Reply With Quote
what are the other problems? are you actually implying that adultery is not one these problems?
I know I was piggy backing.
what are the other problems? are you actually implying that adultery is not one these problems?
you might not want to use that term around some of these mcarthysists in here.
Last edited by rjv; 12-11-2009 at 08:49 PM.
Well, even if they piggyback each other, at least they can't get married.
What the heck is www.prntrkmt.org? That text isn't even signed. Please refer to scholarly sources, books or peer-reviewd papers. Westermark is a good starting point, but there are many others investigative sources on the history of marriage. I have good organized bibliography that I can send you if you need one (I once had to wrote a paper on non-fault divorce and the Coase theorem).
In any case, I have to point out the irony: you started by bashing the role of organized religion on marriage, saying it was wrongfully redefined by them in the first place and that now the state should embark in the process of returning to some kind of pure, original definition of marriage. Then you put out some text about the Ancient Egypt. Are you aware Ancient Egypt was a ing theocracy?
The source is irrelevant, its widespread knowledge, and I told you I did a quick google just to provide a quote that exemplifies it better than I can. (Theocracy) I'm aware of the irony. We aren't dissecting the inner workings of society and all its rights or wrongs. I'm simply pointing out the fact that sexual unions existed long before Christianity jumped in and began practicing "gods" version. Marriage existed throughout time. It wasn't until modern day Christianity that we're faced with some kind of "definition" of what marriage is or isn't supposed to be.
The idea of marriage being about a man and a woman solely is based on opinion and preference rooted in bigoted corrupt organized religion. I use it as an argument because thumpers for some reason feel that the sanc y of marriage is theirs to define....only that is was defined many many of thousands of years before their bigoted ways.
Ok, I've seen you won't answer my question and that you hate Christianity. You're still wrong though (I can't care less of your angry rantings about bigots or whatever but I hold historical accuracy in a high regard). Ever heard about the Code of Hammurabi?
I answered your question. There are numerous examples of same sex unions throughout history its common knowledge. How many examples do you need. Ancient Greece. China. Europe. I don't know what more you want. It existed and was accepted on many levels since man first organized unions.
I'm not particularly familiar with the Code of Hammurabi.
I'm not a fan of the Christians. I do believe that they're at the root of this issue.
Hammurabi? Was he a Christian?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20464004/
more modern examples.
That wasn't my question. I asked for evidence that it was organized religion that re-defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman departing from some precedent norm that existed somewhere in the past. So far you've given one example of a theocratic society, ruled by organized society, where marriage as a union between people of the same sex was tolerated and a very uncommon event.
What I want to see is that correlation between the prevalence of organized religion and a dominance of a one definition of marriage.
Once again, if you need an extensive bibliography on the history of marriage I can e-mail it to you.
I think that the thesis of equating affrèrements to marriages is, to put it gently, peculiar.
But are you aware that with this link you undermine your entire position? Never an organized Christian Church was as powerful as it was in medieval Europe (perhaps with the exception of the late Roman Empire). Affrèrements are a medievalist ins ution (and related to the inheritance/taxation laws, btw).
Last edited by mogrovejo; 12-10-2009 at 06:54 PM.
There are many examples of polygamy and incestuous marriage before it was redefined as a union between one man and woman who aren't related.I asked for evidence that it was organized religion that re-defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman departing from some precedent norm that existed somewhere in the past.
It's all pretty arbitrary, so I'm fine with expanding the arbitrary definition to include two members of the same sex who aren't related.
I don't need to provide a correlation because its their argument. Its all we hear. "A marriage in Gods eyes is between a man and a woman"..."The bible says..."..."Jesus intended a marriage to be".
The entire basis of what currently defines a marriage is rooted in the so called word of Christ. I provided evidence, common knowledge, that unions contrary to modern day thinking not only originated many years prior but existed throughout history.
Man/Man Woman/Woman Man/Object Man/Animal those unions have existed and were accepted in many societies before and after Christ. I don't know what more you want. The people that are holding gay people hostage are doing so in the name of God or Christlike beliefs...or a mul ude of modern day religious thinking.
So if a person is physically incapable of bearing children, is he or she just not living a godly life? Will marriage suddenly make a barren woman fertile or do away with a man's impotency? And, if not, should the barren woman and the impotent man be allowed to marry, knowing full well that they have no chance to bear children?
What is wrong with adopting if they want. Jesus never said we have to conceive.
Mathew 19:10-12
10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
As a society, we have to have more offspring to counter the elderly and dieing.
sexuals can adopt, too. Most States permit same-sex couples to jointly pe ion to adopt and where challenged, laws prohibiting adoption by same-sex couples have (at least on some occasions) been ruled uncons utional. So if adoption fosters the godly concerns that worry you so (at least in the context of ensuring that married couples will raise children), why doesn't the legalization of adoption by same-sex couples alleviate that fear?
You are assuming too much, in regards to me.
what's your definition of a healthy marriage?
Zing! Good one.
I should clarify.
I'm being sarcastic.
So you're cool with adoption by same-sex couples and realize now that this worry about gay people not being able to have children is really a pretty ridiculous argument in support of your position? Or is it that you aren't really afraid of same-sex couples marrying and violating your view of God's plan, but find that contesting the redefinition of marriage suits your need to be overt with your phobia?
Spoken like a true divorcee
Spoken like a true divorcee
Bas . Livin' the dream
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
