Is Traditional Marriage What Many Think Is Traditional Marriage?

Okay, I don't care what your stance is on gay marriage. I am all for it. I realize that most of the arguments have nothing to do with whether two gays want to live together or get together or even have a civil union; the debate is merely over the word "marriage." Even my very conservative friends don't care if gays have civil unions that give them all the rights of married couples; they just don't want gays to be able to use the word "marriage."

I do think most of the argument is over the word. But here is where the anti-marriage folks go off the deep end. They will categorically state that marriage is an ages old union of ONE man and ONE woman. That's why they don't want gays to marry.

Such nonsense. Marriage thoughout history has not been about ONE man and ONE woman --- it's usually about ONE man and two or more women; also, if he can afford it, a bunch of concubines.

The bible is just one of the ancient books that shows this clearly. One of the great characters was Solomon --- with 700 wives and 300 concubines. (By the way he wrote in his book "The Wisdom of Solomon" that he recommends you only marry one woman because they were all driving him crazy.)

Polygamy is a standard of marriage; not just the one man/one woman idea we now hold so dear. If I am not mistaken, we still have societies today where polygamy is practiced and certainly our own Mormons practiced it for a long, long time.

So in the argument of what the definition of marriage is let us end the silliness that it automatically means one man/one woman and that such a thing is how marriage has been for ages.

It just ain't so.

Well! You have touched upon the one thing that I keep going back to. When gay marriage is finally a federal fact [and it will be in some fashion or other] we will owe one enormous apology to the Mormons! And many others, I cite the opprobrium we felt for that guy Koresh. So I am against polygamy having state sanction and therefore against same-sex matrimony.

Quote:

Marriage thoughout history has not been about ONE man and ONE woman --- it's usually about ONE man and two or more women; also, if he can afford it, a bunch of concubines.

But not throughout Western civilization as a society sanctioned institution. The one that has been sanctioned has been vital IMO.

I'll grant you that there has been plenty of fudging on this. I'll even grant you that monogamy is somewhat un-natural to our species. Monogamy is natural to birds, for example, and not many other biological classes. Nonetheless I feel monogamy is vital to our civilization.

To understand more of this I recommend the book The Territorial Imperative by Robert Ardrey [this recommendation is often ignored].

Frank, it is encouraged, but not absolutely required, that threads on touchy subjects like religion and sexuality be posted in my other forum Diversity Tomorrow. Some of your other recent threads would have been better placed there as well.

Oh, sorry, I had no idea. I thought since religion and gay marriage are usually an interesting mix I'd post it here. I didn't know about the other board. Gee, Wizard, you seem to have more boards than anyone I know. I am having trouble getting my new web site up! As always, if I am doing something incorrectly or on the wrong board, I'm happy to oblige. This other board will have the same user name and password as I have for this one?

Quote: FrankScoblete

Such nonsense. Marriage thoughout history has not been about ONE man and ONE woman --- it's usually about ONE man and two or more women; also, if he can afford it, a bunch of concubines...

..Polygamy is a standard of marriage; not just the one man/one woman idea we now hold so dear. If I am not mistaken, we still have societies today where polygamy is practiced and certainly our own Mormons practiced it for a long, long time.

This is one of the ironies of the entire debate. The gay marriage folks react with horror and get all offended at the mere mention of polygamy, but the fact of the matter is (as you just pointed out) that polygamy has a richer history than gay marriage.

Also, traditional marriage supporters will never get called out on this point because gay marriage folks are loathe to cite polygamy (especially when they're defending their own position).

The only reason I still post in 'Gun Show Loophole Rant' is because that thread existed before DT. I don't know if it's possible but it would be nice to see 'Gun Show Loophole Rant' moved to DT before the next four year old is killed by a responsible gun owner.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ah, well regarding this thread, I agree with your point. (I just read the Wizard's reply to Frank after posting my own reply, so my apologies to all)

Quote: FrankScoblete

This other board will have the same user name and password as I have for this one?

No, in terms of the back end, it is a whole separate site. We considered linking them together, but it would have been too complicated to do. Most people use the same username on both sites.

Quote: FrankScoblete

Okay, I don't care what your stance is on gay marriage. I am all for it.

Yes, don't give gays a bye.

Family law attorneys welcome the new business.

"When the lovin' stops, the screwin' starts."

"Why is divorce so expensive? Because it's worth it."

Quote: FrankScoblete

Okay, I don't care what your stance is on gay marriage. I am all for it.

I'm married and not too happy. I want to walk up to people protesting for gay marriage and ask them, "You SURE about this?"

Quote: hwccdealer

I'm married and not too happy. I want to walk up to people protesting for gay marriage and ask them, "You SURE about this?"

I think that if all the "marriage" laws had been amended to include "civil unions" we would not now have gay marriages, because nearly everybody could have gotten what they wanted for themselves. They could have been treated as synonymous under the law, and all the benefits extended to marrieds could be similarly granted: The Married Filing Jointly tax benefit, the 5th amendment extensions protecting a spouse from involuntary testimony, the health care benefits, the rights of inheritance, conjugal visits, hospital visits, end-of-life decision-making, alimony/divorce rights, adoption, and a hundred other things. There could have been legislation in each state, federal, and county jurisdiction equating them legally, where each individual law was globally affected by a definition change, an even easier thing to do. But instead, people messed the whole thing up with a moral/religious judgement stance, making it as difficult as possible, in order to exclude gays from equal treatment under the law. (AKA Constitutional Rights)

So we've evolved here rather than planning to be here, as the pro and con forces have maneuvered the issue through the years. If you're not gay, and you care about what someone else's choice of partner is (assuming it's not YOUR partner), could you just for a moment ask yourself "Why do I care what that other person is doing?" I mean, really; if you're not going to be married to someone, what do you care who they marry or what they're doing in their beds at night?

hwcc; pretty funny - I've heard many gay people make the same remark from their point of view!

Sorry, Wiz....

People expect too much out of marriage. If you
expect nothing, you won't be disappointed. I'm
not joking. The only reason I'm still married is
all women are the same, why trade one for
another.

From Julie and Julia:

Julia to her friend: Am I a bitch?

Friend: Of course.

Julia: No, really, do you think I'm a
bitch?

Friend: Listen, we're all bitches, we know
it, everybody knows it. Nothing we can
do about it.

Quote: FrankScoblete

The bible is just one of the ancient books that shows this clearly. One of the great characters was Solomon --- with 700 wives and 300 concubines. (By the way he wrote in his book "The Wisdom of Solomon" that he recommends you only marry one woman because they were all driving him crazy.)

I wish people would stop citing the Bible so much. It matters very little when it comes to marriage.

Western culture is built upon the laws, customs and traditions of the Roman Empire, which in turn was built upon Greek culture(s), with some influence from Persia on the side. Christianity, and the Bible, came later to Rome; around the 4th Century AD. In Rome the custom for marriage was one man and one woman, but that's about as much as it has in common with "traditional" marriage. For one thing marriages in Roman times were about alliances between families, in particular in the higher levels of society.

Adultery was common, though nominally illegal. Polugamy simply didn't happen, though serial marriages were not unheard of. More common was a custom of divorcing one's wife in order to change alliances, or forge new ones. Again in particular at the higher levels.

The mere fact that Roman notions of marriage persisted in the face of the Bible's views on marriage is quite telling. The effect Christianity had was to make adultery and divorce both more difficult and less socially acceptable.

And I'll say again: if the conservatives in America are so concerned about polygamy, let them fight for it.