Leave No Survivors - Anti-Gay-Marriage Article

[Yrth]

Dear friends,

 

This article recently showed up on my Facebook feed: http://online.wsj.co...cleTabs=article

 

The poster says she wants a thoughtful discussion to address her concerns over the changing marital norms.

 

I have to go to work. I'd like to stop thinking about the issue and focus on my job, so I'm posting this here knowing your ferocious appetite for fundy fallacies. Just knowing you're already tearing this apart puts my mind at ease.

 

Thanks in advance,

-Yrth

[♦ ficino ♦]

Most of Girgis' arguments rest on assumptions that are not examined. A few of them: tradition is wise; tradition privileges one-man-one-woman life-long unions over other unions (not true: consider polygamy, accepted homosexual social categories, and other arrangements in other cultures); conceiving children gives hetero marriages a rationale for existing that is missing in same-sex marriages (this ignores hetero marriages in which children are not or cannot be conceived); the "complementarity" in which the state has an interest can exist only in hetero marriages; existence of same-sex marriages will lead to children becoming wards of the state in some way and numbers that are significantly different from the way and numbers that hold now; etc. The author also ignores the economic basis for marriage that existed in earlier times. In an agrarian society, a household was also a unit of production. That's not true for most households in the developed world, at least.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

It's funny, they talk about us trying to change their marriage. The only one touching anyone else's marriage or ability to marriage is them. We're just trying to have a say in our own marriage. I've seen my hetero friends marry, and I wouldn't have it any other way, they're perfect couples!

[Ravenstar]

They don't know their history

 

Marriage was all about economics and survival. The 'romantic' notion didn't exist until very lately...ummm... with the industrial revolution. It was completely necessitated by biology... women couldn't support themselves AND their children alone. With the breakdown of the hunter/gatherer lifestyle (where I suspect children were more a tribal responsibility after infancy) and the move into agriculture, child rearing became a 'immediate family unit' task... women were less mobile and had less community support and had to rely on immediate male members of their family... enter patriarchy... *sigh*... and with agriculture came the concept of OWNERSHIP. Male children weren't 'blessings' ... they were necessary low cost farmhands and a way to keep wealth in the family line.. female children were trade goods, like livestock really, and low cost labour as well.

 

The Greeks and Romans knew this... marriage was for children and inheritance and love was outside of marriage (including homosexual love), except in a few cases where the married couple actually did end up in love... it definitely wasn't expected. Marriage in the ancient world was not a romantic concept.

 

All you have to do is look up the legal status of women and children a few centuries ago (and throughout history) to confirm this.

 

The 'romantic' notion of 'love', in the west is pretty much based on a movement in the middle ages, it started in France I believe... Chivalry. Which had nothing to do with marriage... it was a fad among higher born women to have 'champions' of knights. They were young, bored and needed a past time and outlet for their very real biological urges and the pubescent urges they had... pining over robust young men who were handsome and brave and such...(jousting and games and was were pretty common - and their only real entertainment - the whole "Lady giving a gentleman her handkerchief, and sending love letters, et al' - think Cyrano De Bergerac and Romeo & Juliet" that whole star-crossed lovers ideal comes from this... it was their equivalent of modern soap operas and bodice rippers.

 

These young, wealthy, KEPT women were most likely promised in marriage to some old fuck by their families - and they had no choice... so they lived in this fantasy world of romanticism. It probably prevented them from slitting their own throats in despair over their lack of control over their own lives. They NEVER married their knights.. it was unrequited love - that was the whole point.

 

It NEVER applied to the peasantry...they married so they didn't STARVE...and the local choices were probably slim, survival for a single person (especially a woman) was pretty much impossible back then... (add in the witch hunts and staying single was downright dangerous) yet the concept entered the common mind set of society... most fairytales are based on this fad and have become a part of our culture and symbology. Myths have value in that they distract the people from their real suffering, it's escapism... common thing in humans.

