• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

To the anti SSM crowd: Which traditional forms of marriage should be allowed?

Which traditional forms of marriage should be allowed?


  • Total voters
    2

chromium

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
16,968
Reaction score
3,770
Location
A2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"The husband is the head of the family and the wife is subject to him; her legal civil existence is merged in the husband" - georgia law, 1971

explaining my list here in a historical context...

well if you only care about the bible, there is this:

biblemarriage.jpg


However, in oral arguments kennedy seemed concerned about upsetting "thousands of years of human tradition" so here you have it:


arranged child marriage - still the norm in most of africa/asia; for most of this region's history, example: boys from age 7 work as slaves of the future bride's family to 'pay off' the debt (variation on "shim-pua" in taiwan)


caste marriage - can only marry those within your social/economic/community hierarchy, much of india's history

group marriage - multiple husbands and wives joined together, ancient hawaii and various native tribes, the oneida in US

lavender marriage - a gay man and lesbian marry, according to some a viable alternative to SSM

levirate marriage - a widow is forced to marry her dead husband's brother, too many cultures to list

intra-racial only - bans on 'race mixing' in US in various states from 1664 to 1971, upheld by supreme court even after the 14th amendment

incest and cousin marriage - common in middle east to this day, roughly 1/10 marriages worldwide, legal in all US states until civil war and still legal in 20 states

no marriage allowed - southern chinese cultures like the Na

polygamy - too many cultures to list, still roughly 50% of marriages in west/central africa

posthumous marriage - a living person marries a dead one, legal and common in france and senegal, a few cases in the US, longstanding tradition in japan

temporary marriage - a contracted marriage that ends after predetermined period, sometimes probationary in case the wife doesn't satisfy her husband, ancient scottish tradition that continued until 1939, also common in shia islam
 
Last edited:
Sigh. How long is this dumb ass tactic going to be used? You damn well know what they mean and it's not that dumb ****.
 
Sigh. How long is this dumb ass tactic going to be used? You damn well know what they mean and it's not that dumb ****.

i know what they mean, and it's my way of exposing their hypocrisy. I wouldn't know how to strawman a strawman. Now answer the poll that's addressed to you, or GTFO
 
i know what they mean, and it's my way of exposing their hypocrisy. Now answer the poll that's addressed to you, or GTFO

It's not addressed to me, but your hackish trollish retardation still deserves disdain. It's not hypocrisy either, but you would probably have to be aware of their reference point to know that.

This is also not your tactic, but something you're parroting from others.
 
It's not addressed to me, but your hackish trollish retardation still deserves disdain. It's not hypocrisy either, but you would probably have to be aware of their reference point to know that.

This is also not your tactic, but something you're parroting from others.

/ignore
 
not playing any derailing games, either explain why you support the above but oppose SSM, or you oppose those traditional marriages but claim marriage is "always man and wife," or i'm not interested
 
"The husband is the head of the family and the wife is subject to him; her legal civil existence is merged in the husband" - georgia law, 1971

explaining my list here in a historical context...

Actually, I want to give you kudos for bringing those up. I knew about all of them (though not by all the names you listed). But you're referring to instances that have been rejected (or are in the process of being rejected e.g. caste marriage) by the worldwide culture as a whole.

And yes, I refer to 'worldwide culture' because we are forming exactly that. Those places that still practice what you listed above are (in most cases) under international pressure to stop those practices. It's only a matter of time. Not only that, but SSM is meant to be something between two consenting adults - but most of those you listed didn't leave room for little things like 'consent'.

Something else to consider is that it has only recently become understood and accepted among most people in the world today that people really are "born that way". A homosexual is born with homosexual tendencies. A bisexual is born with tendencies for both.

Besides, if you'll think about it, if it really were a case of "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", then God would not allow natural hermaphrodites to be born. Yes, they're very rare, but they are born with both male and female genitalia. That fact in and of itself shows that God DOES allow such to be born...and that there's more to human sexuality than just "Adam and Eve".
 
not playing any derailing games, either explain why you support the above but oppose SSM, or you oppose those traditional marriages but claim marriage is "always man and wife," or i'm not interested

No one is going to take this seriously that opposes SSM. You should try an argument that shows that you understand your opponents and doesn't come off as trolling.
 
