Why is same-sex marriage "wrong"

[BDBoop]

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.

Your sig file really should say

/he said with an arrogant sneer

 

[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.

Your sig file really should say

/he said with an arrogant sneer

I make no apologies for pointing out to people when they are being utterly stupid. It's called honesty.

 

[BDBoop]

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.

Your sig file really should say

/he said with an arrogant sneer

I make no apologies for pointing out to people when they are being utterly stupid. It's called honesty.

No, it's not. It's called being an arrogant ass. Honesty comes from a completely different place.

 

[Artevelde]

Your sig file really should say

/he said with an arrogant sneer

I make no apologies for pointing out to people when they are being utterly stupid. It's called honesty.

No, it's not. It's called being an arrogant ass. Honesty comes from a completely different place.

Your stupidity is your problem, not mine.

 

[Si modo]

I'm not against SS marriage.

But, I AM against government being involved in marriages. No clergy should ever have been given governmental power, IMO.

 

[BDBoop]

I make no apologies for pointing out to people when they are being utterly stupid. It's called honesty.

No, it's not. It's called being an arrogant ass. Honesty comes from a completely different place.

Your stupidity is your problem, not mine.

See post #141.

 

[BDBoop]

I'm not against SS marriage.

But, I AM against government being involved in marriages. No clergy should ever have been given governmental power, IMO.

So, what's the solution.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Um, guy, seriously? Where the eff would anyone give you even an associates in history not knowing women were (and still are) considered second class citizens in most of the world.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

It did depend on class. If you were two families of peasents, usually John the Dim got his cousin pregnant, and a marriage was quickly arranged. But the point was, after the marriage, she was property, all she had was his, (and dad was often required to provide a dowry) and she was forced to "love, honor and obey"

Obey? Seriously?

Thankfully, we've evolved above that kind of thing. Except for folks who miss that sort of thing, I guess.

 

[Peach]

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

Some decent background; thank you. The newest group to be wary of, dislike, fear, and/or hate is gay Americans. A reflection of our lack of progress as humans.

 

[Annie]

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

Some decent background; thank you. The newest group to be wary of, dislike, fear, and/or hate is gay Americans. A reflection of our lack of progress as humans.

It's 'new' that gays were not accepted by many folks, only recently? I doubt that is true. It's an old group.

However the issue isn't homophobia, but why marriage is an issue for them.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

because the big imaginary guy in the sky said so

 

[Peach]

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

Some decent background; thank you. The newest group to be wary of, dislike, fear, and/or hate is gay Americans. A reflection of our lack of progress as humans.

It's 'new' that gays were not accepted by many folks, only recently? I doubt that is true. It's an old group.

However the issue isn't homophobia, but why marriage is an issue for them.

The lower elements must have some group upon which to focus their self loathing .

 

[Si modo]

I'm not against SS marriage.

But, I AM against government being involved in marriages. No clergy should ever have been given governmental power, IMO.

So, what's the solution.

No more "marriages". No more magistrates/JPs marrying anyone - no civil marriages. No more goverment empowering churches to marry anyone, either. If churches want to marry folks, that's fine, of course, but the marriage has no legal power.

A marriage, for all practical purposes, is a contract. Folks can just make contracts between themselves. Things go bad, they either exit the contract under the terms they drew out, or they go to court for breach.

Marriage is a contract. Let's treat it as one, and nothing more.

 

[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.

Um, guy, seriously? Where the eff would anyone give you even an associates in history not knowing women were (and still are) considered second class citizens in most of the world.

Nobody "gave" me any of my degrees. I earned them. That is probably also a bit too difficult for you to grasp.

As usual, you just change your tune. Now it's no longerthat women had no property rights but you've shifted to something completely different. Do you ever try to be coherent?

 

[Artevelde]

I'm not against SS marriage.

But, I AM against government being involved in marriages. No clergy should ever have been given governmental power, IMO.

So, what's the solution.

No more "marriages". No more magistrates/JPs marrying anyone - no civil marriages. No more goverment empowering churches to marry anyone, either. If churches want to marry folks, that's fine, of course, but the marriage has no legal power.

A marriage, for all practical purposes, is a contract. Folks can just make contracts between themselves. Things go bad, they either exit the contract under the terms they drew out, or they go to court for breach.

Marriage is a contract. Let's treat it as one, and nothing more.

Abolition of civil marriage is of course a coherent and defensible position. I wouldn't defend it, because it means abolishing all legal family structures and out go things like child support etc. It's the ultimate in individual libertarianism and the atomization of society. It is an intellectually defensible position, but certainly not my choice. I believe there is such a thing as society and that it has value.

 

[gxnelson]

Marriage is supposed to be about love right? Why the hell does it matter if it's SS or not? As long as I'm not bothered by it why does it matter who my next door neighbor marries? Stupid people are stupid.

 

[Artevelde]

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.

It did depend on class. If you were two families of peasents, usually John the Dim got his cousin pregnant, and a marriage was quickly arranged. But the point was, after the marriage, she was property, all she had was his, (and dad was often required to provide a dowry) and she was forced to "love, honor and obey"

Obey? Seriously?

Thankfully, we've evolved above that kind of thing. Except for folks who miss that sort of thing, I guess.

A tip: slogans and facts are two different things.

 

[Artevelde]

Marriage is supposed to be about love right? Why the hell does it matter if it's SS or not? As long as I'm not bothered by it why does it matter who my next door neighbor marries? Stupid people are stupid.

If that is your criterion then it is indeed clear you find it stupid that brothers and sisters and parents and their adult children can't marry.

Stupid people are people who talk about things which they haven't really thought about.

 

[gxnelson]

Marriage is supposed to be about love right? Why the hell does it matter if it's SS or not? As long as I'm not bothered by it why does it matter who my next door neighbor marries? Stupid people are stupid.

If that is your criterion then it is indeed clear you find it stupid that brothers and sisters and parents and their adult children can't marry.

Stupid people are people who talk about things which they haven't really thought about.

lol

Removing the immediate ick factor from the thought of brother/sister marriage you are left with a host of biological issues.
As for parent/child marriage, illegal for the simple fact of child abuse/coercion and like factors.

Right... I haven't thought of it.... I'm just glad you didn't use the person/animal example.