 

The ONLY reason marriage became about sex was so that men could be assured that their children were their own (keep the wealth in the family)... it's also the reason why men's extramarital behaviors have never been quite as taboo as women's.

 

It's all about patriarchy and inheritance.. not morality. It's based on an agricultural society (300 years out of date) it's economics.

 

The industrial revolution brought these concepts with it... and since children were not really needed as labour their status changed... they became 'blessings' (they were still needed to keep the wealth in the family) but families began to get smaller... and selling your daughter, for the most part, fell out of favour because you didn't have LAND to negotiate with (still practiced by the wealthy though.. through 'coming out' parties, debutant balls and dowries)

 

However... once emancipation happened and even more importantly BIRTH CONTROL.. the old definitions and reasons for marriage have become obsolete. Marriage, in a technological society, really doesn't make much sense. Pair-bonding still happens, though it's obvious now that in humans pair-bonding isn't as strong as in other animals... could be because we live way longer than is necessary to raise children.

 

What it comes down to is this... It's all about being an accepted full member of society... that's all. The gay community is demanding to be recognized as full members... and marriage has become the flagship for that.

[Akheia]

The single biggest blow to the "traditional" form of hetero marriage, besides the glorification of romantic love, has been no-fault divorce. Purely by making marriage so easy to leave and divorce/remarriage so stigma-free, heterosexual society has completely changed the nature of marriage. People have always fallen in love, had affairs, and even separated from their spouses, but hell, in the Middle Ages and throughout Tudor England there were plenty of stories of couples who found divorce almost impossible to get, and remarriage even more impossible. Henry VIII might have done it, but he had to tread very lightly with how he went about securing his next spouse--and these were not methods most folks had at their disposal. Marriage was an economic and legal juggernaut. Even through the 50s, a divorced woman found herself persona non grata in her neighborhood--she was a living reminder that the fantasy wasn't real. There were a few places where a divorce might be obtained easily and quickly, but these, too, were the province of the wealthy. So as usual, the rules really only applied to the 99%. The rest of us schmucks were stuck!

 

Way more straight people divorce than gay people marry. Even when (not if) marriage becomes fully equal, there're still going to be oodles more straight divorce. But we're totally used to divorce now, is the thing. Even the most rabid, wild-eyed fundies recognize its usefulness--and indeed indulge in it despite all Biblical entreaty to the extent that a fundamentalist marriage is in far more danger of dissolving early than the marriage of a couple of any other religion in the world (and no religion especially).

 

What's funny is that some fundies do recognize that divorce is more of a threat to their ridiculous notions of "traditional" (read: Mayberry-land) marriage and go in for the ominously-termed "covenant marriage" that they've strong-armed their states into adopting as an alternative form of the toothless old beast, but unless you want to experience the Fist of Death for yourself, don't google it. As one might suspect of a form of legal marriage that all but removes all protections for women and makes divorce nearly impossible to obtain, it encourages quite a bit of abuse and domination.

 

So for my money, romantic love eventually left the realm of idealized emotional affairs and led to a form of marriage based on love rather than economics or familial contract, and when love ended--as so often it does, alas--it made no sense for divorce to remain so difficult to obtain and remarriage to be so scorned. Fundies should be fighting divorce, not gay marriage, but the ones who do go the wrong route entirely--making it harder to get, rather than actually teaching their men to stop being such assholes to their wives. As with the anti-abortion fight they've started and the abstinence movement they've lost, they're going at things bass-ackwards. But what can we expect from idiots who cobble their morality from a two-thousand-year-old book of dusty Middle Eastern tribal myths?

