Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases.

[JakeStarkey]

Not in the US has a court made procreation the sole primary reason for marriage.

 

[daws101]

it's not ..it just is ...

Hmmm, interesting. Dopey, but interesting

dopey meaning it's beyond you pay grade.

Dopey, like.......

Short and slow witted I suppose

you admit that in public?

I hate to, but yes, I admit you are short and slow witted.

Damn, that hurt

you're wrong pop! I'm very tall and slow witted... lets try to stick with the facts!

 

[Czernobog]

No. Actually, I don't recall a single court, ever, that supported the argument that procreation was the reason for marriage. Some Religions have; but I don't know of a court that has.

We already know that you favor incest, but tell me sumthin cowboy?

If procreation is not part of legal marriage, then why deny the right for a father/daughter marriage.

Waiting your response that no doubt will require increased and colorful bolded fonts.

You're asking the wrong guy that, Sparky. I already said that I think doing so is wrong, and discriminatory.

Moving on...

^^fails to answer cuz it doesn't support his argument?^^

Movin on

Actually fails to answer because it isn't my position. I don't think we should deny father/daughter marriages, if both are consenting adults. So why would you ask me why I think they should?

there is the little problem of genetic defects.
but hey adam and eve did it and so did noah .
if it's in the bible it's gotta be ok .right?

Actually, that research is outdated. However, even if it weren't, it still would not be a valid reason to disallow incestuous marriage. Incestuous procreation? Maybe. But marriage? Not even a little bit. Marriage has nothing to do with procreation, remember? Two separate issues. It's kinda like why parents of Downs Syndrome kids are given the option to have their adult children sterilized. That way, they can marriage without threat of passing on the condition.

And, yes, again, that has been an actual thing, in the real world, Pop. Please safe me the time of having to go look it up, and do a little homework on your own.

 

[Czernobog]

Because it is not marriage, but I know what you're really digging for, you want me to state that you're immoral and perverse, and all sorts of other things so you can bash the Bible! But, I don't care if you bash the Bible, and I don't care if you are immoral, and perverse, you fucking another guy and having it a legal civil union, is DIFFERENT than me fucking a woman and having a legal marriage! Simple biology is the difference!

"Simple biology" is the difference? Would you care to explain that?

Do you call a woman, a man, and vice versa?..... There is a difference, but I don't suck cock, so I DO know the difference!

Are men and women to be treated differently under the law? I thought we were past those days.

Goodby separate showers and bathrooms.

Gays want it that way, so be it

you know this how?
theres an extremely high probability everybody here has shared a shower and a toilet seat with a gay person...

Yeah...one would think that people concerned with unisex showers, and bathrooms would be more worried about heterosexual "fun and games" than they would homosexual shenanigans. After all, why would getting to see girls' girly parts be a big deal for the guys that have no interest in girls' girly parts?

 

[Czernobog]

Not in the US has a court made procreation the sole primary reason for marriage.

Yeah...I probably over-reached when I said "No court, ever..." After all, back in the middle ages the courts were over-run by the Church. So, I'm sure that if one looked hard enough, one could probably find a ruling back then that fit the criteria.

 

[Pop23]

More bullshit from the deranged! You would have made Jim Jones proud!

He met "influential" members of the community and was befriended by Walter Heady, the head of the local chapter of the John Birch Society.<101> He used the members of his "church" to organize local voting drives for Richard Nixon's election, and worked closely with the republican party.<102> He was even appointed chairman of the county grand jury.<103>
Jim Jones was a Republican - Democratic Underground

Gays can have babies

You slow or what ?

The marriage of a man to a woman has a far different dynamic than man to a man or a woman to a woman.

no not really...the day to day STUFF is exactly the same.....

Oh brother......

Funny you can't even admit the difference

because in the day to day stuff there is none..
do gays collect the mail differently? or cook differently ?

So, I ask again

A gay man takes birth control pills for?????

Gay men use condoms. Is this breaking news to you? Get out more.

And? Is there a point?

I hear soldiers use condoms to cover the barrels of their guns, where they protecting their guns form giving birth to pistols?

