iNow Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 (edited) It seems to me that given that marriage has been one thing for over 1000 years the people who are saying, wait a minute, you can't all of a sudden change what this thing means have more of a leg to stand on.It seems your bigotry is only surpassed by your lack of understanding of history. If we really want to argue "traditional marriage," perhaps you should know that back in the 800s-1200s through the middle ages and before, Christian leaders both performed and sanctioned same sex marriage. There was also gay marriage back in 100 AD. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/11/us/beliefs-study-medieval-rituals-same-sex-unions-raises-question-what-were-they.html http://articles.latimes.com/1994-06-08/news/ls-1848_1_roman-catholic-church http://io9.com/gay-marriage-in-the-year-100-ad-951140108 More from me here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/37083-evidence-for-a-definition-of-marriage/?p=469155 You seem to not have understood what my argument is. My argument is that the definition of marriage is a union btw a man and a woman.I understand your argument perfectly. I just find it ignorant, unconvincing, and (whether consciously or not) rooted it bigotry. You mention tradition, but tradition allowed children under the age of 10 to marry. We changed that. Tradition allowed daughters to be forced by their parents to marry others simply to pay off debts. We changed that. Tradition prevented biracial couples from marrying. We changed that, too, and rightly so. Traditions are different across cultures and traditions change. All of the time. Now, just out of curiosity... how many head of cattle or acres of land did you offer your wife's father as her bride price? Was your marriage prearranged? They are not identical. One applies to same sex couples, other opposite sex.Yes, you keep repeating this, yet continue failing to address my actual question. What relevant difference is there? Because some people care about tradition and see the application of this name to a same sex couple union as a perversion of something they care about.Now you're saying it's a perversion? Please, do tell us all again how this is about "tradition" and not naked bigotry. My question is why do the SS couples care? Its a label that was never applied to SS unions, why do they want it applied to them.Because separate but equal is inherently unequal. Also, you keep saying "never." I do not think that word means what you think it means. I'm with you all the way on them having to have the same legal rights, but what claim do they have on a label that's never been applied to them?I refer you once more to your ignorance of history and selective blindness to what the church itself has sanctioned in the past. But MY question would be: Who cares?Once more, it seems only you do. Why is that? Edited March 6, 2017 by iNow 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now