[hereticzero]

The bounds of marriage were destroyed the first moment free people let someone tell them how to get married. A natural act, where one person meets another and chooses to live together as a mated pair. There have never been 'natural laws' for marriage but yearnings for companionship are natural. We are lonely animals searching for that special person to fill a void in our lives. Priests evolved out of man's quest for knowledge of the unknown realms or life, death, creation. People accepted the priests words for 'truth'. Later in history, man was taxed when two people chose to be wed, some demand a license to wed, another cheapening of 'marriage'. Heterosexual unions are not the norm in all societies. Some Indian cultures accepted same-sex unions, believing a man or women who married the same sex had two spirits. A natural longing became a spiritual quest in human evolution. There has never been a defining time when a marriage was delegated as an act only between two people of the opposite sex. Opposite sex marriage is the accepted norm because it has been taught as the norm, and in many places people challenging that authority, such as in the mid east, are put to death for same-sex bonding. Christianity calls homosexuality 'confusion' but I see confusion only follows in the wake of intolerance.

 

 

 

 

 

Please delete this as a double post.

[hereticzero]

The bounds of marriage were destroyed the first moment free people let someone tell them how to get married. A natural act, where one person meets another and chooses to live together as a mated pair. There have never been 'natural laws' for marriage but yearnings for companionship are natural. We are lonely animals searching for that special person to fill a void in our lives. Priests evolved out of man's quest for knowledge of the unknown realms or life, death, creation. People accepted the priests words for 'truth'. Later in history, man was taxed when two people chose to be wed, some demand a license to wed, another cheapening of 'marriage'. Heterosexual unions are not the norm in all societies. Some Indian cultures accepted same-sex unions, believing a man or women who married the same sex had two spirits. A natural longing became a spiritual quest in human evolution. There has never been a defining time when a marriage was delegated as an act only between two people of the opposite sex. Opposite sex marriage is the accepted norm because it has been taught as the norm, and in many places people challenging that authority, such as in the mid east, are put to death for same-sex bonding. Christianity calls homosexuality 'confusion' but I see confusion only follows in the wake of intolerance.

[OrdinaryClay]

They don't know their history

 

Marriage was all about economics and survival. The 'romantic' notion didn't exist until very lately...ummm... with the industrial revolution. It was completely necessitated by biology... women couldn't support themselves AND their children alone. With the breakdown of the hunter/gatherer lifestyle (where I suspect children were more a tribal responsibility after infancy) and the move into agriculture, child rearing became a 'immediate family unit' task... women were less mobile and had less community support and had to rely on immediate male members of their family... enter patriarchy... *sigh*... and with agriculture came the concept of OWNERSHIP. Male children weren't 'blessings' ... they were necessary low cost farmhands and a way to keep wealth in the family line.. female children were trade goods, like livestock really, and low cost labour as well.

 

The Greeks and Romans knew this... marriage was for children and inheritance and love was outside of marriage (including homosexual love), except in a few cases where the married couple actually did end up in love... it definitely wasn't expected. Marriage in the ancient world was not a romantic concept.

 

All you have to do is look up the legal status of women and children a few centuries ago (and throughout history) to confirm this.

 

The 'romantic' notion of 'love', in the west is pretty much based on a movement in the middle ages, it started in France I believe... Chivalry. Which had nothing to do with marriage... it was a fad among higher born women to have 'champions' of knights. They were young, bored and needed a past time and outlet for their very real biological urges and the pubescent urges they had... pining over robust young men who were handsome and brave and such...(jousting and games and was were pretty common - and their only real entertainment - the whole "Lady giving a gentleman her handkerchief, and sending love letters, et al' - think Cyrano De Bergerac and Romeo & Juliet" that whole star-crossed lovers ideal comes from this... it was their equivalent of modern soap operas and bodice rippers.

 

These young, wealthy, KEPT women were most likely promised in marriage to some old fuck by their families - and they had no choice... so they lived in this fantasy world of romanticism. It probably prevented them from slitting their own throats in despair over their lack of control over their own lives. They NEVER married their knights.. it was unrequited love - that was the whole point.