Actually, I want to give you kudos for bringing those up. I knew about all of them (though not by all the names you listed). But you're referring to instances that have been rejected (or are in the process of being rejected e.g. caste marriage) by the worldwide culture as a whole.

I didn't know of many of them, did some research.

Fair enough, but the world is in the process of rejecting the definition of marriage as "one man one woman." The fact that cultures are being wiped out at the barrel of a gun (ex: the chinese govt came in and forced the southern tribes that banned marriage to sign marriage licenses) doesn't change that they have long clung to these traditions, just as the bigots cling to "one man one woman," except under their usual delusion that it's the ONLY traditional form of marriage (this is what i was really getting at)

So what makes "one man one woman" inherently superior to, say, arranged marriage? The bible? Plenty of arranged marriage. Tradition? That notion ignores most of human history.

What reasons are we left with then? Well you provide my 2nd reason for this poll...


Not only that, but SSM is meant to be something between two consenting adults - but most of those you listed didn't leave room for little things like 'consent'.

Using the objections to SSM i've heard, i listed some of the forms of marriage that SSM opponents will likely *object* to, yet for reasons that don't apply to SSM (such as lack of consent)

Anticipating they'll say "arranged marriage doesn't allow consent," well SSM does so...come up with another argument. Similarly, "incest leads to mutated offspring," well SSM doesn't so...

The only caveat is sexless/childless marriage, which they may tolerate for sympathy reasons despite they complain that gay couples can't reproduce.

Something else to consider is that it has only recently become understood and accepted among most people in the world today that people really are "born that way". A homosexual is born with homosexual tendencies. A bisexual is born with tendencies for both.

I'm not looking to chastise some peasant from the 1700s for opposing SSM. I know what you're getting at.

In some of the US, we abhor the 300 years of interracial marriage bans, because only recently have blacks come to have perceived value other than as slaves, and we abhor incest only because we recently found an inherited link to deformities. That's how it goes, evolving rights and limitations based on evolving knowledge and cultural needs. Yet some refuse to evolve...

I'm not defending arranged marriage or anything like that. I just don't see "one man one woman" as any better and i find the arguments in favor of this definition but against the others i listed to be disingenuous and ethnocentric at best

Besides, if you'll think about it, if it really were a case of "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", then God would not allow natural hermaphrodites to be born. Yes, they're very rare, but they are born with both male and female genitalia. That fact in and of itself shows that God DOES allow such to be born...and that there's more to human sexuality than just "Adam and Eve".

i'm not religious at all...i appreciate your contribution however. It made me think, which is rare in these kind of debates.
 
You do realize that group marriage and polygamy are the same thing right? You are most likely confusing polygamy with polygyny. The latter is the proper term for one man, many wives. Polyandry is the opposite with one woman, many husbands. Polygamy is simply multiple spouses, or simply a group marriage.
 
You do realize that group marriage and polygamy are the same thing right? You are most likely confusing polygamy with polygyny. The latter is the proper term for one man, many wives. Polyandry is the opposite with one woman, many husbands. Polygamy is simply multiple spouses, or simply a group marriage.

And of course, which of those was "traditionally accepted" in the bible as legitimate and not sinful?
 
Another idiotic thread that proves only that many of those on the American left are incredibly poor and ungracious winners. Rather than try to heal wounds and/or lay low and enjoy the decision, this kind of nonsense is posted that only serves to inflame and divide further. No wonder America is such a hotbed of hate at times.
 
Another idiotic thread that proves only that many of those on the American left are incredibly poor and ungracious winners. Rather than try to heal wounds and/or lay low and enjoy the decision, this kind of nonsense is posted that only serves to inflame and divide further. No wonder America is such a hotbed of hate at times.

Yet not surprisingly you continue to post idiotic replies in threads you deem "idiotic". Hmmmmm......
 
Yet not surprisingly you continue to post idiotic replies in threads you deem "idiotic". Hmmmmm......

Yes, a OP that is attempting to call out opponents and purposely misunderstands their position is somehow productive.
 
Another idiotic thread that proves only that many of those on the American left are incredibly poor and ungracious winners. Rather than try to heal wounds and/or lay low and enjoy the decision, this kind of nonsense is posted that only serves to inflame and divide further. No wonder America is such a hotbed of hate at times.