 

[daws101]

He met "influential" members of the community and was befriended by Walter Heady, the head of the local chapter of the John Birch Society.<101> He used the members of his "church" to organize local voting drives for Richard Nixon's election, and worked closely with the republican party.<102> He was even appointed chairman of the county grand jury.<103>
Jim Jones was a Republican - Democratic Underground
no not really...the day to day STUFF is exactly the same.....

Oh brother......

Funny you can't even admit the difference

because in the day to day stuff there is none..
do gays collect the mail differently? or cook differently ?

So, I ask again

A gay man takes birth control pills for?????

Gay men use condoms. Is this breaking news to you? Get out more.

And? Is there a point?

I hear soldiers use condoms to cover the barrels of their guns, where they protecting their guns form giving birth to pistols?

 

[Pop23]

Because it is not marriage, but I know what you're really digging for, you want me to state that you're immoral and perverse, and all sorts of other things so you can bash the Bible! But, I don't care if you bash the Bible, and I don't care if you are immoral, and perverse, you fucking another guy and having it a legal civil union, is DIFFERENT than me fucking a woman and having a legal marriage! Simple biology is the difference!

"Simple biology" is the difference? Would you care to explain that?

Do you call a woman, a man, and vice versa?..... There is a difference, but I don't suck cock, so I DO know the difference!

Are men and women to be treated differently under the law? I thought we were past those days.

Goodby separate showers and bathrooms.

Gays want it that way, so be it

you know this how?
theres an extremely high probability everybody here has shared a shower and a toilet seat with a gay person...

Oh, I get it, avoiding the obvious.

 

[Pop23]

And since black and whites have EXACTLY the same rights, we should call blacks, white, and vice versa..... are they different?

You do get that your whole argument hinges on your own incorrect definition of marriage, right? I even showed you that "man and woman" is not, and never has been a requirement for the contract, or the definition. That addition is a purely religious one, while the institution of marriage is a secular, civil one.

How many jet pilot licenses were issue prior to the invention of jet aircraft?

Hmmmm, guess there was no need as no one would have ever

The question becomes of course, "who invented marriage". Now, since the social practice of taking a spouse existed long before formal theology, I would submit that it was always a civil, secular invention. Which means that any qualifications for "legitimacy" that any religion added to the contract is only valid for the followers of that religion. Guess what? No one is demanding that any religious organization "recognize" the marriages of these couples; only that government, an d businesses do.

That crazy sperm plus egg thing again

Gosh, only possible with a male and a female.

Lol

Completely missing the point that your "masturbation" resulted in a pregnancy, but okay. My, you do keep changing the goalposts in order to keep your ignorance alive, don't you?

I pity you, I really do

A man can masturbate and spread that goo al over his boyfriend all freaking day and end up with a goo stained boyfriend. He can do that 24/7/365 and end up the same every day

A man can apply the same to a women and the risk of what??

PREGNANCY

but children that must get their own way discount that as not changing the dynamics of the different demographic groups.

So sad for you.

And there you go, returning to the same, stupid, "If you can't produce offspring, your marriage is less valid" argument. Why? Why do you hate sterile, and infertile people. You can insist that your argument doesn't include them all you want, but the fact is, it does. That's why it's a stupid argument.

You really should find a different argument, because every time you use this one, it just makes you sound stupid, and hateful.

Link to where I said sterile male/female couples can't marry.

I find it distasteful to discriminate based on disability or age.

Are you making the argument that gay couplings never produce children because of a disability?

You don't wish to prohibit any "non procreating" adults with the exception of gay couples. That makes you, hands down, a bigot. Wear it proudly.

Is being a bigot describing the difference between an apple and a freight train?

How exciting this must be for you!

 

[Pop23]

No. Actually, I don't recall a single court, ever, that supported the argument that procreation was the reason for marriage. Some Religions have; but I don't know of a court that has.

We already know that you favor incest, but tell me sumthin cowboy?

If procreation is not part of legal marriage, then why deny the right for a father/daughter marriage.

Waiting your response that no doubt will require increased and colorful bolded fonts.

You're asking the wrong guy that, Sparky. I already said that I think doing so is wrong, and discriminatory.

Moving on...

^^fails to answer cuz it doesn't support his argument?^^

Movin on

Actually fails to answer because it isn't my position. I don't think we should deny father/daughter marriages, if both are consenting adults. So why would you ask me why I think they should?

there is the little problem of genetic defects.
but hey adam and eve did it and so did noah .
if it's in the bible it's gotta be ok .right?

