Great Video on "Traditional" Marriage

[hazlnut]

How do the right wing 'Christians' rationalize what traditions they claim and which ones they ignore and disregard?

I really want to know how this works.

I challenge those against marriage equality to watch to the very end.

 

[vendur]

What exactly is "great" about it? Be specific.

 

[Your Star]

That's hilarious!

 

[hazlnut]

What exactly is "great" about it? Be specific.

It points out how people who use the word 'traditional' don't have the slightest clue what it really means.

Marriage has been redefined 100 times. Now that we are more enlightened and understanding that sexual orientation is not a choice, why would anyone be against marriage equality.

BTW -- did you wan to help me understand how so-called 'Christian' pick and choose what 'traditions' they follow?

 

[clownboy]

Stupid ad. I realise our country isn't all that old, but we do have traditions that differ from past european traditions.

 

[vendur]

It points out how people who use the word 'traditional' don't have the slightest clue what it really means.

How do you know you they don't know what it means? You can't just pick any bull**** "tradtion" from any culture in any place in any time and claim that is "tradition", and that if you don't recognize that tradition from that time/place/etc. you are wrong. everyone knows what traditional marriage is, gaystapo propaganda notwithstanding. No one needs a map, flow chart, a timeline, a venn diagram or any other bull****.

Marriage has been redefined 100 times. Now that we are more enlightened and understanding that sexual orientation is not a choice, why would anyone be against marriage equality.

More gaystapo propaganda. Marriage has not be redifined "100 times". Give me 10/ Oh, how about 5. Just 5. Give me 5 "re-definitions" of marriage

BTW -- did you wan to help me understand how so-called 'Christian' pick and choose what 'traditions' they follow?

Traditions are what they are, regardless of christian/muslim/etc. The current and understood dentition of marriage has stood for hudreds to thousands of years.


You aren't interested in anything here other than your 24-7 leftist , nazi agitprop hate garbage you do nothing other than spew here.

 

[Your Star]

The fact is that making law by tradition is not a good idea, there has to be a reason that we have a law that makes sense today, and not just because that's the way it's always been.

 

[hazlnut]

Stupid ad. I realise our country isn't all that old, but we do have traditions that differ from past european traditions.

Mesopotamia is not in Europe.

This is about biblical traditions and other traditions that grew out of mis-reading of scriptures.

In America's history there has been self-marriage, polygamy, and same-sex marriage. All types of traditions. Marriage as we know it, in which the woman actually gets a say in it, is less than 200 years old.

Those who throw the word tradition around, really have no clue.

 

[hazlnut]

How do you know you they don't know what it means? You can't just pick any bull**** "tradtion" from any culture in any place in any time and claim that is "tradition", and that if you don't recognize that tradition from that time/place/etc. you are wrong. everyone knows what traditional marriage is, gaystapo propaganda notwithstanding. No one needs a map, flow chart, a timeline, a venn diagram or any other bull****.



More gaystapo propaganda. Marriage has not be redifined "100 times". Give me 10/ Oh, how about 5. Just 5. Give me 5 "re-definitions" of marriage



Traditions are what they are, regardless of christian/muslim/etc. The current and understood dentition of marriage has stood for hudreds to thousands of years.


You aren't interested in anything here other than your 24-7 leftist , nazi agitprop hate garbage you do nothing other than spew here.

Wow. Didn't see that coming.

Most homophobes hide it better than you do.

Your comments are the worst kind of ignorance. IMO, your bigoted beliefs are based your own inability to read scripture intelligently and in its proper context.

 

[vendur]

Wow. Didn't see that coming.

Most homophobes hide it better than you do.

Your comments are the worst kind of ignorance. IMO, your bigoted beliefs are based your own inability to read scripture intelligently and in its proper context.

Ya, so i busted you and your bull****.

 

[clownboy]

Mesopotamia is not in Europe.

True, but the stupid bits about the lord of the manor having first crack isn't from Mesopotamia, nor is the chastity belt.

This is about biblical traditions and other traditions that grew out of mis-reading of scriptures.

Indeed, but again, not American traditions. We have our own traditional misreading of scripture.

In America's history there has been self-marriage, polygamy, and same-sex marriage. All types of traditions. Marriage as we know it, in which the woman actually gets a say in it, is less than 200 years old.

Not true at all. Self-marriage still exists, take a look at common law statutes that recognise that tradition. Polygamy was never recognised as valid marriage - that's why the sects that practiced it were run out of every community they tried to settle in. Same-sex marriage, before today was never recognised as valid.

Those who throw the word tradition around, really have no clue.

Obviously, with the amount of misinformation you just tried to peddle, I'm not the one needing a clue here.

 

[hazlnut]

True, but the stupid bits about the lord of the manor having first crack isn't from Mesopotamia, nor is the chastity belt.

It's all part of the ancient tradition of marriage.

Indeed, but again, not American traditions. We have our own traditional misreading of scripture.

