Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
You're again ignoring that the what marriage was different in different cultures and changed a lot during the centuries. Just because Christians imprinted their definition last, it doesn't make it correct or sancrosanct.
Find a definition that isn't "one man, one woman" and then we'll talk - otherwise the appeal to historical varience has no relevance because there has never been any varience on the issue under discussion.
HoreTore 15:06 05-09-2012
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
Find a definition that isn't "one man, one woman" and then we'll talk - otherwise the appeal to historical varience has no relevance because there has never been any varience on the issue under discussion.
Uhm....
The arab world with multiple women and India with multiple men should get you started.
Sarmatian 15:07 05-09-2012
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Uhm....
The arab world with multiple women and India with multiple men should get you started.
Damn you, that was supposed to be my line!
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
Damn you, that was supposed to be my line!
Irrelevant, as those plural marriages were still heterosexual.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Uhm....
The arab world with multiple women and India with multiple men should get you started.
I shall repeat myself from post 18 viz:
At no time in history has "marriage" meant anything other than "one man, one woman" even in cultures that allowed Polygamy the man contracted separate marriages with each wife and could dissolve each contract separately.
I will not claim to be an expert on all marriage law across time, but no culture I have studied allows for "marriage" between two people of the same gender - including the Christian cultures which allowed explicitly sexual same-gender unions.
This is why American marriage-law is so vague, it assumes that the gender question is not up for debate because it would not have occurred to American jurists 200 years ago that two men might even want to get married.
If you're going to respond to my question you might want to, I don't know, actually read my posts?
There's nothing specifically banning a Christian from having multiple wives by the way, that's a "secular" hang-up or Roman Law.
Originally Posted by rvg:
Irrelevant, as those plural marriages were still heterosexual.
They aren't plural marriages, they are simultaneous marriages.
Why is this such a hard point for people to grasp?
HoreTore 15:27 05-09-2012
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
I shall repeat myself from post 18 viz:
At no time in history has "marriage" meant anything other than "one man, one woman" even in cultures that allowed Polygamy the man contracted separate marriages with each wife and could dissolve each contract separately.
I will not claim to be an expert on all marriage law across time, but no culture I have studied allows for "marriage" between two people of the same gender - including the Christian cultures which allowed explicitly sexual same-gender unions.
This is why American marriage-law is so vague, it assumes that the gender question is not up for debate because it would not have occurred to American jurists 200 years ago that two men might even want to get married.
If you're going to respond to my question you might want to, I don't know, actually read my posts?
There's nothing specifically banning a Christian from having multiple wives by the way, that's a "secular" hang-up or Roman Law.
They aren't plural marriages, they are simultaneous marriages.
Why is this such a hard point for people to grasp?
I'll get you started with wikipedia then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_marriage
Several cultures have over time had a wider understanding of marriage than "one man, one woman".
Kudos - you managed to find
actual examples - they aren't Muslim or Indian polygamous marriages, though. I note, however, that the examples there bear on family groups so that the marriage of one pair extends the marriage bond through the family. That is still very different to what is currently being proposed in the US and Europe.
Sarmatian 15:14 05-09-2012
Originally Posted by rvg:
Irrelevant, as those plural marriages were still heterosexual.
Doesn't matter cause the point was that there were/are marriages that aren't "one man, one woman".
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
Doesn't matter cause the point was that there were/are marriages that aren't "one man, one woman".
Does matter, because they were never "man, man" nor "woman, woman".
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
Doesn't matter cause the point was that there were/are marriages that aren't "one man, one woman".
Originally Posted by rvg:
Does matter, because they were never "man, man" nor "woman, woman".
You two are arguing a pointless dead end.
Sarmatian 15:38 05-09-2012
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
I shall repeat myself from post 18 viz:
At no time in history has "marriage" meant anything other than "one man, one woman" even in cultures that allowed Polygamy the man contracted separate marriages with each wife and could dissolve each contract separately.
I will not claim to be an expert on all marriage law across time, but no culture I have studied allows for "marriage" between two people of the same gender - including the Christian cultures which allowed explicitly sexual same-gender unions.
This is why American marriage-law is so vague, it assumes that the gender question is not up for debate because it would not have occurred to American jurists 200 years ago that two men might even want to get married.
If you're going to respond to my question you might want to, I don't know, actually read my posts?
There's nothing specifically banning a Christian from having multiple wives by the way, that's a "secular" hang-up or Roman Law.
They aren't plural marriages, they are simultaneous marriages.
Why is this such a hard point for people to grasp?
Now you're trying to get off on a technicality. Call them plural, call them simultanious, whatever you wish, it doesn't change the fact that even today in most muslim countries one man can have more than one wife at the same time. It is clear what is expected of a man and what his duties are to each of his wives and it is legally defined.
Christian countries don't allow one man to have multiple wives, either one at a time or at the same time. Law doesn't recognize more than one wife, even though you may have your personal harem of 299 women. You're not obligated to any one of them, except the first.
Therefore, Christian concept of marriage isn't, and wasn't at any point in history, universally applied. It is not even applied fully in the Christian states. Christian dogma doesn't allow divorce, except in a few very strict circumstances while the legal concept of the divorce is different, more liberal.
I see no reason to allow Christian idea of marriage to stop me from allowing same sex couples a legally defined relationship, the same heterosexual couples are entitled to. Now, we may call it morriage instead of marriage, but that's just silly, isn't it?
HoreTore 15:12 05-09-2012
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
Damn you, that was supposed to be my line!
In the end though, that something is "traditional" is not argument one way or another, it's simply an observation, kinda like what colour something has.
Single Sign On provided by
vBSSO