- Joined
- Jun 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,657
- Reaction score
- 8,454
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I agree with you here.... But let me jump ship for just a minute.... In every aspect of life just about, there is the traditional vs modern new age argument. Take golf for instance. You see the guys who are typically older, in their 60's maybe, arguing about going back to the "traditional" clubs. balls, course set ups yadda yadda. They say it is ruining the game, it can't be played the way it was meant to be played, and people are losing skills because of the new modern stuff.I think the religious right does a disservice to their argument to reserve the definition of marriage to a man and a woman when they refer to it as the "traditional" definition. Historically speaking, marriage has changed definitions several times throughout history. Same sex marriage has even existed and been practiced by various culture throughout the world. Some evidence suggests that even early churches accepted same sex marriages.
Today's definition of marriage is far removed from the tradition of the last two millennium. The definition of marriage used to allow for a man to have more than one spouse, but the outlawing of polygamy has changed this in a large segment of the world. The definition of marriage used to heavily restrict how often a person could marry, but serial monogamy is now a common feature of marriage and few would condemn an individual for having been married once, twice, or even more times over the course of their life. The definition of marriage used to designate women to the level of property of their husband, and that has clearly changed with the emergence of women's rights.
The reality is that the argument for the "traditional" definition of marriage is actually an argument for a definition of marriage that has existed for only a few decades, a definition which allows a person to marry as many times as they want as long as they are married to a single partner at any one point in time and which is generally recognized legally as a partnership. What people typically mean by that term is to exclude same sex couples because they cannot procreate.
Fine, then I posit that it be referred to as the "biological" definition of marriage. Obviously a same sex couple cannot procreate. And while marriage is a sociological institution, if the premise is going to be based on the biological capacities of the participants then let it be named as such. Let's not perpetuate the myth that the definition of marriage has not changed several times throughout history by referring to a modern religious right perception as "tradition".
This is really a tired argument in the SSM debate. The tradition of opposite sex marriage has been widespread. In relation to the U.S. and many, many other cultures and countries an exception existing in some other culture doesn't affect their tradition at all. About all one can say is that it is an interesting difference. The tradition of multiple wives in this country was isolated but it still involved opposite sexes. You are reaching far and wide here. The argument is just not credible. Just be honest and realistic. You can say that the tradition must change or I guess more accurately no longer exist. I can fully get on board with that argument but your argument here is just not based in reality or reason.
I think the religious right does a disservice to their argument to reserve the definition of marriage to a man and a woman when they refer to it as the "traditional" definition. Historically speaking, marriage has changed definitions several times throughout history. Same sex marriage has even existed and been practiced by various culture throughout the world. Some evidence suggests that even early churches accepted same sex marriages.
Today's definition of marriage is far removed from the tradition of the last two millennium. The definition of marriage used to allow for a man to have more than one spouse, but the outlawing of polygamy has changed this in a large segment of the world. The definition of marriage used to heavily restrict how often a person could marry, but serial monogamy is now a common feature of marriage and few would condemn an individual for having been married once, twice, or even more times over the course of their life. The definition of marriage used to designate women to the level of property of their husband, and that has clearly changed with the emergence of women's rights.
The reality is that the argument for the "traditional" definition of marriage is actually an argument for a definition of marriage that has existed for only a few decades, a definition which allows a person to marry as many times as they want as long as they are married to a single partner at any one point in time and which is generally recognized legally as a partnership. What people typically mean by that term is to exclude same sex couples because they cannot procreate.
Fine, then I posit that it be referred to as the "biological" definition of marriage. Obviously a same sex couple cannot procreate. And while marriage is a sociological institution, if the premise is going to be based on the biological capacities of the participants then let it be named as such. Let's not perpetuate the myth that the definition of marriage has not changed several times throughout history by referring to a modern religious right perception as "tradition".
"Tradition" isn't even the point.
It is a simple, unalterable, biological fact that in humans, only a union between a man and a woman can produce offspring. Two men cannot do it, and neither can two women. The purpose of marriage always has been, and always will be, to establish a permanence to this union, to bind the parents to each other and the children to their parents, to establish the family unit which is the basis of every stable human society. There cannot be any such thing as "same sex marriage" because it is biologically impossible for a same-sex couple to fulfill the function of marriage and family.
"Tradition" isn't even the point.
It is a simple, unalterable, biological fact that in humans, only a union between a man and a woman can produce offspring. Two men cannot do it, and neither can two women. The purpose of marriage always has been, and always will be, to establish a permanence to this union, to bind the parents to each other and the children to their parents, to establish the family unit which is the basis of every stable human society. There cannot be any such thing as "same sex marriage" because it is biologically impossible for a same-sex couple to fulfill the function of marriage and family.
This seems entirely disingenuous to me. Allowing same sex couples to marry would in no way end opposite sex marriages, so I'm not sure how that argument makes any sense. In fact, it verges on absolute lunacy. I'm not even sure how it would change anything. This catastrophic thinking the religious right wing has adopted just seems so childish to me. It seems as if you are saying if we change anything about the status quo then we are destroying the foundations of society but you offer nothing to support this view.
The reality is, even if you refuse to acknowledge or accept it, your so called "traditional" definition of marriage is only a few decades old. Now if you want to argue the opposite sex part has largely been enforced in Judeo Christian society through the historical killing, imprisonment, torture, and mutilation of men and women who engaged in same sex relationships, then great. The reality then is it isn't a "tradition" so much as a history of prolonged, cruel and unjust treatment and control. That is the reality that you seem to wish to embrace.