That's what I keep seeing, CJ. Instead of joy over gay marriage being legal, it appears that the big victory here was "in your face religion" or "conservatives lose" and so on. I've never seen a more pathetic display of childishness. This wasn't about "Love wins" and posts all over this board prove it, including this baiting thread.
 
And of course, which of those was "traditionally accepted" in the bible as legitimate and not sinful?

Which has what to do with my point that he took a single option and used it twice in different words? It was like choosing between a dog and a canine
 
Another idiotic thread that proves only that many of those on the American left are incredibly poor and ungracious winners. Rather than try to heal wounds and/or lay low and enjoy the decision, this kind of nonsense is posted that only serves to inflame and divide further. No wonder America is such a hotbed of hate at times.

That's what I keep seeing, CJ. Instead of joy over gay marriage being legal, it appears that the big victory here was "in your face religion" or "conservatives lose" and so on. I've never seen a more pathetic display of childishness. This wasn't about "Love wins" and posts all over this board prove it, including this baiting thread.

While I don't necessarily agree that this thread is idiotic or trolling, the rest of it is exactly how I have been feeling since the Supreme Court decision. I can't be happy with what I've been seeing but then faith baiting has always bothered me and we have that in spades right now. Probably a good time to make myself scarce for awhile.
 
"The husband is the head of the family and the wife is subject to him; her legal civil existence is merged in the husband" - georgia law, 1971

explaining my list here in a historical context...

well if you only care about the bible, there is this:

biblemarriage.jpg


However, in oral arguments kennedy seemed concerned about upsetting "thousands of years of human tradition" so here you have it:


arranged child marriage - still the norm in most of africa/asia; for most of this region's history, example: boys from age 7 work as slaves of the future bride's family to 'pay off' the debt (variation on "shim-pua" in taiwan)


caste marriage - can only marry those within your social/economic/community hierarchy, much of india's history

group marriage - multiple husbands and wives joined together, ancient hawaii and various native tribes, the oneida in US

lavender marriage - a gay man and lesbian marry, according to some a viable alternative to SSM

levirate marriage - a widow is forced to marry her dead husband's brother, too many cultures to list

intra-racial only - bans on 'race mixing' in US in various states from 1664 to 1971, upheld by supreme court even after the 14th amendment

incest and cousin marriage - common in middle east to this day, roughly 1/10 marriages worldwide, legal in all US states until civil war and still legal in 20 states

no marriage allowed - southern chinese cultures like the Na

polygamy - too many cultures to list, still roughly 50% of marriages in west/central africa

posthumous marriage - a living person marries a dead one, legal and common in france and senegal, a few cases in the US, longstanding tradition in japan

temporary marriage - a contracted marriage that ends after predetermined period, sometimes probationary in case the wife doesn't satisfy her husband, ancient scottish tradition that continued until 1939, also common in shia islam

You need to check your sources. Some of what you have printed there is not what the King James version nor the English Standard Version but someone's view/translation of what is written. If your actually going to say what the bible says, then at least quote it properly. Same to all those who say that it says to kill all homosexuals. The bible only addresses Male homosexuality and says nothing about lesbianism.
 
You need to check your sources. Some of what you have printed there is not what the King James version nor the English Standard Version but someone's view/translation of what is written. If your actually going to say what the bible says, then at least quote it properly. Same to all those who say that it says to kill all homosexuals. The bible only addresses Male homosexuality and says nothing about lesbianism.

Please enlighten us as to which of the references are incorrect and what they actually say. I know you will find the wives and concubine reference correct as well as the multiple wives one. Same with the widow marrying the brother of her deceased husband because that was brought directly to Jesus. So which ones are wrong?
 
The government should have nothing to do with marriage. The government should never have gotten involved in marriage at all. It got involved to keep blacks and whites from marrying and that should never have happened. Our government is involved in many things that is not government business.
 
You do realize that group marriage and polygamy are the same thing right? You are most likely confusing polygamy with polygyny. The latter is the proper term for one man, many wives. Polyandry is the opposite with one woman, many husbands. Polygamy is simply multiple spouses, or simply a group marriage.

no, a group marriage as i meant it is multiple spouses of both genders in a single open relationship, as opposed to say, 1 husband 5 wives
 
Back
Top Bottom