WHAT? PROCREATION IS NOT A PART OF MARRIAGE.

BIGOT!

 

[daws101]

"Simple biology" is the difference? Would you care to explain that?

Do you call a woman, a man, and vice versa?..... There is a difference, but I don't suck cock, so I DO know the difference!

Are men and women to be treated differently under the law? I thought we were past those days.

Goodby separate showers and bathrooms.

Gays want it that way, so be it

you know this how?
theres an extremely high probability everybody here has shared a shower and a toilet seat with a gay person...

Oh, I get it, avoiding the obvious.

nope.. nothing to avoid ..you are insinuating with no proof what so ever, that if gender neutral bathrooms and showers are opened it will be a hide the sausage fest..

 

[daws101]

We already know that you favor incest, but tell me sumthin cowboy?

If procreation is not part of legal marriage, then why deny the right for a father/daughter marriage.

Waiting your response that no doubt will require increased and colorful bolded fonts.

You're asking the wrong guy that, Sparky. I already said that I think doing so is wrong, and discriminatory.

Moving on...

^^fails to answer cuz it doesn't support his argument?^^

Movin on

Actually fails to answer because it isn't my position. I don't think we should deny father/daughter marriages, if both are consenting adults. So why would you ask me why I think they should?

there is the little problem of genetic defects.
but hey adam and eve did it and so did noah .
if it's in the bible it's gotta be ok .right?

WHAT? PROCREATION IS NOT A PART OF MARRIAGE.

BIGOT!

what came first procreation or marriage ..?

 

[Pop23]

Not in the US has a court made procreation the sole primary reason for marriage.

See incest laws

 

[Pop23]

You're asking the wrong guy that, Sparky. I already said that I think doing so is wrong, and discriminatory.

Moving on...

^^fails to answer cuz it doesn't support his argument?^^

Movin on

Actually fails to answer because it isn't my position. I don't think we should deny father/daughter marriages, if both are consenting adults. So why would you ask me why I think they should?

there is the little problem of genetic defects.
but hey adam and eve did it and so did noah .
if it's in the bible it's gotta be ok .right?

WHAT? PROCREATION IS NOT A PART OF MARRIAGE.

BIGOT!

what came first procreation or marriage ..?

Irrelevant.

 

[Carla_Danger]

wonderful news for individual rights

Unless you are a baker or a photographer.

Boo hoo! If you don't want to serve the public, the ones who pay for the roads that lead to your bakery, police protection, and the fire department, you're not fit to run a business in this country. Get over it, or move!

 

[daws101]

^^fails to answer cuz it doesn't support his argument?^^

Movin on

Actually fails to answer because it isn't my position. I don't think we should deny father/daughter marriages, if both are consenting adults. So why would you ask me why I think they should?

there is the little problem of genetic defects.
but hey adam and eve did it and so did noah .
if it's in the bible it's gotta be ok .right?

WHAT? PROCREATION IS NOT A PART OF MARRIAGE.

BIGOT!

what came first procreation or marriage ..?

Irrelevant.

hardly, it's the basis for this debate.

History of marriage: 13 surprising facts

By Tia Ghose

Published June 27, 2013
Facebook245 Twitter59 Email Print

Moonstruck partners pledging eternal love may be the current definition of marriage, but this starry-eyed picture has relatively modern origins.

Though marriage has ancient roots, until recently love had little to do with it.


"What marriage had in common was that it really was not about the relationship between the man and the woman," said Stephanie Coontz, the author of "Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage," (Penguin Books, 2006). "It was a way of getting in-laws, of making alliances and expanding the family labor force."

But as family plots of land gave way to market economies and Kings ceded power to democracies, the notion of marriage transformed. Now, most Americans see marriage as a bond between equals that's all about love and companionship. [I Don't: 5 Myths About Marriage]

That changing definition has paved the way for same-sex marriage and Wednesday's (June 26) Supreme Court rulings, which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and dismissed a case concerning Proposition 8.

From polygamy to same-sex marriage, here are 13 milestones in the history of marriage.

