it ok that I think that, providing that second group an option that celebrates that difference while allowing a time honored tradition survive as it is?

 

[Mertex]

Oh, I see, so it's fair to treat a demographic group that has created every single human being that ever walked the face of the earth as a demographic group that's never supplied a single one.

Your sense of comprehension is amiss here. No one is treating heterosexuals as if they never supplied a single human being. Maybe that is your problem, you're seeing the whole issue in a misguided sort of way.

Is it ok that I think that, providing that second group an option that celebrates that difference while allowing a time honored tradition survive as it is?

Why can't both survive and celebrate?

 

[Mertex]

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?

How could you marrying your cat effect my marriage?

These are fun little games.

The cat is not a consenting adult. Why is it so difficult for you to understand "consenting"?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Okay, so ... bottom line is no one has been able to dispute the OP - that there is no such thing as "traditional" marriage.

IN the United states there is, from my earlier post. The United States military was sent into the Utah Territories to insure the institution of marriage remained between one man and one woman.

Yes, that is one of the many changes that have been made to the custom of marriage.

And it proves my point - that the definition of marriage has changed in the past and will very likely change in the future.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

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?

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.

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.

I'm glad to hear that.

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.

Now you're stretching....I've never been angry about it. Like I've said, it doesn't affect me, and I like "fairness" - so how could I be angry? Maybe you don't realize you are the one that is angry as you keep fighting it.

How long do you think it lasts this time?

How long do I think what will last? Same-sex marriage? Or the concept that it is okay? I think both, maybe until another group of bigoted conservatives are able to take control of government and change it back.....like they would like to undo the civil rights.

Oh, I see, so it's fair to treat a demographic group that has created every single human being that ever walked the face of the earth as a demographic group that's never supplied a single one.

Is it ok that I think that, providing that second group an option that celebrates that difference while allowing a time honored tradition survive as it is?

Neither of your sentences makes sense but ...

To my knowledge, there has never been a time when procreation was a requirement for marriage. I doubt that will ever become a requirement.

IF you're saying that only those who reproduce are married or should be allowed to marry - sorry, but that ain't gonna happen.

 

[Pop23]

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?

How could you marrying your cat effect my marriage?

These are fun little games.

The cat is not a consenting adult. Why is it so difficult for you to understand "consenting"?

Where did I say it was, my statement was quite clear that someone loving a cat does not weaken my marriage, but really, I don't want the government sanctioning cat love for that reason.

Love your deflection though.

Kinda cute

 

[Pop23]

Okay, so ... bottom line is no one has been able to dispute the OP - that there is no such thing as "traditional" marriage.

IN the United states there is, from my earlier post. The United States military was sent into the Utah Territories to insure the institution of marriage remained between one man and one woman.

Yes, that is one of the many changes that have been made to the custom of marriage.

And it proves my point - that the definition of marriage has changed in the past and will very likely change in the future.

Utah was not yet a state.

Good lord

 

[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.

I'm glad to hear that.

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.

Now you're stretching....I've never been angry about it. Like I've said, it doesn't affect me, and I like "fairness" - so how could I be angry? Maybe you don't realize you are the one that is angry as you keep fighting it.

How long do you think it lasts this time?

How long do I think what will last? Same-sex marriage? Or the concept that it is okay? I think both, maybe until another group of bigoted conservatives are able to take control of government and change it back.....like they would like to undo the civil rights.

Oh, I see, so it's fair to treat a demographic group that has created every single human being that ever walked the face of the earth as a demographic group that's never supplied a single one.

Is it ok that I think that, providing that second group an option that celebrates that difference while allowing a time honored tradition survive as it is?

Neither of your sentences makes sense but ...

To my knowledge, there has never been a time when procreation was a requirement for marriage. I doubt that will ever become a requirement.

IF you're saying that only those who reproduce are married or should be allowed to marry - sorry, but that ain't gonna happen.

Demographic groups that have the specific pieces parts are all that is required.

Sorry you don't get that.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Okay, so ... bottom line is no one has been able to dispute the OP - that there is no such thing as "traditional" marriage.

IN the United states there is, from my earlier post. The United States military was sent into the Utah Territories to insure the institution of marriage remained between one man and one woman.

Yes, that is one of the many changes that have been made to the custom of marriage.

And it proves my point - that the definition of marriage has changed in the past and will very likely change in the future.

Utah was not yet a state.

Good lord

And early laws were passed before the US was a country.

You have said you want to discuss ONLY the US and yet introduce laws passed in an area that was not part of the US.

So, which is it?

US only? Or other areas as well?

 

[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.

I'm glad to hear that.

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.

Now you're stretching....I've never been angry about it. Like I've said, it doesn't affect me, and I like "fairness" - so how could I be angry? Maybe you don't realize you are the one that is angry as you keep fighting it.

How long do you think it lasts this time?

How long do I think what will last? Same-sex marriage? Or the concept that it is okay? I think both, maybe until another group of bigoted conservatives are able to take control of government and change it back.....like they would like to undo the civil rights.

Oh, I see, so it's fair to treat a demographic group that has created every single human being that ever walked the face of the earth as a demographic group that's never supplied a single one.

Is it ok that I think that, providing that second group an option that celebrates that difference while allowing a time honored tradition survive as it is?

Neither of your sentences makes sense but ...

To my knowledge, there has never been a time when procreation was a requirement for marriage. I doubt that will ever become a requirement.

IF you're saying that only those who reproduce are married or should be allowed to marry - sorry, but that ain't gonna happen.

Demographic groups that have the specific pieces parts are all that is required.

Sorry you don't get that.

And again, you move the goalposts.

You have repeatedly said 'people who reproduce' and in this post, you actually say those who have 'created every human being'.

Now you're saying they only have to have the ability to reproduce.

Gays so have the "specific parts" and can indeed reproduce.

But again, that's not the subject of this thread. To reiterate, the subject is the history of marriage.

 

[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?

How could you marrying your cat effect my marriage?

These are fun little games.

The cat is not a consenting adult. Why is it so difficult for you to understand "consenting"?

Where did I say it was, my statement was quite clear that someone loving a cat does not weaken my marriage, but really, I don't want the government sanctioning cat love for that reason.

Love your deflection though.

Kinda cute

Just just as marriage equality would not "weaken" your own marriage.

But, I do agree with Mertex point about consenting adults.

 

[Mertex]

Where did I say it was, my statement was quite clear that someone loving a cat does not weaken my marriage, but really, I don't want the government sanctioning cat love for that reason.

Love your deflection though.

Kinda cute

My response should have been directed at MaryL.....she's the one that brought up the cat issue.

But if you think the government is ever going to sanction cat love legal for marriage you're as bad as the Texans who think Obama is planning a takeover of the state.