Traditionally blacks could not marry whites in America.

And women had little or no say in marriage. Traditionally.

Not true at all. Self-marriage still exists, take a look at common law statutes that recognise that tradition. Polygamy was never recognised as valid marriage - that's why the sects that practiced it were run out of every community they tried to settle in. Same-sex marriage, before today was never recognised as valid.

Sorry, you don't have all the facts.

Amazon.com: A History of Marriage (9781609800888): Elizabeth Abbott: Books

Obviously, with the amount of misinformation you just tried to peddle, I'm not the one needing a clue here.

IMO and experience conservative Christians are repelled by facts and science. Why is that?

Everything I've told you is true.

But answer me this, how do you justify picking and choosing which 5000 year old traditions you accept and which ones you ignore?

 

[AGENT J]

LMAO


GREAT VIDEO and very funny

but objective people know that the made up term traditional marriage is complete hogwash when you try to use it in a blanket form. You may have traditions, I may have them, who you choose to marry may have them but thats about it. My traditions are not necessarily yours nor should they be otherwise this wouldnt be america.

 

[Paschendale]

I thought it was a little over the top, but the point stands. Just because we used to do something is no reason to continue doing it today. Tradition is not sufficient justification to pass any law, let alone one that infringes on a person's fundamental rights.

 

[roguenuke]

Traditionally, in the US, if a woman or teenage girl got pregnant the guy who got her that way was very likely going to be forced to marry her. Shotgun weddings. Pretty sure that "tradition" is not only not a part of our laws, but there are places that are trying to limit teenagers from even being able to participate in this traditional form of marriage because it is not seen as what is in the best interest of the two teens or the child.

Traditionally, here in the US, the woman had very little power or say in the marriage. In fact, it has only been in the last 30 or 40 years that rape could include spouses. There was no such thing as raping a spouse because marriage was traditionally viewed as automatic consent to sex.

And most of our wedding traditions come from other parts of the world. We really don't have any of our own. In fact, it could be said that the only American wedding tradition is to follow the traditions of your family's culture or religion.

 

[RamFel]

It points out how people who use the word 'traditional' don't have the slightest clue what it really means.

Marriage has been redefined 100 times. Now that we are more enlightened and understanding that sexual orientation is not a choice, why would anyone be against marriage equality.

BTW -- did you wan to help me understand how so-called 'Christian' pick and choose what 'traditions' they follow?

That's less enlightened if you ask me.

I don't know why some people have different sexual orientations, but I don't know how that could possibly translate into being right, or positive, but I do know why there is an interest in same sex marriage, and it has nothing to do with love, or rights.

Pity the poor fool gay (or anybody else) who actually believes that he or she is living in enlighted times.

 

[clownboy]

It's all part of the ancient tradition of marriage.

We were talking about American tradition. Didn't make it here, and that still wasn't from Mesopotamia.

Traditionally blacks could not marry whites in America.

True, and then we changed it.

And women had little or no say in marriage. Traditionally.

In your distorted historical view, perhaps. Arranged marriages were for immigrants in the early days and the frontier days of America. You could at one time buy a mail order bride, but women were always free to divorce. Marriage was a tad more practical, revolving around non-romantic love aspects like financial partnership and CHILDREN.

Sorry, you don't have all the facts.

Amazon.com: A History of Marriage (9781609800888): Elizabeth Abbott: Books

Your link proves nothing. Nor do we know the accuracy, scope or content of the author's work. Try again.

IMO and experience conservative Christians are repelled by facts and science. Why is that?

Everything I've told you is true.

But answer me this, how do you justify picking and choosing which 5000 year old traditions you accept and which ones you ignore?

No, very little of it is, if anything. It's what you wish to believe, not what is factual. What conservative Christians believe about science, whether what you say is true of them or not, is immaterial to this discussion.

And again I remind you, this country is NOT 5000 years old. It has it's own marriage tradition. Keep moving goal posts, you move them far enough you might actually be right about something here.

 

[Miguel17]

How do you know you they don't know what it means? You can't just pick any bull**** "tradtion" from any culture in any place in any time and claim that is "tradition", and that if you don't recognize that tradition from that time/place/etc. you are wrong. everyone knows what traditional marriage is, gaystapo propaganda notwithstanding. No one needs a map, flow chart, a timeline, a venn diagram or any other bull****.



More gaystapo propaganda. Marriage has not be redifined "100 times". Give me 10/ Oh, how about 5. Just 5. Give me 5 "re-definitions" of marriage



Traditions are what they are, regardless of christian/muslim/etc. The current and understood dentition of marriage has stood for hudreds to thousands of years.


You aren't interested in anything here other than your 24-7 leftist , nazi agitprop hate garbage you do nothing other than spew here.