1. Arranged alliances

Marriage is a truly ancient institution that predates recorded history. But early marriage was seen as a strategic alliance between families, with the youngsters often having no say in the matter. In some cultures, parents even married one child to the spirit of a deceased child in order to strengthen familial bonds, Coontz said.

2. Family ties

Keeping alliances within the family was also quite common. In the Bible, the forefathers Isaac and Jacob married cousins and Abraham married his half-sister. Cousin marriages remain common throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East. In fact, Rutgers anthropologist Robin Fox has estimated that the majority of all marriages throughout history were between first and second cousins.

3. Polygamy preferred

Monogamy may seem central to marriage now, but in fact, polygamy was common throughout history. From Jacob, to Kings David and Solomon, Biblical men often had anywhere from two to thousands of wives. (Of course, though polygamy may have been an ideal that high-status men aspired to, for purely mathematical reasons most men likely had at most one wife). In a few cultures, one woman married multiple men, and there have even been some rare instances of group marriages. [Life's Extremes: Monogamy vs. Polygamy]

4. Babies optional

In many early cultures, men could dissolve a marriage or take another wife if a woman was infertile. However, the early Christian church was a trailblazer in arguing that marriage was not contingent on producing offspring.

"The early Christian church held the position that if you can procreate you must not refuse to procreate. But they always took the position that they would annul a marriage if a man could not have sex with his wife, but not if they could not conceive," Coontz told LiveScience.

5. Monogamy established

Monogamy became the guiding principle for Western marriages sometime between the sixth and the ninth centuries, Coontz said.

"There was a protracted battle between the Catholic Church and the old nobility and kings who wanted to say 'I can take a second wife,'" Coontz said.

The Church eventually prevailed, with monogamy becoming central to the notion of marriage by the ninth century.

6. Monogamy lite

Still, monogamous marriage was very different from the modern conception of mutual fidelity. Though marriage was legally or sacramentally recognized between just one man and one woman, until the 19th century, men had wide latitude to engage in extramarital affairs, Coontz said. Any children resulting from those trysts, however, would be illegitimate, with no claim to the man's inheritance.

"Men's promiscuity was quite protected by the dual laws of legal monogamy but tolerance basically enabling of informal promiscuity," Coontz said.

Women caught stepping out, by contrast, faced serious risk and censure.

7. State or church?

Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.

8. Civil marriage

In the last several hundred years, the state has played a greater role in marriage. For instance, Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639, and by the 19th-century marriage licenses were common in the United States.

9. Love matches

By about 250 years ago, the notion of love matches gained traction, Coontz said, meaning marriage was based on love and possibly sexual desire. But mutual attraction in marriage wasn't important until about a century ago. In fact, in Victorian England, many held that women didn't have strong sexual urges at all, Coontz said.

10. Market economics

Around the world, family-arranged alliances have gradually given way to love matches, and a transition from an agricultural to a market economy plays a big role in that transition, Coontz said.

Parents historically controlled access to inheritance of agricultural land. But with the spread of a market economy, "it's less important for people to have permission of their parents to wait to give them an inheritance or to work on their parents' land," Coontz said. "So it's more possible for young people to say, 'heck, I'm going to marry who I want.'"

Modern markets also allow women to play a greater economic role, which lead to their greater independence. And the expansion of democracy, with its emphasis on liberty and individual choice, may also have stacked the deck for love matches.

11. Different spheres

Still, marriage wasn't about equality until about 50 years ago. At that time, women and men had unique rights and responsibilities within marriage. For instance, in the United States, marital rape was legal in many states until the 1970s, and women often could not open credit cards in their own names, Coontz said. Women were entitled to support from their husbands, but didn't have the right to decide on the distribution of community property. And if a wife was injured or killed, a man could sue the responsible party for depriving him of "services around the home," whereas women didn't have the same option, Coontz said.

12. Partnership of equals

By about 50 years ago, the notion that men and women had identical obligations within marriage began to take root. Instead of being about unique, gender-based roles, most partners conceived of their unions in terms of flexible divisions of labor, companionship, and mutual sexual attraction.

13. Gay marriage gains ground

Changes in straight marriage paved the way for gay marriage. Once marriage was not legally based on complementary, gender-based roles, gay marriage seemed like a logical next step.

