It appears that fundys aren't the only ones who don't like to hear dissent

[lucrezaborgia]

Myotch, you keep thumping that traditional marriage argument. Why? Can nothing ever change? Can you prove that marriage hasn't changed over the past 5000+ years? It seems that no matter what evidence we give to you that your perception of what traditional marriage is a recent construct, you still insist that marriage has been the same forever and ever.

I'm pretty sure we've been over all the reasons as to why you don't believe homosexual unions need any protection and I do believe I have shot those arguments down too. In the end, what does it matter if homosexuals marry? What are they going to do to marriage that people like Kim Kardashian hasn't?

[myotch]

(05-30-2012 11:48 PM)Qrayze Wrote:  right. especially since marriage had more to do with ownership than a loving committed relationship.

That's assuming that your supposed "ownership" couldn't develop into loving committed relationship. I think that marriage in the past had less to do with ownership and something more to do with family legacy.

Arranged marriages, funny thing, tend to last much longer than the whirlwinds-of-romance types.

Quote:what need would they have to get legally married? there were no laws in place that prevented them from caring for their significant others. there certainly weren't any tax breaks to be had 400 years ago either.

Cultural norms. Certainly older than religion, but also encompassing a religious aspect. Tax incentives for marriage and especially reproductive marriages do come into play in ancient Greece and Rome, probably ancient Egypt.

But thanks for making my point. It has never been the cultural norm for gays to marry.

Quote:Marriage has been redefined many times over the past 5,000 years. Allowing gays to marry isn't going to destroy the institution or hurt the marriages of heterosexuals

As to your straw man argument that I may think gay marriage would destroy the institution, I've never argued that point. I think it's a pretty dumb point, too. But that's definitely how gay marriage supporters want to define the positions like mine.

I would like to see your evidence on the many times marriage has been supposedly redefined.

Quote:Orwellian how?

Redefinition of words for a political reason.

Quote:Were you this upset when human rights had to be politically redefined to include blacks? What about when suffrage was politically redefined to include women?

I don't know how old you think I am. I do remember feeling a sense of justice prevailing when I read about these things in a history book.

Apples and oranges. How did your parents take it when you told them you were female?

Quote:Oh, it may be that way for you, but for 99% of the people against gay marriage, it is just that.

I think that "99%" are actually smarter than you think they are.

Quote:Myotch, you keep thumping that traditional marriage argument. Why? Can nothing ever change? Can you prove that marriage hasn't changed over the past 5000+ years? It seems that no matter what evidence we give to you that your perception of what traditional marriage is a recent construct, you still insist that marriage has been the same forever and ever.

Well, my participation here is to counter Qrayze's contention that people who are against gay marriage are intolerant bigots who thump Bibles. I have no interest in the actual debate. My mind isn't going to be changed, and likely neither is Qrayze's or yours.

Quote:I'm pretty sure we've been over all the reasons as to why you don't believe homosexual unions need any protection and I do believe I have shot those arguments down too. In the end, what does it matter if homosexuals marry? What are they going to do to marriage that people like Kim Kardashian hasn't?

You've definitely done your best, I guess. I remain unconvinced of your opinions on the matter.

I'm not big on celebrity marriages, and I don't compare my marriage to any number of failed marriages that have come across in my periphery. I'm doing the best for my marriage. I couldn't tell you if Kim Kardashian has been married at all. Frankly, I don't care. I don't let Mickey Rourke's substance abuse stop me from drinking tequila once a year. Why should I be bothered by a Kardashian?

I can be bothered, however, by an entitlement grab that hasn't, historically, been an entitlement. Personally, my marriage would be a marriage to me if the government recognized it or not.

[lucrezaborgia]

(05-31-2012 01:25 AM)myotch Wrote:  That's assuming that your supposed "ownership" couldn't develop into loving committed relationship. I think that marriage in the past had less to do with ownership and something more to do with family legacy.

That's not how marriage is viewed today and 'family legacy' is a fancy term for property. How do you keep paternity assured in a society where DNA and bloodtype are unknown and inheritance is through the male line? You damn well make sure you keep those vaginas under control.

I'm gonna be lazy and old school quote because my mobile is a bitch to do the rest of the tags...

"Arranged marriages, funny thing, tend to last much longer than the whirlwinds-of-romance types."

Maybe because they go hand in hand with societies that condem or make equitable divorce impossibly? Saudia Arabia has tons of divorce BTW.

"Cultural norms. Certainly older than religion, but also encompassing a religious aspect. Tax incentives for marriage and especially reproductive marriages do come into play in ancient Greece and Rome, probably ancient Egypt."

This was mostly an issue for the upper crust or in early republics that were patrilineal. Not a common issue until very recently when the church and government got into bed over who could marry whom about 600 years ago.

"But thanks for making my point. It has never been the cultural norm for gays to marry."

It wasn't the cultural norm to marry for love, to marry outside ones race/caste/class/etc...

"I would like to see your evidence on the many times marriage has been supposedly redefined."

See above.

"Redefinition of words for a political reason."