 

It NEVER applied to the peasantry...they married so they didn't STARVE...and the local choices were probably slim, survival for a single person (especially a woman) was pretty much impossible back then... (add in the witch hunts and staying single was downright dangerous) yet the concept entered the common mind set of society... most fairytales are based on this fad and have become a part of our culture and symbology. Myths have value in that they distract the people from their real suffering, it's escapism... common thing in humans.

 

The ONLY reason marriage became about sex was so that men could be assured that their children were their own (keep the wealth in the family)... it's also the reason why men's extramarital behaviors have never been quite as taboo as women's.

 

It's all about patriarchy and inheritance.. not morality. It's based on an agricultural society (300 years out of date) it's economics.

 

The industrial revolution brought these concepts with it... and since children were not really needed as labour their status changed... they became 'blessings' (they were still needed to keep the wealth in the family) but families began to get smaller... and selling your daughter, for the most part, fell out of favour because you didn't have LAND to negotiate with (still practiced by the wealthy though.. through 'coming out' parties, debutant balls and dowries)

 

However... once emancipation happened and even more importantly BIRTH CONTROL.. the old definitions and reasons for marriage have become obsolete. Marriage, in a technological society, really doesn't make much sense. Pair-bonding still happens, though it's obvious now that in humans pair-bonding isn't as strong as in other animals... could be because we live way longer than is necessary to raise children.

 

What it comes down to is this... It's all about being an accepted full member of society... that's all. The gay community is demanding to be recognized as full members... and marriage has become the flagship for that.

I think you are the one that has a lack of understanding. The existence of culturally prearranged marriage does not mean they do not, and have not, carried emotional and romantic dimensions. It would be absurd to think that Homo sapiens suddenly with the industrial age started loving their spouses. It is far more likely that male female love bonds have always been a part of Homo sapien marital culture. It is far, far more likely that these bonds have very deep cultural and biological roots.

[OrdinaryClay]

Most of Girgis' arguments rest on assumptions that are not examined. A few of them: tradition is wise; tradition privileges one-man-one-woman life-long unions over other unions (not true: consider polygamy, accepted homosexual social categories, and other arrangements in other cultures);

The existence of exceptions to tradition does not make tradition unwise. So your examinaiton does nothing to further the discussion.

[mymistake]

I thought Ordinary Clay got banned.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Most of Girgis' arguments rest on assumptions that are not examined. A few of them: tradition is wise; tradition privileges one-man-one-woman life-long unions over other unions (not true: consider polygamy, accepted homosexual social categories, and other arrangements in other cultures);

The existence of exceptions to tradition does not make tradition unwise. So your examinaiton does nothing to further the discussion.

 

Knowest thou not the function of the semi-colon?

 

Anyway, again you impute to me reasoning that I do not articulate. I did not say that tradition is unwise simpliciter. The "exceptions to tradition" that you acknowledge prove by your own admission that tradition is not a wise guide in every case. So your cavil does nothing to further the discussion.

[Akheia]

I think you are the one that has a lack of understanding. The existence of culturally prearranged marriage does not mean they do not, and have not, carried emotional and romantic dimensions. It would be absurd to think that Homo sapiens suddenly with the industrial age started loving their spouses. It is far more likely that male female love bonds have always been a part of Homo sapien marital culture. It is far, far more likely that these bonds have very deep cultural and biological roots.

 

The existence of exceptions to tradition does not make tradition unwise. So your examinaiton does nothing to further the discussion.

 

Your hiatus did not bring about the slightest amount of discernment, I'm afraid, OC.

 

1. NOBODY SAID PEOPLE DIDN'T LOVE EACH OTHER BEFORE. However, we have tons of evidence that marriage had nothing to do with love. Parents tried to arrange matches that their kids would find at least acceptable, but nobody expected spouses to feel like they were marrying their best friend, as the oft-used cliche goes nowadays. People have always loved each other and fallen in and out of love. It just didn't happen in a marriage, and wasn't at all a prerequisite. Until the Victorian Age, idealized marital love wasn't a real concept, much like our current coddling of children until their 20s and beyond. Society's vastly redefined both love and marriage. Way to totally miss the point.

