God Hates You.......

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

None bore any resemblance to traditional marriage.

So what exactly is you definition of a "traditional marriage"? Apart from being a union between one man and one woman, of course?

1 Reply

@old europe,

That IS my definition OE. Which you would know had you actually read any of my posts to see what I actually said.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Well, spendi, you'll notice that the Roman Empire collapsed shortly after they outlawed gay marriages. Coincidence?

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, and how should I understand your: "None bore any resemblance to traditional marriage."?

You should understand that my understanding of traditional marriage as commonly practiced in all cultures of that time is that it was a union between a man and a woman, was expected to be a permanent condition, and usually presumed an alliance beneficial to both and/or the probability of offspring.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

That IS my definition OE.

Well, that doesn't really tell us a lot then, does it?

According to your definition, a marriage where the woman is married off as a teen, without her consent, where rape within the marriage is legal and divorce is not, would still be a "traditional marriage".

1 Reply

@old europe,

No, you again insist on including absurdities that you seem to want me to have said but that I didn't say. The definition of traditional marriage is a union between a man and a women without any of the qualifications you would like to include. However, again had you bothered to read and understand what I have written, I do support reasonable laws regulating what the state can require and forbid within the contract of marriage and stated my reasons for that too. You probably also conveniently overlooked my mentioning that I approved of the repeal of laws that could not be justified as reasonable.

Now instead of rewording and reasking the same questions over and over, how about you offering a rationale for why you want the state to sanction same sex marriage?

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

No, you again insist on including absurdities that you seem to want me to have said but that I didn't say. The definition of traditional marriage is a union between a man and a women without any of the qualifications you would like to include.

I've asked you what your definition of a "traditional marriage" was, whether it was more than a union between one man and one woman.

You stated that, no, that's it.

I'm not including any absurdities. I'm pointing out that according to your definition - as long as you don't add any qualifications - the marriage I've described above would qualify as a "traditional marriage".

If you disagree with that, you should probably add some qualifications to your definition.

Foxfyre wrote:

However, again had you bothered to read and understand what I have written, I do support reasonable laws regulating what the state can require and forbid regarding the institution of marriage and stated my reasons for that too. You probably also conveniently overlooked my mentioning that I approved of the repeal of laws that could not be justified as reasonable.

You've been talking about the "traditional marriage" according to your "definition" for quite a while here. Yet, when asked for the definition that you seem to base your whole argument upon, you're content with the requirement that it be a union between one man and one woman.

If you want to add additional qualifications, go ahead and do so.

I assume that pretty soon, we would reach the point where your "traditional marriage" would be defined as "marriage in the sense we've come to understand it during the last 30 or 40 years".

Of course, I'm not claiming that that is what how you would define marriage. However, as you're being too coy to actually define "traditional marriage", yet go on and on for pages about what does and what doesn't conform to your "definition" of "traditional marriage", we're really left with guessing at what you could possibly be talking about. And with tirades of perceived insult from you, as, in spite of the lack of a definition from you, we apparently all have failed to understand your definition.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Now instead of rewording and reasking the same questions over and over, how about you offering a rationale for why you want the state to sanction same sex marriage?

It would afford every person, no matter what sexual orientation, equal rights.

2 Replies

One thing which has been "commonly practiced in all cultures" (disclaimer: i am not personally alleging that i know what all cultures have practiced, as Fox was seeming to do) is plural marriage. A plural marriage, common in so many cultures over thousands of years, and up to the present day, is definitely not a marriage of one man to one woman.

0 Replies

That is true. Marriages in which one man would marry more than one wife were not uncommon in many cultures right into modern times. But the definition of a traditional marriage was the same anyway - a union between a man and a woman regardless of how many marriages a guy might have. The state limiting a marriage to one man and one woman is one of those laws I do support though.

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Now instead of rewording and reasking the same questions over and over, how about you offering a rationale for why you want the state to sanction same sex marriage?

It would afford every person, no matter what sexual orientation, equal rights.

Okay and what rights regardless of sexual orientation are unequal within the marriage contract now?

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Now instead of rewording and reasking the same questions over and over, how about you offering a rationale for why you want the state to sanction same sex marriage?

It would afford every person, no matter what sexual orientation, equal rights.

Do you also advocate the same rights for children as for adults since you want every person to have equal rights.

2 Replies

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

Do you also advocate the same rights for children as for adults since you want every person to have equal rights.

I think society, as a whole, has a legitimate desire to protect the weak against being taken advantage of. I think that's generally a function of society. We know that the process of restructuring that occurs in the brain and that starts in the early to mid-teens goes on until a person has reached the early to mid-twenties. As a society, we therefore assume that a person doesn't have the ability to make a rational decision and understand the full consequences of that decision until somewhere at the end of his or her teens until his or her early twenties.

Therefore, societies set a certain minimum age for participating in certain rituals which require the capability of making an informed decision. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, and I don't think anybody's rights are being curtailed by requiring a certain minimum age.

On the other hand, I fail to see how prohibiting two consenting adults to make an informed decision would be desirable for society as a whole.

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

But you're right. I should include that minimum age requirement to say: Legalizing gay marriage would afford every adult person, no matter what sexual orientation, equal rights.

0 Replies

@old europe,

Quote:

I think society, as a whole, has a legitimate desire to protect the weak against being taken advantage of.

That is an unsatisfactory answer to the question intrepid asked you. You are defining all the terms.

1 Reply

@spendius,

To me, that seems to be a good basis for a discussion. Don't you think?

1 Reply

@old europe,

Maybe. We will see.

1 Reply

@spendius,

I think we can move on a bit now. I propose this idea: It is illegal to persecute or discriminate against individuals. Ditto with groups. Let's extend this to couples.
I believe I have a right to um....intimate relations with a partner of my choice. If I choose to call this arrangement a marriage then I can't see who's business it is. My bedroom arrangements are private: at least until I can secure a good deal for the video rights.
I love tradition and history: but sometimes you have to move with the times:

0 Replies

Today, the Evangelical Church of the Rhineland (a united Protestant church with nearly 3 million members in the states of North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland and Hesse) announced that the homosexual "married" partners (registered partnership) of ministers get the same rights as their spouses (e.g. in health insurance, health cures, widow's assurance, etc).

That's a lot more than is possible with civil servants (the payment and some parts of the employment laws are euivalent).

0 Replies

@boomerang,

the press are just as bad because their advertiseing this as if this the norm it just gives these deluded people a sense of importance

0 Replies

God Hates You.......

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know