I hate to be a Nazi gaystapo hater, but I have to take issue with the idea that our concept of marriage has been static for thousands of years. Our idea of heterosexual marriage today is not "traditional" in any real sense. I'm sure you know that interracial marriage has been considered immoral (especially when the woman was white) for a long time in Anglo-Saxon culture. In the United States, it was illegal for a long time nationwide, and remained illegal in many states until Loving v. Virginia in 1967. The idea of a majority-based (18 years old) marriage is also a new concept. It was traditionally acceptable for, say, an adult male and a what we would consider to be a female child to marry in the old western tradition, and until the 20th century it was legal in many states. In many Christian churches today in America, the minimum age of matrimony is much lower than 18. For a long time, marriage between people of different religions was strictly prohibited. Our concept of incestuous marriage--for example, between uncles and nieces or first cousins--does not have a long tradition in the west, and in our own country it would be ahistorical to describe modern kinship restrictions on marriage to be "traditional marriage." These are a few of the ways marriage has changed. My point, of course, is that there is no "traditional marriage" to speak of. It's a paper tiger used by people who have no legitimate reason to deny same-sex couples equal rights, and instead falsely invoke "tradition."

There is a bigger issue here. At the most basic, your argument is correct: up until the past few decades, marriage has traditionally not been between same-sex couples. It's changed its definition many, many times in the history of the United States alone, but it hasn't traditionally been between same-sex couples. But so what? By that logic, women wouldn't have the vote today. After all, until the 20th Century suffrage, while changing constantly in definition had never "traditionally" included women. Same goes for interracial marriage. Marriage had never "traditionally" allowed interracial relationships. By your standard of upholding what you call "tradition," no social reform or legal change would ever happen, including slavery! In the history of the world, what is more "traditional" than slavery? What could have been more radical than abolishing the most "traditional" institution in world history? And yet I assume you would not follow your argument to its logical corollary by defending slavery.

 

[Miguel17]

Traditionally blacks could not marry whites in America.

True, and then we changed it.

So all SSM supporters have to do is change the tradition--and then SSM will be the tradition.

I couldn't have summed it up better myself.

 

[jambalaya]

The fact is that making law by tradition is not a good idea, there has to be a reason that we have a law that makes sense today, and not just because that's the way it's always been.

Traditions are customs that are established over time. Things don't start out as traditions. Something as simple as your family traditionally washing their hair with grage juice is a simple tradition. Marriage is not. The fundamental tradition of marriage between a man and a woman doesn't have to ecompass all traditions in marriage of all time. I agree that what we are arguing is that we should not be bound to that very fundamental part of the tradition. I agree that it is a valid argument. The video really doesn't make it's point very well. Kind of stupid and simplistic. I look on it in the same vein I look at somebody saying SSM should be denied because the bible tells us so.

 

[RamFel]

Traditions are customs that are established over time. Things don't start out as traditions. Something as simple as your family traditionally washing their hair with grage juice is a simple tradition. Marriage is not. The fundamental tradition of marriage between a man and a woman doesn't have to ecompass all traditions in marriage of all time. I agree that what we are arguing is that we should not be bound to that very fundamental part of the tradition. I agree that it is a valid argument. The video really doesn't make it's point very well. Kind of stupid and simplistic. I look on it in the same vein I look at somebody saying SSM should be denied because the bible tells us so.

SSM is NOT the way to go!

 

[AGENT J]

Traditions are customs that are established over time. Things don't start out as traditions. Something as simple as your family traditionally washing their hair with grage juice is a simple tradition. Marriage is not. The fundamental tradition of marriage between a man and a woman doesn't have to ecompass all traditions in marriage of all time. I agree that what we are arguing is that we should not be bound to that very fundamental part of the tradition. I agree that it is a valid argument. The video really doesn't make it's point very well. Kind of stupid and simplistic. I look on it in the same vein I look at somebody saying SSM should be denied because the bible tells us so.

yep both reasons are pretty stupid when we are talking about equal rights.
I wonder a lot how people rationalize denying other fellow Americans equal rights, blows my mind that one could be so selfish, bigoted and hypocritical.

 

[clownboy]

So all SSM supporters have to do is change the tradition--and then SSM will be the tradition.

I couldn't have summed it up better myself.

Yup, and as you can see, that's not an easy thing to do. Let's see, it was about a hundred years from the Emancipation Proclamation to the Loving decision by the SCOTUS. And then it took a generation to settle in and be part of the tradition.

When were gays included for equal treatment? You've got some time to go yet.

 

[AGENT J]

Yup, and as you can see, that's not an easy thing to do. Let's see, it was about a hundred years from the Emancipation Proclamation to the Loving decision by the SCOTUS. And then it took a generation to settle in and be part of the tradition.

When were gays included for equal treatment? You've got some time to go yet.

when the loving decision was made the vast majority of people were against it, not the case now. So it could be very soon.
I do agree though stupidity and bigotry does take time to get remove from the populace.

not to mention all that is meaningless, because you do what is RIGHT and equal rights is whats right lol

 

[Jetboogieman]

What exactly is "great" about it? Be specific.

What's great about it?

The fact that you don't like it