 

2. You're not adding anything at all to the discussion with your insistence that not all tradition is "unwise." It's just a finger-wagging admonition not to think too much. Sorry. In the real world, normal people examine preconceptions like "marriage is just a man and a woman" and figure out if that's a tradition we want to keep. A lot of the time we discover that no, it isn't, like we did with marriage bigotry. We did the same thing with "marriage is a man and as many sex slaves as he can afford" and "marriage is a man and a woman he's bought fair and square" and "marriage is a man and a woman with super-clearly-defined roles and nobody better want anything different." If you're going to insist that not all traditions are "unwise," you need to bring your A-game. Unless you're trolling again.

 

OC, let me warn you: my finger is hovering over the report button. If you're just going to troll and make people waste forum inches answering your ridiculous fallacies and not take even an effort, I see little reason not to use that button.

[Vigile]

I don't even know why we need to give the other side the time of day in this debate anymore. Anyone who thinks they have a right to involve themselves in someone else's personal life or who laughably thinks that who someone else marries has any reflection at all on their own marriage simply deserves to be marginalized and ignored.

 

At some point a position becomes so utterly ridiculous (creationism, for instance) reasonable people need not pay it any attention or give it any kind of seat at the table.

[Ravenstar]

I'm always amazed at this weird mental conception that at sometime in the past, things were better somehow. Personal standards of living, health, longevity, infant mortality, etc.. are much better in this century than they have ever been. It wasn't tradition that caused this, it was innovation - change.

 

Traditions are only that, traditions... and they change as society does... albeit screaming and kicking bolstered and defended by those for whom change, especially social change, is frightening. BUT.. they are finally discarded and for good reason, they no longer fit the majority consensus moral and ethical codes.

 

To keep something JUST BECAUSE it is tradition, without considering it's real value and pertinence in current society, is frankly, stupid.

[OrdinaryClay]

Most of Girgis' arguments rest on assumptions that are not examined. A few of them: tradition is wise; tradition privileges one-man-one-woman life-long unions over other unions (not true: consider polygamy, accepted homosexual social categories, and other arrangements in other cultures);

The existence of exceptions to tradition does not make tradition unwise. So your examinaiton does nothing to further the discussion.

 

Knowest thou not the function of the semi-colon?

 

Anyway, again you impute to me reasoning that I do not articulate. I did not say that tradition is unwise simpliciter. The "exceptions to tradition" that you acknowledge prove by your own admission that tradition is not a wise guide in every case. So your cavil does nothing to further the discussion.

Tradition may be wise and unwise. Ergo your examinaiton does nothing to further the discussion.

[OrdinaryClay]

I think you are the one that has a lack of understanding. The existence of culturally prearranged marriage does not mean they do not, and have not, carried emotional and romantic dimensions. It would be absurd to think that Homo sapiens suddenly with the industrial age started loving their spouses. It is far more likely that male female love bonds have always been a part of Homo sapien marital culture. It is far, far more likely that these bonds have very deep cultural and biological roots.

 

The existence of exceptions to tradition does not make tradition unwise. So your examinaiton does nothing to further the discussion.

 

Your hiatus did not bring about the slightest amount of discernment, I'm afraid, OC.

 

1. NOBODY SAID PEOPLE DIDN'T LOVE EACH OTHER BEFORE. However, we have tons of evidence that marriage had nothing to do with love. Parents tried to arrange matches that their kids would find at least acceptable, but nobody expected spouses to feel like they were marrying their best friend, as the oft-used cliche goes nowadays. People have always loved each other and fallen in and out of love. It just didn't happen in a marriage, and wasn't at all a prerequisite. Until the Victorian Age, idealized marital love wasn't a real concept, much like our current coddling of children until their 20s and beyond. Society's vastly redefined both love and marriage. Way to totally miss the point.