"One of the reasons for the stunningly rapid increase in acceptance of same sex marriage is because heterosexuals have completely changed their notion of what marriage is between a man and a woman," Coontz said. "We now believe it is based on love, mutual sexual attraction, equality and a flexible division of labor."

Copyright 2013 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved.

 

[bodecea]

Because civil marriage for straights, civil unions for gays isn't exactly the same. Did the same water come out of both of these fountains?

Why yes it did and yet separate water fountains are unconstitutional just as setting up Civil Unions for gays and Civil Marriage for straights would be. What would not be unconstitutional is Civil Unions for all non familial consenting adult couples or Civil Marriage for all non familial consenting adult couples.

I have a legal, civil marriage license issued by my state. There is no valid reason to treat my legal civil marriage license any differently than yours is treated...except for discrimination based on animus.

And since black and whites have EXACTLY the same rights, we should call blacks, white, and vice versa..... are they different?

You do get that your whole argument hinges on your own incorrect definition of marriage, right? I even showed you that "man and woman" is not, and never has been a requirement for the contract, or the definition. That addition is a purely religious one, while the institution of marriage is a secular, civil one.

How many jet pilot licenses were issue prior to the invention of jet aircraft?

Hmmmm, guess there was no need as no one would have ever

The question becomes of course, "who invented marriage". Now, since the social practice of taking a spouse existed long before formal theology, I would submit that it was always a civil, secular invention. Which means that any qualifications for "legitimacy" that any religion added to the contract is only valid for the followers of that religion. Guess what? No one is demanding that any religious organization "recognize" the marriages of these couples; only that government, an d businesses do.

You really should make sure that you are aware of what is going on in the real world, before making snarky comments that just make you sound like an unfinformed dickwad:

Oral Sex Leads To Child Support

That crazy sperm plus egg thing again

Gosh, only possible with a male and a female.

Lol

Completely missing the point that your "masturbation" resulted in a pregnancy, but okay. My, you do keep changing the goalposts in order to keep your ignorance alive, don't you?

I pity you, I really do

A man can masturbate and spread that goo al over his boyfriend all freaking day and end up with a goo stained boyfriend. He can do that 24/7/365 and end up the same every day

A man can apply the same to a women and the risk of what??

PREGNANCY

but children that must get their own way discount that as not changing the dynamics of the different demographic groups.

So sad for you.

And there you go, returning to the same, stupid, "If you can't produce offspring, your marriage is less valid" argument. Why? Why do you hate sterile, and infertile people. You can insist that your argument doesn't include them all you want, but the fact is, it does. That's why it's a stupid argument.

You really should find a different argument, because every time you use this one, it just makes you sound stupid, and hateful.

Link to where I said sterile male/female couples can't marry.

I find it distasteful to discriminate based on disability or age.

Are you making the argument that gay couplings never produce children because of a disability?

So...you have no problem with couples unable to reproduce getting married.

 

[bodecea]

Actually fails to answer because it isn't my position. I don't think we should deny father/daughter marriages, if both are consenting adults. So why would you ask me why I think they should?

there is the little problem of genetic defects.
but hey adam and eve did it and so did noah .
if it's in the bible it's gotta be ok .right?

WHAT? PROCREATION IS NOT A PART OF MARRIAGE.

BIGOT!

what came first procreation or marriage ..?

Irrelevant.

hardly, it the basis for this debate.

History of marriage: 13 surprising facts

By Tia Ghose

Published June 27, 2013
Facebook245 Twitter59 Email Print

Moonstruck partners pledging eternal love may be the current definition of marriage, but this starry-eyed picture has relatively modern origins.

Though marriage has ancient roots, until recently love had little to do with it.


"What marriage had in common was that it really was not about the relationship between the man and the woman," said Stephanie Coontz, the author of "Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage," (Penguin Books, 2006). "It was a way of getting in-laws, of making alliances and expanding the family labor force."

But as family plots of land gave way to market economies and Kings ceded power to democracies, the notion of marriage transformed. Now, most Americans see marriage as a bond between equals that's all about love and companionship. [I Don't: 5 Myths About Marriage]

That changing definition has paved the way for same-sex marriage and Wednesday's (June 26) Supreme Court rulings, which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and dismissed a case concerning Proposition 8.

