Originally posted by Aequo Animo
The traditional that I've been expressing is matrimony exclusively between a man and a woman.No inimalist, I am not a proponent of women as property and have yet to support it.
He's asking what you base this "traditional" thougt that marriage is an equal union betweena man and woman? You keep dodging this.
Because as he pointed out, "traditionally", the woman was little more than farm equipment.
No, I don't:
Originally posted by Aequo Animo
I feel like you're just messin' with the newbie at this point...
I suppose I can refer to that time because then it was between man and women, but I do not condone that women be treated as property.
Now, I'm more accurately referring to the years residing in the 1900's, and even the late 1800's in a few cases. Both of my grandmothers and the great grandmother that I know of willingly chose their husbands and were not treated as property.I am arguing on behalf of a traditional definition of marriage, but not the one that also includes a healthy does of misogyny.
No one here can deny that it has traditionally been between men and women. Don't hate.
And I haven't denied that they were once sold by their fathers and treated like a lesser being. But I'm not calling for that, and haven't.
Originally posted by Aequo Animo
I feel like you're just messin' with the newbie at this point...
I suppose I can refer to that time because then it was between man and women, but I do not condone that women be treated as property.
Now, I'm more accurately referring to the years residing in the 1900's, and even the late 1800's in a few cases. Both of my grandmothers and the great grandmother that I know of willingly chose their husbands and were not treated as property.I am arguing on behalf of a traditional definition of marriage, but not the one that also includes a healthy does of misogyny.
Originally posted by Aequo Animo
No, I don't:*QUICK EDIT: "because then it was [b]still
between men and women"No one here can deny that it has traditionally been between men and women. Don't hate.
And I haven't denied that they were once sold by their fathers and treated like a lesser being. But I'm not calling for that, and haven't. [/B]
Woman's suffrage didn't take hold until 1921, so you might want to adjust your own personal "traditional" notion of marriage about men and woman being truly equal to a higher time-period, possibly even to 1934 and up, when it was finally ruled that women and men couldn't be discriminated from work performed and pay. Wait, then there's that sexual revolution in the '60s.
Face it, your "traditional" notion of marriage is based on nothing but your own personal bias, which you are unwilling to put aside for the purposes on equality among all.
In response to your: "No one here can deny that it has [i]traditionally been between men and women. Don't hate."[/i], since it's hilarious you said that.
Same-sex marriages have existed in the past, ancient China had them, 19th century Africa had them and they even existed here in America (oh noes!!1!!), with certain Native American tribes. So ya, I can certainly DENY your notion of what is and isn't "tradional marriage." I belive there are other cultures too.
yes, nobody can deny that traditionally marriage has been between man and woman.
also, nobody can deny that it has traditionally been an institution where men and women have not been equal.
Now, you call for only the first tradition, and not the second. There are 2 big problems with this.
1) To call for a "traditional yet gender equal" marriage is essentially oxymoronic and really devalues the role of women and the sexual revolution in changing the socially accepted definition of marriage. Women had to fight against traditional marriage, much like how homosexuals do today. It is probably insulting to feminists to include what they fought for in the definition of traditional marriage.
2) It is entirely arbitrary. You have no reason for it, other than to appeal to tradition, which is answered in the first part. You, as in you the individual, don't get to pick what parts of a traditional marriage get to apply to what people, and you certainly don't get to lump the efforts of people fighting against traditional marriage in the same definition of traditional marriage you are using.
This isn't pick on the newbie, its "Why don't you defend your point rather than repeating the same illogical sentence over and over again"
Originally posted by Robtard
Face it, your "traditional" notion of marriage is based on nothing but your own personal bias, which you are unwilling to put aside for the purposes on equality among all.
No:
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, nobody can deny that traditionally marriage has been between man and woman.
Originally posted by inimalist
1) To call for a "traditional yet gender equal" marriage is essentially oxymoronic and really devalues the role of women and the sexual revolution in changing the socially accepted definition of marriage. Women had to fight [b]against traditional marriage, much like how homosexuals do today. It is probably insulting to feminists to include what they fought for in the definition of traditional marriage.2) It is entirely arbitrary. You have no reason for it, other than to appeal to tradition, which is answered in the first part. You, as in you the individual, don't get to pick what parts of a traditional marriage get to apply to what people, and you certainly don't get to lump the efforts of people fighting against traditional marriage in the same definition of traditional marriage you are using.
This isn't pick on the newbie, its "Why don't you defend your point rather than repeating the same illogical sentence over and over again" [/B]
I don't call my mother male, because she is female (no, she didn't have a sex change...)
I don't call gay people straight because they like people of the same gender.
I don't call a union between gay people a marriage because it represents a union between straight people.
My mother and father are humans, despite the difference in gender.
The gay couple and straight couple are still couples despite their sexual preference.
The marriage of a straight couple and the [partnership] of a gay couple are still unions and commitments to each other.