 

2. You're not adding anything at all to the discussion with your insistence that not all tradition is "unwise." It's just a finger-wagging admonition not to think too much. Sorry. In the real world, normal people examine preconceptions like "marriage is just a man and a woman" and figure out if that's a tradition we want to keep. A lot of the time we discover that no, it isn't, like we did with marriage bigotry. We did the same thing with "marriage is a man and as many sex slaves as he can afford" and "marriage is a man and a woman he's bought fair and square" and "marriage is a man and a woman with super-clearly-defined roles and nobody better want anything different." If you're going to insist that not all traditions are "unwise," you need to bring your A-game. Unless you're trolling again.

 

OC, let me warn you: my finger is hovering over the report button. If you're just going to troll and make people waste forum inches answering your ridiculous fallacies and not take even an effort, I see little reason not to use that button.

Whether some individuals in Victorian england, or any given society for that matter, idealized marital love does not make one whit of difference in the discussion. There is no evidence that this idealization was the norm throughout Homo sapien history. Marital love is and has always been real. It is far, far more plausible that true male/female bonding through romantic and erotic love has existed and was foundational to male/female Homo sapien pair establishment.

 

Furthermore it is more likely that the cultural establishment of arranged marriages was the late comer to Homo sapien society, and was added simply as a post facto political convenience along side the normal male/female pair binding.

[OrdinaryClay]

I don't even know why we need to give the other side the time of day in this debate anymore. Anyone who thinks they have a right to involve themselves in someone else's personal life or who laughably thinks that who someone else marries has any reflection at all on their own marriage simply deserves to be marginalized and ignored.

 

At some point a position becomes so utterly ridiculous (creationism, for instance) reasonable people need not pay it any attention or give it any kind of seat at the table.

The issue is not about private choice. It is about societal laws which are public not private.

[OrdinaryClay]

I'm always amazed at this weird mental conception that at sometime in the past, things were better somehow. Personal standards of living, health, longevity, infant mortality, etc.. are much better in this century than they have ever been. It wasn't tradition that caused this, it was innovation - change.

 

Traditions are only that, traditions... and they change as society does... albeit screaming and kicking bolstered and defended by those for whom change, especially social change, is frightening. BUT.. they are finally discarded and for good reason, they no longer fit the majority consensus moral and ethical codes.

 

To keep something JUST BECAUSE it is tradition, without considering it's real value and pertinence in current society, is frankly, stupid.

At this point I'm simply dispelling the myth that romantic love did not exist in Homo sapien pair binding prior to "modern" society. That said, personally I think deep love, both romantic and erotic, between married men and women is a beautiful experience no matter when historically or where culturally it happened.

[Vigile]

I don't even know why we need to give the other side the time of day in this debate anymore. Anyone who thinks they have a right to involve themselves in someone else's personal life or who laughably thinks that who someone else marries has any reflection at all on their own marriage simply deserves to be marginalized and ignored.

 

At some point a position becomes so utterly ridiculous (creationism, for instance) reasonable people need not pay it any attention or give it any kind of seat at the table.

The issue is not about private choice. It is about societal laws which are public not private.

 

Public laws that affect private choice; the change of which will have no affect on you, you biggoted dumb ass. If you and your ilk didn't nose into other's private business in the first place, there would be no need for the change now.

[bornagainathiest]

Hey Ficino!

 

What's this 'examinaiton' that OC says you've got?

 

BAA

[♦ ficino ♦]

Most of Girgis' arguments rest on assumptions that are not examined. A few of them: tradition is wise; tradition privileges one-man-one-woman life-long unions over other unions (not true: consider polygamy, accepted homosexual social categories, and other arrangements in other cultures);

The existence of exceptions to tradition does not make tradition unwise. So your examinaiton does nothing to further the discussion.

 

Knowest thou not the function of the semi-colon?