From polygamy to same-sex marriage, here are 13 milestones in the history of marriage.

1. Arranged alliances

Marriage is a truly ancient institution that predates recorded history. But early marriage was seen as a strategic alliance between families, with the youngsters often having no say in the matter. In some cultures, parents even married one child to the spirit of a deceased child in order to strengthen familial bonds, Coontz said.

2. Family ties

Keeping alliances within the family was also quite common. In the Bible, the forefathers Isaac and Jacob married cousins and Abraham married his half-sister. Cousin marriages remain common throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East. In fact, Rutgers anthropologist Robin Fox has estimated that the majority of all marriages throughout history were between first and second cousins.

3. Polygamy preferred

Monogamy may seem central to marriage now, but in fact, polygamy was common throughout history. From Jacob, to Kings David and Solomon, Biblical men often had anywhere from two to thousands of wives. (Of course, though polygamy may have been an ideal that high-status men aspired to, for purely mathematical reasons most men likely had at most one wife). In a few cultures, one woman married multiple men, and there have even been some rare instances of group marriages. [Life's Extremes: Monogamy vs. Polygamy]

4. Babies optional

In many early cultures, men could dissolve a marriage or take another wife if a woman was infertile. However, the early Christian church was a trailblazer in arguing that marriage was not contingent on producing offspring.

"The early Christian church held the position that if you can procreate you must not refuse to procreate. But they always took the position that they would annul a marriage if a man could not have sex with his wife, but not if they could not conceive," Coontz told LiveScience.

5. Monogamy established

Monogamy became the guiding principle for Western marriages sometime between the sixth and the ninth centuries, Coontz said.

"There was a protracted battle between the Catholic Church and the old nobility and kings who wanted to say 'I can take a second wife,'" Coontz said.

The Church eventually prevailed, with monogamy becoming central to the notion of marriage by the ninth century.

6. Monogamy lite

Still, monogamous marriage was very different from the modern conception of mutual fidelity. Though marriage was legally or sacramentally recognized between just one man and one woman, until the 19th century, men had wide latitude to engage in extramarital affairs, Coontz said. Any children resulting from those trysts, however, would be illegitimate, with no claim to the man's inheritance.

"Men's promiscuity was quite protected by the dual laws of legal monogamy but tolerance basically enabling of informal promiscuity," Coontz said.

Women caught stepping out, by contrast, faced serious risk and censure.

7. State or church?

Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.

8. Civil marriage

In the last several hundred years, the state has played a greater role in marriage. For instance, Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639, and by the 19th-century marriage licenses were common in the United States.

9. Love matches

By about 250 years ago, the notion of love matches gained traction, Coontz said, meaning marriage was based on love and possibly sexual desire. But mutual attraction in marriage wasn't important until about a century ago. In fact, in Victorian England, many held that women didn't have strong sexual urges at all, Coontz said.

10. Market economics

Around the world, family-arranged alliances have gradually given way to love matches, and a transition from an agricultural to a market economy plays a big role in that transition, Coontz said.

Parents historically controlled access to inheritance of agricultural land. But with the spread of a market economy, "it's less important for people to have permission of their parents to wait to give them an inheritance or to work on their parents' land," Coontz said. "So it's more possible for young people to say, 'heck, I'm going to marry who I want.'"

Modern markets also allow women to play a greater economic role, which lead to their greater independence. And the expansion of democracy, with its emphasis on liberty and individual choice, may also have stacked the deck for love matches.

11. Different spheres

Still, marriage wasn't about equality until about 50 years ago. At that time, women and men had unique rights and responsibilities within marriage. For instance, in the United States, marital rape was legal in many states until the 1970s, and women often could not open credit cards in their own names, Coontz said. Women were entitled to support from their husbands, but didn't have the right to decide on the distribution of community property. And if a wife was injured or killed, a man could sue the responsible party for depriving him of "services around the home," whereas women didn't have the same option, Coontz said.

12. Partnership of equals

By about 50 years ago, the notion that men and women had identical obligations within marriage began to take root. Instead of being about unique, gender-based roles, most partners conceived of their unions in terms of flexible divisions of labor, companionship, and mutual sexual attraction.

