Why is same-sex marriage "wrong"

[Artevelde]

See poll.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and as such is one of the foundations of human society. To try to turn it into something else because of a politically correct hysteria is stupid, short-sighted and wrong.

Except when it was the union of a man and 300 women, or when it was the union of a rapist and his rape victim after he paid her father 50 shekels.

Both of which where cases that happened in the bible.

Marriage has always been evolving. When women were considered nothing more than property, it was just a transfer of property. Men could get divorces, women couldn't. You could beat your wife as long as the rod wasn't thicker than your thumb (hense, the term "rule of thumb"). Even some of the 'traditions' of marriages are hold-overs to this more barbaric time. Veils on wedding dresses, but back in the day, marriages were arranged and you didn't see what you were getting until the day of the wedding. Carrying the bride across the threshold.

I'm sure at some point when someone said women should keep their own property and actually arrange their own marriages, someone said, "What, arranged marriage is the foundation of human society! What kind of politically correct hysteria is this!"

Oh, by the way, look up the origins of the word "Hysteria" is you want to see how deeply sexism was routed into the society.

Thank you for again demonstrating your complete ignorance of history. Wasn't really necessary, but a nice effort anyway.

 

[BDBoop]

See poll.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and as such is one of the foundations of human society. To try to turn it into something else because of a politically correct hysteria is stupid, short-sighted and wrong.

Who says it is between a man and a woman.

 

[amrchaos]

See poll.

Holy matrimony is between a man and woman.

A civil union (a contract between Two adult people) is just that.

Both parties need to be of age and capable of understanding what's going on.

now for reality;

Liberals will never stop until they can force all churches to perform any kind of wedding.

We know this by looking at the history of anything they have supported.

Satanists can get married.

Are you saying that a union before the Dark Lord Lucifer is a "holy matrimony"???

But the satanist still consider it a marriage!

So, Holiness may not be the issue here?

 

[amrchaos]

Very informative, except for one little detail. Christians do not live under Old Testament Law.

So the 10 commandments is just a bunch of crap to christians, right?

 

[BDBoop]

 

[Artevelde]

See poll.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and as such is one of the foundations of human society. To try to turn it into something else because of a politically correct hysteria is stupid, short-sighted and wrong.

Who says it is between a man and a woman.

Thousands of years of human history throughout the world.

 

[JoeB131]

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and as such is one of the foundations of human society. To try to turn it into something else because of a politically correct hysteria is stupid, short-sighted and wrong.

Except when it was the union of a man and 300 women, or when it was the union of a rapist and his rape victim after he paid her father 50 shekels.

Both of which where cases that happened in the bible.

Marriage has always been evolving. When women were considered nothing more than property, it was just a transfer of property. Men could get divorces, women couldn't. You could beat your wife as long as the rod wasn't thicker than your thumb (hense, the term "rule of thumb"). Even some of the 'traditions' of marriages are hold-overs to this more barbaric time. Veils on wedding dresses, but back in the day, marriages were arranged and you didn't see what you were getting until the day of the wedding. Carrying the bride across the threshold.

I'm sure at some point when someone said women should keep their own property and actually arrange their own marriages, someone said, "What, arranged marriage is the foundation of human society! What kind of politically correct hysteria is this!"

Oh, by the way, look up the origins of the word "Hysteria" is you want to see how deeply sexism was routed into the society.

Thank you for again demonstrating your complete ignorance of history. Wasn't really necessary, but a nice effort anyway.

Thanks for pointing out you don't have the integrity to admit when you've lost an argument, since you didn't present one refutation of the historical FACTS presented here.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh it happened in the Bible, but it doesn't mean that the Bible supports rape.

Jeezus you're a retard.

Do you know why I find arguing with Funditards and Christians so fucking hilarious.

Because most of you don't even read your own retarded book of Fairy Tales.

To wit-

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. -- Deuteronomy 22:28-29

In short, that was the LAW of Moses. If you despoiled the "property" with rape, you had to pay for it. It was kind of the "you break it, you buy it" rule.

And the Misogynistic fun doesn't stop there...

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. -- Numbers 31:15-18

Christianity was founded by Jesus Christ, to end the old ways and begin a new church. His sacrifice ends the old beliefs of the Jews and began a new religion. The Old Testament is joined to the teachings of Christ simply to give it a frame of reference, not to give examples on how exactly to worship and how to conduct your lives. You're making the same mistake that everyone else does that criticizes Christians.