 

Anyway, again you impute to me reasoning that I do not articulate. I did not say that tradition is unwise simpliciter. The "exceptions to tradition" that you acknowledge prove by your own admission that tradition is not a wise guide in every case. So your cavil does nothing to further the discussion.

Tradition may be wise and unwise. Ergo your examinaiton does nothing to further the discussion.

OC, you have conceded my first point exactly. Many thanks.

 

If you'd like to have a real discussion, I'll attempt to put time and thought into it. If you're going to throw back one- or two-liners, which, I've noticed, tend to miss the point the other person was making, then that equals troll behavior in my book. I'm hoping that trolling is not your intent on here, but it's looking as though it is.

[Akheia]

I think you are the one that has a lack of understanding. The existence of culturally prearranged marriage does not mean they do not, and have not, carried emotional and romantic dimensions. It would be absurd to think that Homo sapiens suddenly with the industrial age started loving their spouses. It is far more likely that male female love bonds have always been a part of Homo sapien marital culture. It is far, far more likely that these bonds have very deep cultural and biological roots.

 

The existence of exceptions to tradition does not make tradition unwise. So your examinaiton does nothing to further the discussion.

 

Your hiatus did not bring about the slightest amount of discernment, I'm afraid, OC.

 

1. NOBODY SAID PEOPLE DIDN'T LOVE EACH OTHER BEFORE. However, we have tons of evidence that marriage had nothing to do with love. Parents tried to arrange matches that their kids would find at least acceptable, but nobody expected spouses to feel like they were marrying their best friend, as the oft-used cliche goes nowadays. People have always loved each other and fallen in and out of love. It just didn't happen in a marriage, and wasn't at all a prerequisite. Until the Victorian Age, idealized marital love wasn't a real concept, much like our current coddling of children until their 20s and beyond. Society's vastly redefined both love and marriage. Way to totally miss the point.

 

2. You're not adding anything at all to the discussion with your insistence that not all tradition is "unwise." It's just a finger-wagging admonition not to think too much. Sorry. In the real world, normal people examine preconceptions like "marriage is just a man and a woman" and figure out if that's a tradition we want to keep. A lot of the time we discover that no, it isn't, like we did with marriage bigotry. We did the same thing with "marriage is a man and as many sex slaves as he can afford" and "marriage is a man and a woman he's bought fair and square" and "marriage is a man and a woman with super-clearly-defined roles and nobody better want anything different." If you're going to insist that not all traditions are "unwise," you need to bring your A-game. Unless you're trolling again.

 

OC, let me warn you: my finger is hovering over the report button. If you're just going to troll and make people waste forum inches answering your ridiculous fallacies and not take even an effort, I see little reason not to use that button.

Whether some individuals in Victorian england, or any given society for that matter, idealized marital love does not make one whit of difference in the discussion. There is no evidence that this idealization was the norm throughout Homo sapien history. Marital love is and has always been real. It is far, far more plausible that true male/female bonding through romantic and erotic love has existed and was foundational to male/female Homo sapien pair establishment.

 

Furthermore it is more likely that the cultural establishment of arranged marriages was the late comer to Homo sapien society, and was added simply as a post facto political convenience along side the normal male/female pair binding.

 

So... your rebuttal is to just restate your initial idiotic unsupported talking-point? That's seriously what you're going with in the war of words--a spork? You really have either no idea of history--especially including your own religious history, which didn't give two shits if couples loved each other or not as long as the woman was properly bought before or after her rape--or you're just trying to wind people up. Either way, fuck off.

[Onyx]

Oh the modern gay marriage. It's a new tradition, really. The Netherlands started this sort of marriage with all the baggage of romantic love and privileges given to marriage we developed but with affirmations of gay love. What is the Netherlands up to now? Nothing really. It's a prosperous Low country, much like any other prosperous European country really. The Dutch are really just having a ball and they are focusing on more important issues than who they're marrying. Good for the Dutch! Hip, hop, hooray! Three cheers!