13. Gay marriage gains ground

Changes in straight marriage paved the way for gay marriage. Once marriage was not legally based on complementary, gender-based roles, gay marriage seemed like a logical next step.

"One of the reasons for the stunningly rapid increase in acceptance of same sex marriage is because heterosexuals have completely changed their notion of what marriage is between a man and a woman," Coontz said. "We now believe it is based on love, mutual sexual attraction, equality and a flexible division of labor."

Copyright 2013 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved.

I guess with the elimination of #1 in Western Culture, that was the Slippery Slope.

 

[daws101]

there is the little problem of genetic defects.
but hey adam and eve did it and so did noah .
if it's in the bible it's gotta be ok .right?

WHAT? PROCREATION IS NOT A PART OF MARRIAGE.

BIGOT!

what came first procreation or marriage ..?

Irrelevant.

hardly, it the basis for this debate.

History of marriage: 13 surprising facts

By Tia Ghose

Published June 27, 2013
Facebook245 Twitter59 Email Print

Moonstruck partners pledging eternal love may be the current definition of marriage, but this starry-eyed picture has relatively modern origins.

Though marriage has ancient roots, until recently love had little to do with it.


"What marriage had in common was that it really was not about the relationship between the man and the woman," said Stephanie Coontz, the author of "Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage," (Penguin Books, 2006). "It was a way of getting in-laws, of making alliances and expanding the family labor force."

But as family plots of land gave way to market economies and Kings ceded power to democracies, the notion of marriage transformed. Now, most Americans see marriage as a bond between equals that's all about love and companionship. [I Don't: 5 Myths About Marriage]

That changing definition has paved the way for same-sex marriage and Wednesday's (June 26) Supreme Court rulings, which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and dismissed a case concerning Proposition 8.

From polygamy to same-sex marriage, here are 13 milestones in the history of marriage.

1. Arranged alliances

Marriage is a truly ancient institution that predates recorded history. But early marriage was seen as a strategic alliance between families, with the youngsters often having no say in the matter. In some cultures, parents even married one child to the spirit of a deceased child in order to strengthen familial bonds, Coontz said.

2. Family ties

Keeping alliances within the family was also quite common. In the Bible, the forefathers Isaac and Jacob married cousins and Abraham married his half-sister. Cousin marriages remain common throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East. In fact, Rutgers anthropologist Robin Fox has estimated that the majority of all marriages throughout history were between first and second cousins.

3. Polygamy preferred

Monogamy may seem central to marriage now, but in fact, polygamy was common throughout history. From Jacob, to Kings David and Solomon, Biblical men often had anywhere from two to thousands of wives. (Of course, though polygamy may have been an ideal that high-status men aspired to, for purely mathematical reasons most men likely had at most one wife). In a few cultures, one woman married multiple men, and there have even been some rare instances of group marriages. [Life's Extremes: Monogamy vs. Polygamy]

4. Babies optional

In many early cultures, men could dissolve a marriage or take another wife if a woman was infertile. However, the early Christian church was a trailblazer in arguing that marriage was not contingent on producing offspring.

"The early Christian church held the position that if you can procreate you must not refuse to procreate. But they always took the position that they would annul a marriage if a man could not have sex with his wife, but not if they could not conceive," Coontz told LiveScience.

5. Monogamy established

Monogamy became the guiding principle for Western marriages sometime between the sixth and the ninth centuries, Coontz said.

"There was a protracted battle between the Catholic Church and the old nobility and kings who wanted to say 'I can take a second wife,'" Coontz said.

The Church eventually prevailed, with monogamy becoming central to the notion of marriage by the ninth century.

6. Monogamy lite

Still, monogamous marriage was very different from the modern conception of mutual fidelity. Though marriage was legally or sacramentally recognized between just one man and one woman, until the 19th century, men had wide latitude to engage in extramarital affairs, Coontz said. Any children resulting from those trysts, however, would be illegitimate, with no claim to the man's inheritance.

"Men's promiscuity was quite protected by the dual laws of legal monogamy but tolerance basically enabling of informal promiscuity," Coontz said.

Women caught stepping out, by contrast, faced serious risk and censure.

7. State or church?

Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.

8. Civil marriage

In the last several hundred years, the state has played a greater role in marriage. For instance, Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639, and by the 19th-century marriage licenses were common in the United States.