Are you sure you read the New Testament???

But this is not true, either. Jesus did not nullify these laws. A lot of these practices really did continue well after Jesus was here.

Up until 1850, it was part of English law that if you could get your rape victim to agree to marry you, you could be excused from a rape charge.

 

[Artevelde]

Except when it was the union of a man and 300 women, or when it was the union of a rapist and his rape victim after he paid her father 50 shekels.

Both of which where cases that happened in the bible.

Marriage has always been evolving. When women were considered nothing more than property, it was just a transfer of property. Men could get divorces, women couldn't. You could beat your wife as long as the rod wasn't thicker than your thumb (hense, the term "rule of thumb"). Even some of the 'traditions' of marriages are hold-overs to this more barbaric time. Veils on wedding dresses, but back in the day, marriages were arranged and you didn't see what you were getting until the day of the wedding. Carrying the bride across the threshold.

I'm sure at some point when someone said women should keep their own property and actually arrange their own marriages, someone said, "What, arranged marriage is the foundation of human society! What kind of politically correct hysteria is this!"

Oh, by the way, look up the origins of the word "Hysteria" is you want to see how deeply sexism was routed into the society.

Thank you for again demonstrating your complete ignorance of history. Wasn't really necessary, but a nice effort anyway.

Thanks for pointing out you don't have the integrity to admit when you've lost an argument, since you didn't present one refutation of the historical FACTS presented here.

Your ranting and platitudes are not to be confused by facts.

 

[JoeB131]

Thank you for again demonstrating your complete ignorance of history. Wasn't really necessary, but a nice effort anyway.

Thanks for pointing out you don't have the integrity to admit when you've lost an argument, since you didn't present one refutation of the historical FACTS presented here.

Your ranting and platitudes are not to be confused by facts.

Ummm, guy, first, you used "by" where you should have used "with". Clearly, you don't even grasp basic English.

Second, if you have facts that contradict my historical perspective that through most of history (and still in some parts of the world) that marriage was about treating women as property, until we finally realized that was wrong, I would be happy to look at them.

Women couldn't even vote until the last century, for crying out loud.

 

[Artevelde]

Thanks for pointing out you don't have the integrity to admit when you've lost an argument, since you didn't present one refutation of the historical FACTS presented here.

Your ranting and platitudes are not to be confused by facts.

Ummm, guy, first, you used "by" where you should have used "with". Clearly, you don't even grasp basic English.

Second, if you have facts that contradict my historical perspective that through most of history (and still in some parts of the world) that marriage was about treating women as property, until we finally realized that was wrong, I would be happy to look at them.

Women couldn't even vote until the last century, for crying out loud.

If you knew anything about history you would know that women enjoyed property rights in many societies throughout history.

 

[JoeB131]

Your ranting and platitudes are not to be confused by facts.

Ummm, guy, first, you used "by" where you should have used "with". Clearly, you don't even grasp basic English.

Second, if you have facts that contradict my historical perspective that through most of history (and still in some parts of the world) that marriage was about treating women as property, until we finally realized that was wrong, I would be happy to look at them.

Women couldn't even vote until the last century, for crying out loud.

If you knew anything about history you would know that women enjoyed property rights in many societies throughout history.

I've got a degree in history, and no, they really didn't.

Gender equality is still a pretty recent thing.

 

[Artevelde]

Ummm, guy, first, you used "by" where you should have used "with". Clearly, you don't even grasp basic English.

Second, if you have facts that contradict my historical perspective that through most of history (and still in some parts of the world) that marriage was about treating women as property, until we finally realized that was wrong, I would be happy to look at them.

Women couldn't even vote until the last century, for crying out loud.

If you knew anything about history you would know that women enjoyed property rights in many societies throughout history.

I've got a degree in history, and no, they really didn't.

Gender equality is still a pretty recent thing.

Well I have several degrees in history and you are simply dead wrong. As evidenced from the fact that you quickly backtrack from your earlier contention that women had no property rights to themuch vaguer "gender equality".

 

[BDBoop]

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and as such is one of the foundations of human society. To try to turn it into something else because of a politically correct hysteria is stupid, short-sighted and wrong.