 

But when you denigrate such marriages, you denigrate the very real love of people also. That does not wash. Nothing is more offensive than denying people the right to love through consenting to it. Nothing is more human or more beautiful than when persons or groups are their authentic romantic selves when they want to love each other. Even a book or even a god is not enough of an excuse for acting like a dick to other people. If you have to remember one thing what that book say, then let it be: "Do unto others by which you want to be done by". And that is all too important to not act out. God or not, the important thing is: do not be a dick. That's golden. Hating others just because they choose to exercise a mutual love not to your taste is not.

 

For example, hypothetically, I do not want to get involved in a relationship based on feeding the person to be fat and the person wanting to be fat to please the feeder but I won't get involved in their relationship. It's their business, it's their right. I have no business to stop the feeding, I have no right to abolish a feeder-feedee relationship. Why should I even want to? To scold them for being what they want to be? If I choose to stop such things, they would be upset, they would demand, "Why are you butting into our business?" and they would protest to be themselves and doing what they want to do: to eat and to love. They are correct. Even if it's dangerous, it's their choice and their right. It's the same with us, the gay people. We want to love and we want to feed our love through being a married couple or not. I want to love who I want to, I want to have the right to be gay or be a feeder fetishist and I want the right to exercise that love in what manner I see fit to do unless it's not mutual. Isn't being able to be human what being human is all about? To be human?

 

You have the right to think it is icky to be gay and to think it is icky to marry another guy or gal but you do not have the right to make other people think like you and you do not have the right to force these people to love anybody else of the opposite gender.You have to present your opinion that is actually compliant with reality in order to make us go, "Hmmm, gay marriage is a bad idea." Unfortunately, gay people marry are closer to reality than it is to you.

 

Allowing gays to marry is a good idea because it is actually mutual, something that cannot be said for paedophiliac or zoophiliac marriages. It is also good because it makes gay and bi teens and children think, "There's a future for us." and put the noose in the rubbish. It is good because it injects a lot of dollars into the economy. Remember The Netherlands? They have had a lot of money injected into wedding services because of the legalisation of gay marriage. It is good because they are heartwarming. It is good because everybody can think about how these guys or gals love each other instead of obsessing about how to stop them. It is good because it releases catharsis, nobody has to worry whether being gay is a foolish thing to do and nobody would worry about their future. It is good because it helps marriage to be a better institution and we have new traditions to create! It is good because it shows that humanity is amenable to beneficial changes. It is good because it moves away from barbaric thoughts contained in many religions such as Christianity. It is good because it sets the truth free, people can sigh a relief sigh once they know it is not wrong and they do not have to fear death.It is good because it is a sign of a loving society. It is good because it is an expression of love in all its forms. It is good because children do not have to suffer for fathers marrying mothers when they are better off marrying other fathers. It is good because it is good for really good reasons.

 

Sometimes in the future, you must start really thinking. It is not about reactionary thoughts anymore. You must devise really, really, really good reasons for opposing gay marriages because it is starting to look like that pro-gay marriage is the more iron clad cause grounded in reality. Otherwise don't waste our time, troll.

[Xerces]

I don't even know why we need to give the other side the time of day in this debate anymore. A

 

My thoughts exactly, there shouldn't even be a discussion anymore. It's like people speaking against interracial marriage. What's funny is these christians try to list reasons why gay marriage is wrong, that is destroys families, gays turn children to homosexuality, etc. They ought to just fucking say what is on their minds, and what is on their minds is a lot more disgusting than they are letting on. Although some do go the extra mile and say homosexual people should be put to death, that homosexuality should be outlawed, but that seems more and more rare as the assholes try to sugar coat their arguments against homosexuality.

 

We're on the winning team right now though, religious people are losing their influence, shouldn't be long before gay marriage is legal just about everywhere.

[Xerces]

 

The existence of exceptions to tradition does not make tradition unwise. So your examinaiton does nothing to further the discussion.

 

I'm pretty sure you have nothing that would further the discussion.