Ten myths about gay ‘marriage’

[fix]

Well, they are wrong about one thing marriage has not always been one man one woman. In many cultures over time it has been one man with multiple women and in very few cultures one woman and multiple men. Polygamy has been practiced in many cultures. I know that has little to do with the debate, but I thought I would point that out.

Deviations from the norm do not prove the deviations are good or should be codified into law.

 

[TrixieMcGee]

Deviations from the norm do not prove the deviations are good or should be codified into law.

As I said, I am NOT defending gay marriage or polygamy. Please read my posts. I have had a ridiculous amount of people not read my posts fully or only read one of them and then totally decide that I am saying something totally different.

 

[fix]

As I said, I am NOT defending gay marriage or polygamy. Please read my posts. I have had a ridiculous amount of people not read my posts fully or only read one of them and then totally decide that I am saying something totally different.

I read your post. I simply pointed out that deviations from the norm does not mean the norm does not exist. IOW, marriage has always been about one man and one woman. Just like murder has always been wrong no matter that some cultures allowed.

To introduce the assertion that marriage has always had deviations serves what purpose?

 

[TrixieMcGee]

I read your post. I simply pointed out that deviations from the norm does not mean the norm does not exist. IOW, marriage has always been about one man and one woman. Just like murder has always been wrong no matter that some cultures allowed.

To introduce the assertion that marriage has always had deviations serves what purpose?

Also never said a norm doesn’t exist, but I was saying that it hasn’t always and still isn’t just a one man one woman thing. the writer was saying that there weren’t deviations, which isn’t true. I was just commenting on the freaking article and that it had an inaccuracy. Man, the more I am on this forum, the less I like it. People have put so many words in my mouth on here and twisted my words so much. If my comment has no point, why would you even reply to it? If my points are meaningless, ignore me.

 

[fix]

Also never said a norm doesn’t exist, but I was saying that it hasn’t always and still isn’t just a one man one woman thing.

That is the point. It always was one man and one woman. Deviations do not abolish the norm.

the writer was saying that there weren’t deviations, which isn’t true.

Where did he say that?

I was just commenting on the freaking article and that it had an inaccuracy. Man, the more I am on this forum, the less I like it. People have put so many words in my mouth on here and twisted my words so much. If my comment has no point, why would you even reply to it? If my points are meaningless, ignore me.

I am just pointing out that your position does not hold up.

 

[TrixieMcGee]

That is the point. It always was one man and one woman. Deviations do not abolish the norm.

Where did he say that?

I am just pointing out that your position does not hold up.

I never said that it “abolished the norm.” I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. I was saying that marriage wasn’t just one man, one woman.

To the answer of the second question he said in the article, "Myth 2 - Marriage has always evolved

Marriage between a man and a woman is not a recent social invention. Everyone knows that marriage predates law, nation and church. It goes back to the dawn of time. Yes, matrimonial law may have been tweaked over the years, but the law has never fundamentally altered the essential nature of marriage: a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman. Same sex marriage would rewrite hundreds of years of British legal tradition and thousands of years of cultural heritage."
He said the essential nature of marriage was a commitment between one man, one woman. That isn’t true. If there are and have been many and I mean many polygamous marriages throughout the years, then marriage hasn’t been just one man, one woman. If they abolished polygamy in many countries they would also be “erasing tradition and thousands of years of cultural heritage.” I believe polygamy is wrong, but that is for religious reasons certainly not traditional or cultural reasons.

You are just trying to make it look like I somehow support gay marriage or polygamy, neither of which is true. I am of the position that government shouldn’t have legal marriage at all since it is a religious ceremony and I don’t think that I should have had to get permission from my government to get married in my Church and participate in the sacrament of marriage. Stop insulting my intellegence. It seems you are looking for a fight, I am not for gay marriage or polygamy, I was just pointing out how the author didn’t recognize that there were deviations in marriage and it wasn’t always one man, one woman and in many cases (some are even documented in the Old Testament) it was one man and multiple women.

Honestly go ahead and have the “last word” now, you just are looking to bash on someone who doesn’t even support gay marriage or polygamy. You are looking for a fight and I will no longer feed the argument.

 

[jdoggin]

Interesting post!

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

OK:

If we redefine marriage once, what’s to stop marriage being redefined yet further?

This has already happened. Numerous times. I don’t understand this point they’re trying to make… at all.

In the past, there was polygamous marriage. It existed in many cultures - usually one man, many women, but sometimes one woman, many men.

There have also been all sorts of bans against “interracial” marriage.

 

[markeverett49]

O

There have also been all sorts of bans against “interracial” marriage.

This is a bit of a red herring. Yes, there were such laws but they were not passed to redefine marriage but to PREVENT inter-racial marriage. Big difference. The assumption was that if mixed race couples married, they would really be married. Such laws are uiniversally condemned.

Laws against same-sex marriage were not passed to keep gay people from marrying. There’s no sexual orientation test at the marriage license bureau. (Where same-sex marriage is legal, partners do not HAVE to be gay to enter into one, and of course, many gay men have entered into traditional marriages.) The question about gay-marriage is a question about whether same-sex couples can make a real marriage. I say no.

 

[fix]

I never said that it “abolished the norm.” I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. I was saying that marriage wasn’t just one man, one woman.

Please stop claiming I place words in your mouth. I am pointing out that what you impute to the author is not what he said.

To the answer of the second question he said in the article, "Myth 2 - Marriage has always evolved

Marriage between a man and a woman is not a recent social invention. Everyone knows that marriage predates law, nation and church. It goes back to the dawn of time. Yes, matrimonial law may have been tweaked over the years, but the law has never fundamentally altered the essential nature of marriage: a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman. Same sex marriage would rewrite hundreds of years of British legal tradition and thousands of years of cultural heritage."
He said the essential nature of marriage was a commitment between one man, one woman. That isn’t true.

It most certainly is true.

If there are and have been many and I mean many polygamous marriages throughout the years, then marriage hasn’t been just one man, one woman. If they abolished polygamy in many countries they would also be “erasing tradition and thousands of years of cultural heritage.” I believe polygamy is wrong, but that is for religious reasons certainly not traditional or cultural reasons.

Again deviations do not disprove what the author said.

You are just trying to make it look like I somehow support gay marriage or polygamy, neither of which is true.

No I am pointing out your position is not accurate.

I am of the position that government shouldn’t have legal marriage at all since it is a religious ceremony and I don’t think that I should have had to get permission from my government to get married in my Church and participate in the sacrament of marriage. Stop insulting my intellegence. It seems you are looking for a fight, I am not for gay marriage or polygamy, I was just pointing out how the author didn’t recognize that there were deviations in marriage and it wasn’t always one man, one woman and in many cases (some are even documented in the Old Testament) it was one man and multiple women.

He did not say there are no deviations. He stated what marriage has always been from the start. As for your libertine view about marriage and the government that is not what the Church teaches.

Honestly go ahead and have the “last word” now, you just are looking to bash on someone who doesn’t even support gay marriage or polygamy. You are looking for a fight and I will no longer feed the argument.

No, I am looking to defend what the author wrote against your slurs.