3 ms·

"Traditional" marriage definition is a reproductive (baring health issues) couple IOW, it's not simply about reproduction. I'll reconsider taking that claim se

by dhume 17y ago

"Traditional" marriage definition is a reproductive (baring health issues) couple IOW, it's not simply about reproduction. I'll reconsider taking that claim seriously when its proponents suggest that sterility should be a diqualification for marriage licenses (for extra credit, they can call for revoking marriage in cases where sterility sets in afterwards). Until then, I can only conclude that reproduction is an excuse to distract from their real reason.

protomyth 17y ago
Should I have said "historical"? I am not placing a value in that statement, I am just saying in something short of an essay how we got here. What exactly do you think the origin of marriage is or for that matter religions focus on marriage if not on reproduction (be fruitful and multiply)?
- dhume 17y ago
  I am not placing a value in that statement, I am just saying in something short of an essay how we got here. I recognize that what you posted was not necessarily your idea on the subject, hence "its proponents," rather than "you."
- Retric 17y ago
  Marriage in some form is probably well over 10,000 years old. Homosexual marriage is also probably just as old relatively speaking. The institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, and is part of Code of Hammurabi 1790 BC etc, so tracing its origins is basically impossible. Also, if you include animals that mate for life (some of which are homosexual bonds) it is probably millions of years old. The real issue IMO is how religious institutions portray history. When one of your sacred "Just So" stories portrays the creation of the institution of marriage it's easy to think of anything else as a perversion sacred law, even if such things are far older than your faith. EX: I once had someone defend their faith by saying “How else do you explain Adam’s missing rib?” That’s a world view so intermixed with their faith there is no way they can understand a secular viewpoint.

by dhume 17y ago

protomyth 17y ago

Should I have said "historical"? I am not placing a value in that statement, I am just saying in something short of an essay how we got here. What exactly do you think the origin of marriage is or for that matter religions focus on marriage if not on reproduction (be fruitful and multiply)?

dhume 17y ago
I am not placing a value in that statement, I am just saying in something short of an essay how we got here. I recognize that what you posted was not necessarily your idea on the subject, hence "its proponents," rather than "you."
Retric 17y ago
Marriage in some form is probably well over 10,000 years old. Homosexual marriage is also probably just as old relatively speaking. The institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, and is part of Code of Hammurabi 1790 BC etc, so tracing its origins is basically impossible. Also, if you include animals that mate for life (some of which are homosexual bonds) it is probably millions of years old. The real issue IMO is how religious institutions portray history. When one of your sacred "Just So" stories portrays the creation of the institution of marriage it's easy to think of anything else as a perversion sacred law, even if such things are far older than your faith. EX: I once had someone defend their faith by saying “How else do you explain Adam’s missing rib?” That’s a world view so intermixed with their faith there is no way they can understand a secular viewpoint.