The slaves were freed totally out of love and kindness...oh...wait...

Things are done all the time for political purposes. On the flip-side, is marriage an institution or a word? Institutions are changed all the time.

"I can be bothered, however, by an entitlement grab that hasn't, historically, been an entitlement."

Damn those uppity women wanting to vote and slaves wanting to be free!

[boymom]

You can be not 'for'something, and not hate the people involved.
I'm not for teen marriage - I don't hate teenagers.
I'm not for prayer in schools - I don't hate people who pray.
I'm not a fan of unions - I don't hate people who work.
I'm not for legislating enviromentalism - I don't hate nature.
I'm neutral on the subject of gay marriage - I don't hate gays.
Throwing around invectives like 'hate-filled', 'bigot', 'leftist', 'femi-Nazi', and 'vile' just lowers the level of discourse and halts any meaningful discussion. You can't persuade people by insulting them.

[bean]

thought it would be helpful to review the various aspects of traditional, Biblical marriage at this point...

[redbeardiam]

Wow. Now that I have read everybody's opinion on this for the first time, I am totally convinced you are all right.

[Scorpio]

bean - that is possibly The Best Chart Ever™

[JoeR]

(05-31-2012 07:06 AM)redbeardiam Wrote:  Wow. Now that I have read everybody's opinion on this for the first time, I am totally convinced you are all right.

Really? Cuz I think they are all wrong.

[EmilyKing]

(05-31-2012 06:10 AM)boymom Wrote:  You can be not 'for'something, and not hate the people involved.
I'm not for teen marriage - I don't hate teenagers.
I'm not for prayer in schools - I don't hate people who pray.
I'm not a fan of unions - I don't hate people who work.
I'm not for legislating enviromentalism - I don't hate nature.
I'm neutral on the subject of gay marriage - I don't hate gays.
Throwing around invectives like 'hate-filled', 'bigot', 'leftist', 'femi-Nazi', and 'vile' just lowers the level of discourse and halts any meaningful discussion. You can't persuade people by insulting them.

You hit the nail on the head. I'm not sure why people think insults are the way to convince someone else to change their opinions.

[myotch]

This has been debated before. Again, my participation was to show Qrayze it wasn't just about the Bible. I hope none of us are kidding ourselves that anyone's mind is going to change. However, I find the debate amusing, and that's why Im answering the questions and statements posed to me.

Quote:That's not how marriage is viewed today and 'family legacy' is a fancy term for property. How do you keep paternity assured in a society where DNA and bloodtype are unknown and inheritance is through the male line? You damn well make sure you keep those vaginas under control.

That's a rather narrow response to whatI said. Offspring is definitely part of that, joining of families another. Parents of a daughter ensuring that the daughters well-provisioned, that's another. Its not property. It used to be a very useful way to propagate in Western culture. Choosing one's own mate for whatever reason is a fairly recent thing in human history.

Quote:Maybe because they go hand in hand with societies that condem or make equitable divorce impossibly? Saudia Arabia has tons of divorce BTW.

Could be that they had a different view of what a marriage is, the permanence of it, etc.

Yes, desert people make divorce "too easy". In Muslim culture, all you have to do is state your intent to divorce 3 times, and whammo, you are divorced. Ancient Jewish law required a written intent of divorce.

Quote:This was mostly an issue for the upper crust or in early republics that were patrilineal. Not a common issue until very recently when the church and government got into bed over who could marry whom about 600 years ago.

As was marriage as a result of romance, which was something nouveau for the rich of the infant Enlightenment.

I would think you would be happy about Church and Government being "in bed with each other", as this was a progress over the "chattel" system.

Quote:It wasn't the cultural norm to marry for love, to marry outside ones race/caste/class/etc...

As long as there have been traveling armies, there have been interracial marriage. Caste pretty much equals class. At one point, it was wisely appreciated to not marry "down" - there was something practical going on, here.

"I would like to see your evidence on the many times marriage has been supposedly redefined."

Quote:The slaves were freed totally out of love and kindness...oh...wait..

Huh? Freeing slaves and fighting a war to do so wasn't a political redefinition, any way you look at it.

Quote:Things are done all the time for political purposes. On the flip-side, is marriage an institution or a word? Institutions are changed all the time.

Kudos to being so vague, your first sentence is functionally meaningless.

If there were a flipside to that statement, marriage is an institution that predates civilization and, where it means the basis for family, has always been defined in terms of a relationship between a man and a woman. Up to about 12 years ago, the basic nature of a marriage has always pertained to a relationship between members of the opposite sex.

Quote:Damn those uppity women wanting to vote and slaves wanting to be free!

I know, right?

Slavery and suffrage doesn't apply to this. Particularly American slavery was about the enshrined rights of the individual, and a prevalent failure for the government to protect those rights. Suffrage was an extension of rights to women, and was a logical next step in democracy.

Western Democracy is only, what 500 years old. Western recognition of essential rights is 800 years old. Western repugnance of slavery is less than 200 years old.

Marriage predates civilization.