9. Love matches

By about 250 years ago, the notion of love matches gained traction, Coontz said, meaning marriage was based on love and possibly sexual desire. But mutual attraction in marriage wasn't important until about a century ago. In fact, in Victorian England, many held that women didn't have strong sexual urges at all, Coontz said.

10. Market economics

Around the world, family-arranged alliances have gradually given way to love matches, and a transition from an agricultural to a market economy plays a big role in that transition, Coontz said.

Parents historically controlled access to inheritance of agricultural land. But with the spread of a market economy, "it's less important for people to have permission of their parents to wait to give them an inheritance or to work on their parents' land," Coontz said. "So it's more possible for young people to say, 'heck, I'm going to marry who I want.'"

Modern markets also allow women to play a greater economic role, which lead to their greater independence. And the expansion of democracy, with its emphasis on liberty and individual choice, may also have stacked the deck for love matches.

11. Different spheres

Still, marriage wasn't about equality until about 50 years ago. At that time, women and men had unique rights and responsibilities within marriage. For instance, in the United States, marital rape was legal in many states until the 1970s, and women often could not open credit cards in their own names, Coontz said. Women were entitled to support from their husbands, but didn't have the right to decide on the distribution of community property. And if a wife was injured or killed, a man could sue the responsible party for depriving him of "services around the home," whereas women didn't have the same option, Coontz said.

12. Partnership of equals

By about 50 years ago, the notion that men and women had identical obligations within marriage began to take root. Instead of being about unique, gender-based roles, most partners conceived of their unions in terms of flexible divisions of labor, companionship, and mutual sexual attraction.

13. Gay marriage gains ground

Changes in straight marriage paved the way for gay marriage. Once marriage was not legally based on complementary, gender-based roles, gay marriage seemed like a logical next step.

"One of the reasons for the stunningly rapid increase in acceptance of same sex marriage is because heterosexuals have completely changed their notion of what marriage is between a man and a woman," Coontz said. "We now believe it is based on love, mutual sexual attraction, equality and a flexible division of labor."

Copyright 2013 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved.

I guess with the elimination of #1 in Western Culture, that was the Slippery Slope.

the horror !

 

[Pop23]

And since black and whites have EXACTLY the same rights, we should call blacks, white, and vice versa..... are they different?

You do get that your whole argument hinges on your own incorrect definition of marriage, right? I even showed you that "man and woman" is not, and never has been a requirement for the contract, or the definition. That addition is a purely religious one, while the institution of marriage is a secular, civil one.

How many jet pilot licenses were issue prior to the invention of jet aircraft?

Hmmmm, guess there was no need as no one would have ever

The question becomes of course, "who invented marriage". Now, since the social practice of taking a spouse existed long before formal theology, I would submit that it was always a civil, secular invention. Which means that any qualifications for "legitimacy" that any religion added to the contract is only valid for the followers of that religion. Guess what? No one is demanding that any religious organization "recognize" the marriages of these couples; only that government, an d businesses do.

That crazy sperm plus egg thing again

Gosh, only possible with a male and a female.

Lol

Completely missing the point that your "masturbation" resulted in a pregnancy, but okay. My, you do keep changing the goalposts in order to keep your ignorance alive, don't you?

I pity you, I really do

A man can masturbate and spread that goo al over his boyfriend all freaking day and end up with a goo stained boyfriend. He can do that 24/7/365 and end up the same every day

A man can apply the same to a women and the risk of what??

PREGNANCY

but children that must get their own way discount that as not changing the dynamics of the different demographic groups.

So sad for you.

And there you go, returning to the same, stupid, "If you can't produce offspring, your marriage is less valid" argument. Why? Why do you hate sterile, and infertile people. You can insist that your argument doesn't include them all you want, but the fact is, it does. That's why it's a stupid argument.

You really should find a different argument, because every time you use this one, it just makes you sound stupid, and hateful.

Link to where I said sterile male/female couples can't marry.

I find it distasteful to discriminate based on disability or age.

Are you making the argument that gay couplings never produce children because of a disability?

So...you have no problem with couples unable to reproduce getting married.

Been addressed , and not too many posts back.

If you can't keep up you might want to hire some help