Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was under the assumption that "outliers" were a given. My apologies for assuming, I should know better. There have always been fringe elements of all institutions, but historically speaking, marriage has been defined as 1 man and 1 woman.
Woody allen married his daughter...It's already been done.
Adopted, not biological. And he's a complete scumbag. If anyone thinks for a second that he was only tucking her in at bed late at night, they're naive. There's a reason Mia Farrow has not spoken to him since. I loathe Woody Allen.
I already answered that, but since you didn't insult or attack me, I will answer again. Throughout he annals of history, marriage has always been defined as the union between a man and a woman. This is pertinent for a stable family unit and for the foundations of a family. I do not believe that it needs to be redefined.
For millennia, the "traditional" definitions for human relationships included the slave-master relationship. Would you have found that to be a persuasive argument for continuing discriminatory treatment of groups who were usually enslaved? I could point any scores of "traditional" definitions of various social phenomena and structures that have needlessly harmed groups of people in civilizations, from blacks to gays to women. Are you willing to use "tradition" as the determining force in those cases, as well?
Basing who we allow to be granted legal recognition in their consensual relationships upon "traditional" definitions is a terrible way of forming principles on these matters. If you have some sort of persuasive argument regarding how allowing gay marriage will violate the common good, I'm all ears, but your argument thus far is a dreadfully dumb one.
For much, arguably most of human history, marriage has actually been defined polygamously. It is the form of marriage found in the Old Testament for example.
I was under the assumption that "outliers" were a given. My apologies for assuming, I should know better. There have always been fringe elements of all institutions, but historically speaking, marriage has been defined as 1 man and 1 woman.
Uhh...so your position is that marriage has been defined as 1 man and 1 woman except for the instances in which it has been defined as something else?
Can't argue with that.
So we agree, that marriage has not always been defined as 1 man and 1 woman. So, any attempt to define marriage as being limited to 1 man and 1 woman is a redefinition of marriage, correct?
So, now, do YOU support the redefinition of marriage, and do YOU support consensual incest?
Adopted, not biological. And he's a complete scumbag. If anyone thinks for a second that he was only tucking her in at bed late at night, they're naive. There's a reason Mia Farrow has not spoken to him since. I loathe Woody Allen.
That's an odd thing to say. There are public figures in this world I don't like. I can't say I "loathe" any of them. That's an awfully big emotional investment in someone who has never and will never touch your life. Geez, I try not to even get to that point with people in my life I don't especially like.
How about Secular Fundamentalist Nuts, are they allowed in the "bedroom"? Thanks
Depends on how big they are. Would a normal-sized blanket cover them all the way?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.