Is Marriage Really Tradionally Based On Hetrosexuality?

Neverfly said:
Ok I think you just answered the post where I just asked.
You are saying that the qualifiers that make a traditional marriage can apply to a same sex couple?

Edit to add: You sneaky dog! I like it!

One point of contention: Child producing- purpose is to multiply, produce offspring that can work the fields and heft stones at the harlot in the market place...
Click to expand...

Yep, and those qualifiers consist of the lions share of things that marriage is now and was.

Good point of contention. May I add, that if you want to view it that way, that nature may reward us with offspring from heterosexual unions, but nature rewards us with same sex unions with population control. They both help from their own angle.
 
"Originally posted by steampunk:
Good point of contention. May I add, that if you want to view it that way, that nature may reward us with offspring from herersexual unions, but nature rewards us with same sex unions with population control. They help from their own angle."
Click to expand...


Though I do not disagree with you that population control is a good thing, and a side effect, if not a reward, caused by same sex unions, (In fact, since adoption helps alleviate orphans, providing them with a home) your O.P. questioned the definition of traditional marriage. I guess someone should have asked you from who's perspective you wanted the definition. The opponents of gay marriage define marriage as being heterosexual. To them, that is a vital part of marriage (perhaps putting so much importance on a trivial aspect of marriage is the reason so many fail but that can be another thread).

In the recipe for cake (I don't know all the ingredients so bear with me) you have fundamental ingredients and you have optional ingredients. The fundamental ingredients would be flour, eggs, sugar, baking powder, salt. The optional ingredients would be cocoa, vanilla, lemon extract, cinnamon. Items that give the cake more definition and uniqueness.

As many kinds of cake as there are, the fundamental ingredients are what they all hold in common. Without these fundamental ingredients you simply have a bowl of sweet goop that won't rise in the oven or hold any shape. It can still be tasty and fun and may even be a preference to some people but it cannot be called cake.

So for those who oppose gay marriage, they hold heterosexuality as a fundamental ingredient. However unfair that may be. And in our country and most cultures developed around the Abrahamic faiths, those who have been in power and making the laws have allowed their religious views to dictate the way they vote on laws. Ideally we are expected to assume the lawmakers have always represented us completely without bias of their own. But they are human like the rest of us so, we know better.

As much as "winners of wars write the history" is true, those in power dictate cultural norms and traditions. Traditionally in the west, those in power have been Christian. Mainstream Christianity has traditionally condemned homosexuality so therefore mainstream Christians in power have dictated that marriage should only be for heterosexuals.

I look forward to this tradition being changed. I have several young family members who are wanting to get married some day and I for one want to see that happen.
 
Neverfly said:
So for those who oppose gay marriage, they hold heterosexuality as a fundamental ingredient. However unfair that may be. And in our country and most cultures developed around the Abrahamic faiths, those who have been in power and making the laws have allowed their religious views to dictate the way they vote on laws. Ideally we are expected to assume the lawmakers have always represented us completely without bias of their own. But they are human like the rest of us so, we know better.
Click to expand...

They have to use their abject reasoning to win this. Using your cake analogy, this one ingredient has to trump the existence of all other ingredients. If this ingredient were eggs, then we are no longer talking about a cake. They are now only talking about an egg. By there own reasoning, they are calling a cake an egg. This is where they have failed. By exaggerating so badly, they have swayed completely away from what traditionally marriage is. If we continually drive this home to the public, the public will continue to wake up and the abjects will finally loose. It is all reasoning and they are failing to reason properly.

I myself am straight, but I find this issue important only because of my understanding that morality and preference should never be laws. Morals and preferences as criminal laws are a waste of government dollars and have a history of brutality in societies. The prosecutors legally punished and murdered innocent humans based upon preferences and morals, where those preferences were inconsequential behaviour and harmed no one.

I've found the secret to fixing these things. Call things what they are by qualifying and quantifying the entire subject of focus. Find the thing they extrapolate upon the whole and quantify it. It's that simple. Once you prove how insignificant it is, they are exposed to their retarded claims. In my experience, they repeat this bullshit reasoning more than any other bullshit reasoning.

Taking this into consideration, we look at all of Traditional Marriage's ingredients, not just one to define it. This is how we handled racism and witchcraft as well other historical crimes accepted by past societies. A reasonable society not only has more fairness towards it citizens, but that correctness has many financial rewards. Nature rewards intelligent societies and punishes societies who refuse to reason.

The US should take look at its 16 Trillion dollar debt and just drop their morality bullshit and get reasonable. They are fighting the gays who just want to do what every one else has a right to do. Instead of just allowing equal rights, they instead fight against equal rights. This is how they conduct government time when we are facing a major economic problems and a threatening energy crisis? They focus on imposing morality upon others instead handling real problems that are life threatening to the US. The government does not need to focus on morality or preference at all. They need to step out of the way and just let them get married.
 
Last edited:
They have to use their abject reasoning to win this. Using your cake analogy, this one ingredient has to trump the existence of all other ingredients. If this ingredient were eggs, then we are no longer talking about a cake. They are now only talking about an egg. By there own reasoning, they are calling a cake an egg. This is where they have failed. By exaggerating so badly, they have swayed completely away from what traditionally marriage is. If we continually drive this home to the public, the public will continue to wake up and the abjects will finally loose. It is all reasoning and they are failing to reason properly.
Click to expand...
You mean, "lose."
'Loose' is what something not tight is.:p

I had no idea this was the angle you were taking at the thread's start. My hat's off to ya.
 
Neverfly said:
You mean, "lose."
'Loose' is what something not tight is.:p

I had no idea this was the angle you were taking at the thread's start. My hat's off to ya.
Click to expand...

My grammar is a loose cannon, if you haven't noticed. Don't judge me by word I mispelled.:D

Remember the cake method in the future. But I can't guarantee you won't be surrounded morons that don't understand context.
 
@Steampunk-"The primary reason people got married was because they had higher than average compatible personal traits."

Actually that's not true, traditional marriages were often arranged by family or community and were based on religion, class and financial interests not personal compatible traits. Individual love based on arbitrary feelings of love or compatibility is a relatively modern phenomenon in the history of marriage. Marriage traditionally protected bloodlines as well as property rights.
 
steampunk said:
You are committing the same mistake by focusing merely on the paperwork. Marriage is more than a piece of paperwork. It's a living breathing relationship. A licence or a ring can symbolise the union. A child can even symbolise the union in a genetic way. But they are only symbols. They are not the actual marriage as a whole. To properly symbolise that you have take more than sexual orientation, number of partners, ownership of human, etc in to consideration.

What you guys are doing is cherry picking one attribute and extrapolating that attribute over the entire defintion of traditional marriage. That is a misrepresentation of the real thing that is marriage. It is not a licence, not a ring or a sexual orientation principle. It's a living breathing relationship and everything that makes that up. Traditionally, that is the evidence we have. That has not changed up to this day. No matter what a licence says or a law says. Certificates and laws do not always accurately represent things of fact.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. From the point of view of the state, marriage is simply a legal contract.
 
Social definitions are closely tied with the mores of the time, which are not based on universal humanistic values.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top