I think the religious right does a disservice to their argument to reserve the definition of marriage to a man and a woman when they refer to it as the "traditional" definition. Historically speaking, marriage has changed definitions several times throughout history. Same sex marriage has even existed and been practiced by various culture throughout the world. Some evidence suggests that even early churches accepted same sex marriages.
Today's definition of marriage is far removed from the tradition of the last two millennium. The definition of marriage used to allow for a man to have more than one spouse, but the outlawing of polygamy has changed this in a large segment of the world. The definition of marriage used to heavily restrict how often a person could marry, but serial monogamy is now a common feature of marriage and few would condemn an individual for having been married once, twice, or even more times over the course of their life. The definition of marriage used to designate women to the level of property of their husband, and that has clearly changed with the emergence of women's rights.
The reality is that the argument for the "traditional" definition of marriage is actually an argument for a definition of marriage that has existed for only a few decades, a definition which allows a person to marry as many times as they want as long as they are married to a single partner at any one point in time and which is generally recognized legally as a partnership. What people typically mean by that term is to exclude same sex couples because they cannot procreate.
Fine, then I posit that it be referred to as the "biological" definition of marriage. Obviously a same sex couple cannot procreate. And while marriage is a sociological institution, if the premise is going to be based on the biological capacities of the participants then let it be named as such. Let's not perpetuate the myth that the definition of marriage has not changed several times throughout history by referring to a modern religious right perception as "tradition".
This seems entirely disingenuous to me. Allowing same sex couples to marry would in no way end opposite sex marriages, so I'm not sure how that argument makes any sense. In fact, it verges on absolute lunacy. I'm not even sure how it would change anything. This catastrophic thinking the religious right wing has adopted just seems so childish to me. It seems as if you are saying if we change anything about the status quo then we are destroying the foundations of society but you offer nothing to support this view.
The reality is, even if you refuse to acknowledge or accept it, your so called "traditional" definition of marriage is only a few decades old. Now if you want to argue the opposite sex part has largely been enforced in Judeo Christian society through the historical killing, imprisonment, torture, and mutilation of men and women who engaged in same sex relationships, then great. The reality then is it isn't a "tradition" so much as a history of prolonged, cruel and unjust treatment and control. That is the reality that you seem to wish to embrace.
Once again, just overblown rhetoric and exaggeration on your part. I am not suggesting that opposite sex marriage ends, I am suggesting the argument that opposite sex marriage or unions ONLY ends is one I can respect. Since you have created a fictional character to argue with over right wing religious thinking I will leave you to debate yourself now.
I am suggesting the argument that opposite sex marriage or unions ONLY ends is one I can respect.
Not all heterosexual couples can procreate.
Not all heterosexual couples can or do procreate, but only heterosexual couples can or do procreate. No human being ever does, has, or will come into existence without the participation of a mother and a father. Marriage is about establishing the relationships and responsibilities that go with procreation.
Not all heterosexual couples can or do procreate, but only heterosexual couples can or do procreate. No human being ever does, has, or will come into existence without the participation of a mother and a father. Marriage is about establishing the relationships and responsibilities that go with procreation.
Not all heterosexual couples can or do procreate, but only heterosexual couples can or do procreate. No human being ever does, has, or will come into existence without the participation of a mother and a father. Marriage is about establishing the relationships and responsibilities that go with procreation.
But I don't understand, why is it the only one you respect? Definitions are subjective, and it is part and parcel with our being human that we shift our definition and our norms as we progress or change as a civilization. Calling something natural or biological does not mean it is good or bad, to do that would fall into the naturalistic fallacy, it merely means it is biological. Whether or not a marriage can result in offspring we issue marriage licenses to heterosexual couples who do not plan on having children, who are naturally or artificially incapable of having children, etc. Considering what we use marriage for and what it means with regard to benefits and the creation of a family unit in our society I don't see why the definition shouldn't be extended.
Actually, we're very, very close to using female eggs to create a "sperm" cell capable of causing pregnancy when joined with a non-modified egg.
So it is quite possible that science will allow us to procreate without male participation in the future.
Absolutes are almost always wrong.
I am not going to get into the lunacy of the pro and against arguments these types of threads tend to create. However I would say that I would back up the decades notion to a couple of centuries as far as most western culture goes. The basic premise of marriage has been about the same. A few minor differences, one of them being age. The celibacy/virgin concept till marriage of say 150-200 years ago wasn't such a crazy one as people were getting married at a much younger age. about the time they were figuring out what their organs were meant to do and wanting to do it, they were getting hitched so that they could. I would imagine that there would have been far virgins at the time of marriage if they were waiting till their mid 20's or later to get married.This seems entirely disingenuous to me. Allowing same sex couples to marry would in no way end opposite sex marriages, so I'm not sure how that argument makes any sense. In fact, it verges on absolute lunacy. I'm not even sure how it would change anything. This catastrophic thinking the religious right wing has adopted just seems so childish to me. It seems as if you are saying if we change anything about the status quo then we are destroying the foundations of society but you offer nothing to support this view.
The reality is, even if you refuse to acknowledge or accept it, your so called "traditional" definition of marriage is only a few decades old. Now if you want to argue the opposite sex part has largely been enforced in Judeo Christian society through the historical killing, imprisonment, torture, and mutilation of men and women who engaged in same sex relationships, then great. The reality then is it isn't a "tradition" so much as a history of prolonged, cruel and unjust treatment and control. That is the reality that you seem to wish to embrace.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?