Who says it is between a man and a woman.

Thousands of years of human history throughout the world.

Still not seeing why that matters.

 

[Artevelde]

Who says it is between a man and a woman.

Thousands of years of human history throughout the world.

Still not seeing why that matters.

Yes, I already gathered that society and common sense don't matter to you. You are too self-centered for that.

 

[BDBoop]

Thousands of years of human history throughout the world.

Still not seeing why that matters.

Yes, I already gathered that society and common sense don't matter to you. You are too self-centered for that.

My second stalker alert in one day. I shall name you Grumpy.

 

[JoeB131]

If you knew anything about history you would know that women enjoyed property rights in many societies throughout history.

I've got a degree in history, and no, they really didn't.

Gender equality is still a pretty recent thing.

Well I have several degrees in history and you are simply dead wrong. As evidenced from the fact that you quickly backtrack from your earlier contention that women had no property rights to themuch vaguer "gender equality".

Oooh, "several", huh? NOt sure why you'd need more than one.

Didn't backtrack at all, guy. Women were property during most of history... it's laughable to say that the current state of marriage has "always" been the norm.

We've progressed.. even past people like you. And we are better off for it.

 

[Artevelde]

I've got a degree in history, and no, they really didn't.

Gender equality is still a pretty recent thing.

Well I have several degrees in history and you are simply dead wrong. As evidenced from the fact that you quickly backtrack from your earlier contention that women had no property rights to themuch vaguer "gender equality".

Oooh, "several", huh? NOt sure why you'd need more than one.

Didn't backtrack at all, guy. Women were property during most of history... it's laughable to say that the current state of marriage has "always" been the norm.

We've progressed.. even past people like you. And we are better off for it.

Yes, I can understand that you fail to grasp that a BA, MA and PhD are different degrees. No surprise there.

The idea that women were property is completely laughable. You don't know or understand any history and only think in slogans.

 

[Seawytch]

Well I have several degrees in history and you are simply dead wrong. As evidenced from the fact that you quickly backtrack from your earlier contention that women had no property rights to themuch vaguer "gender equality".

Oooh, "several", huh? NOt sure why you'd need more than one.

Didn't backtrack at all, guy. Women were property during most of history... it's laughable to say that the current state of marriage has "always" been the norm.

We've progressed.. even past people like you. And we are better off for it.

Yes, I can understand that you fail to grasp that a BA, MA and PhD are different degrees. No surprise there.

The idea that women were property is completely laughable. You don't know or understand any history and only think in slogans.

When we look at the marriage customs of our ancestors, we discover several striking facts. For example, for the most of Western history, marriage was not a mere personal matter concerning only husband and wife, but rather the business of their two families which brought them together. Most marriages, therefore, were arranged. Moreover, the wife usually had much fewer rights than her husband and was expected to be subservient to him. To a considerable extent, marriage was also an economic arrangement. There was little room for romantic love, and even simple affection was not considered essential. Procreation and cooperation were the main marital duties.​

HISTORY OF MARRIAGE IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION

 

[Artevelde]

Oooh, "several", huh? NOt sure why you'd need more than one.

Didn't backtrack at all, guy. Women were property during most of history... it's laughable to say that the current state of marriage has "always" been the norm.

We've progressed.. even past people like you. And we are better off for it.

Yes, I can understand that you fail to grasp that a BA, MA and PhD are different degrees. No surprise there.

The idea that women were property is completely laughable. You don't know or understand any history and only think in slogans.

When we look at the marriage customs of our ancestors, we discover several striking facts. For example, for the most of Western history, marriage was not a mere personal matter concerning only husband and wife, but rather the business of their two families which brought them together. Most marriages, therefore, were arranged. Moreover, the wife usually had much fewer rights than her husband and was expected to be subservient to him. To a considerable extent, marriage was also an economic arrangement. There was little room for romantic love, and even simple affection was not considered essential. Procreation and cooperation were the main marital duties.​

HISTORY OF MARRIAGE IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION

I see that the text you quote also clearly refutes the ridiculous statement that women were property or had no property rights.

For the rest, this piece is woefully ignorant. The vast majority of marriages were NOT arranged, for the very simple reason that in most cases there really wasn't anything to arrange.