Originally posted by Aequo Animo
Yes, the institution of marriage has changed over time, clearly with the Sexual Revolution and women's right. But surpassing all of that, and staying firm throughout the change, has been the idea that it is exclusively between a man and a woman. That has been perhaps the most important frame for which marriage is shaped around and it is a tradition.I don't call my mother male, because she is female (no, she didn't have a sex change...)
I don't call gay people straight because they like people of the same gender.
I don't call a union between gay people a marriage because it represents a union between straight people.My mother and father are humans, despite the difference in gender.
The gay couple and straight couple are still couples despite their sexual preference.
The marriage of a straight couple and the [partnership] of a gay couple are still unions and commitments to each other.
that would all be wonderful if the legal title of marriage did not provide rights
to preempt your next point about homosexual union having the same rights as heterosexual marriage, that is the literal and exact same argument made for segregated water fountains and toilets. Separate but equal is not actually equal, nor what America is supposed to stand for.
and yes, your definition of a traditional marriage is based upon a myth you believe. My post does not refute Robtard's, we simply use different language to express the point.
Are you at all familiar with the arguments used by racists in an attempt to ban inter-racial couples? Did you know they appealed to the "tradition" of marriage, in the exact same language you are using?
I don't mean to sound accusatory, but you are repeating the same memes that bigots use to justify their position without saying they are prejudice.
Yet everyone here concedes that it has traditionally been between a man and a woman... I did say earlier, in a response to you, "I argue on behalf of a traditional definition of marriage..." And I expressed that it is perhaps the most traditional aspect out of all the facets of marriage you have brought up, which I don't deny and I don't (and have yet to) advocate either. That is why I believe it should be between a man and a woman. That tradition I point to is practically ingrained in the definition of marriage as it has grown and been challenged over time. I still think it should stick.
Originally posted by inimalist
to preempt your next point about homosexual union having the same rights as heterosexual marriage, that is the literal and exact same argument made for segregated water fountains and toilets. Separate but equal is not actually equal, nor what America is supposed to stand for.
But I desire to hold the quality of the rights and benefits to the same capacity as married couples, instead of holding some deceptive intent that would undermine that goal.
Originally posted by inimalist
I don't mean to sound accusatory, but you are repeating the same memes that bigots use to justify their position without saying they are prejudice.
Originally posted by Aequo Animo
Yet everyone here concedes that it has traditionally been between a man and a woman.
Hahahaaa, I specifically challenged you there and provided examples of how it wasn't always so. I guess it's fun to ignore things that prove your faulty points false:
Originally posted by RobtardSame-sex marriages have existed in the past, ancient China had them, 19th century Africa had them and they even existed here in America (oh noes!!1!!), with certain Native American tribes. So ya, I can certainly DENY your notion of what is and isn't "tradional marriage." I belive there are other cultures too.
Originally posted by Aequo Animo
Fair, but I don't have a hidden agenda against homosexuals.
No, you have a open agenda against homosexuals and would deny them equal rights over the use of a word (your thoughts, not mine).
Yeah... so... it is still traditionally between a man and a woman, and has been, for love or procreation or (more recently, on the large timeline that is time itself) state benefits...
Or shit, even to have a slave or to say you own a woman.
Bringing up small instances of prior homosexual unions in a world that has overwhelmingly recognized marriage to be a tradition that includes a man and a woman does not dissuade me, and I don't understand how it can.
What do you call those few dots on an X-Y graph that are located away from the vast majority of dots that follow a similar path or grouping?
I do apologize for missing that post earlier, though.
Also, I don't have an open agenda against homosexuals, as Symmetric Chaos suggests. I don't use any words or make any statements to define that position, as you suggest, either.
Originally posted by Aequo Animo
Yeah... so... it is still traditionally between a man and a woman, and has been, for love or procreation or (more recently, on the large timeline that is time itself) state benefits...
Or shit, even to have a slave or to say you own a woman.
Bringing up small instances of prior homosexual unions in a world that has overwhelmingly recognized marriage to be a tradition that includes a man and a woman does not dissuade me, and I don't understand how it can.
What do you call those few dots on an X-Y graph that are located away from the vast majority of dots that follow a similar path or grouping?I do apologize for missing that post earlier, though.
Also, I don't have an open agenda against homosexuals, as Symmetric Chaos suggests. I don't use any words or make any statements to define that position, as you suggest, either.
Why do you personally get to decide which aspects of "tradition" are worth keeping and should be looked upon as law and which are to be dismissed?
On Love: Considering that marriage has been around for thousands of years and only a relatively small span of that the woman has not been viewed as being more like property, you're probably wrong about the "for love" aspect of it. Besides, are you saying two men or two women can't love each other like a man and woman can?
On Procreation: Gay-couples can have children in the same manner many hetero-couples do, adoption, artificial insemination or marry someone that already has children.
On State Benefits: Why should equal benefits be denied to people because of sexual orientation?
You don't have to say "I hate *******" to have something against homosexuals, actions can speak louder than words, you know.