• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Christian Moms Group Condemns Hallmark Channel for Airing Lesbian Wedding Ad"

epronovost

Well-Known Member
First off - an unborn child becomes a fetus at about it’s ninth week of development.

You were talking about a fetus here - not an embryo.

Embryo is also the general term for all embryonic stage of development. It regroups, zygote, embryo and fetus is one. The word has two common definition. When I use embryo I refer to that second more general definition than the more precise medical term. My apologies for the potential confusion

Lastly - no. I reject everything you said here. Any of these justifications could be used to deny basic inalienable human rights to already-born people.

You have yet to make a convincing demonstration of that. I refuted in short order all your previous attempts. Either prove that you can or leave it be. In what circumstances could I kill people who are already born and not yet declared medically dead outside of war and self defense?

It can be argued anc convincingly demonstrated that newborns and late terms embryos have a mind and consciousness, the same cannot be said for younger embryos.

A human being is a person or an individual with its own unique and complete genetic code.

Again, this is biological reductionism and its sketchy a best. Humans aren't their genes, they are a product of their genes, the interactions of said genes and their environment. Humanity is very much an emergent property and just like any emergent property it cannot be reduced completely to its base components. Biologists do not establish personhood; this is a philosophical and legal debate. Identical twins are two completely different persons who share the same genetic code. We could theoretically easily produce human clones or artificial identical twins if you prefer. You cannot leave psychology and philosophy of the mind outside of the definition of what makes a person because it's inconveniant or because you are ignorant of it. Psychology is as scientific as biology and both of these sciences are reliant on a fair amount of philosophy to even be operational if only because of the need for methodology and ontology.

Persons have a personnality, idiosyncratic behaviors. It's easy to remember it's in the name: person; personnality. Zygotes, embryo and young fetus don't have personnalities. Newborns do, albeit a fairly basic one. Some are fussy, others calm, some are gluttons others not. How can you be a person without personnality and without idiosyncratic behaviors or thought patterns? How can you be an individual if you can never be alone and can never interract with anybody on your own? You can interract with a lot of newborns and so can they, but you will never interract with a fetus on a one on one basis and they will never, ever interract with you. You don't need a Master degree in philosophy of the mind or psychology to realise that these are essential components to be a person.

An unborn child who is killed can be considered a legal victim of murder - if its mother wanted it.

An unborn child who is “aborted” is considered nothing more than a growth - if its mother did not want it.

This does not make sense. It is an inconsistent application of the law.

You are correct, this is an inconsistence in your laws. It would be logical to consider the death of an embryo in utero following a criminal attack as a form of aggravated assault since permanent damage was dealt, not murder. A potential exception could be made for late term pregnancy on the account that fetus passed the age of 24-28 week does possess a mind of its own, has passed the threshold of viability and thus could be considered a person.

Of course there is also the possibility tat your legal system is attempting something rather practical to punish a particularly callous and taboo crime: attacking a pregnant woman. Even in the realm of stone-cold killers, there is a special hatred and diisgust for child killers or rapists and those who attack pregnant women. Thus the Law might have an interest in punishing these types of assault more severely than any others. The Law isn't just about justice, rehabilitation, order it's also often about punishment and projecting force.

Our value and whether or not it is acceptable to kill us is not determined by how inconvenient our existence is.

Yes and no. If you are a crazy axe murderer who like to attack people in the middle of the street, we will judge you very "inconvenient" and we might very well kill you for that. So yes, in a sense, your value and right to live is very much determined by your behavior and what "inconvenience" you represent. From another perspective, no, your instrisinc value and thus right to security doesn't come from your usefulness to society it comes from the fact you possess a mind.

PS: aborted embryos aren't just inconvenient either.

That is a different conversation altogether.

There is no reason to go there.

Post 3 of 3

Actually, it's essential in my opinion. If you can't explain why humans deserve a fundamental right to security that no other living being possesses, you can't explain and justify to anything or anyone a prohibition against killing other humans. You are basically begging the question. Why is killing people, a category in which you include human embryos, wrong in the first place?

Logical progression dictate that one must first anwer this question before going to define exactly what constitute a human being or a person.
 
Last edited:

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
Embryo is also the general term for all embryonic stage of development. It regroups, zygote, embryo and fetus is one. The word has two common definition. When I use embryo I refer to that second more general definition than the more precise medical term. My apologies for the potential confusion



You have yet to make a convincing demonstration of that. I refuted in short order all your previous attempts. Either prove that you can or leave it be. In what circumstances could I kill people who are already born and not yet declared medically dead outside of war and self defense?



Again, this is biological reductionism and its sketchy a best. Identical twins are two completely different persons who share the same genetic code. You cannot leave psychology and philosophy of the mind outside of the definition of what makes a person because it's inconveniant or because you are ignorant of it.

Persons have a personnality, idiosyncratic behaviors. It's easy to remember it's in the name: person; personnality. Zygotes, embryo and young fetus don't have personnalities. Newborns do, albeit a fairly basic one. Some are fussy, others calm, some are gluttons others not. How can you be a person without personnality and without idiosyncratic behaviors or thought patterns? How can you be an individual if you can never be alone and can never interract with anybody on your own? You can interract with a lot of newborns and so can they, but you will never interract with a fetus on a one on one basis and they will never, ever interract with you. You don't need a Master degree in philosophy of the mind or psychology to realise that these are essential components to be a person.



You are correct, this is an inconsistence in your laws. It would be logical to consider the death of an embryo in utero following a criminal attack as a form of aggravated assault since permanent damage was dealt, not murder. A potential exception could be made for late term pregnancy on the account that fetus passed the age of 24-28 week does possess a mind of its own, has passed the threshold of viability and thus could be considered a person.

Of course there is also the possibility tat your legal system is attempting something rather practical to punish a particularly callous and taboo crime: attacking a pregnant woman. Even in the realm of stone-cold killers, there is a special hatred and diisgust for child killers or rapists and those who attack pregnant women. Thus the Law might have an interest in punishin these types of assault more severely than any others. The Law isn't just about justice, rehabilitation, order it's also often about punishment.



Yes and no. If you are a crazy axe murderer who like to attack people in the middle of the street, we will judge you very "inconvenient" and we might very well kill you for that. So yes, in a sense, your value and right to live is very much determined by your behavior and what "inconvenience" you represent. From another perspective, no, your instrisinc value and thus right to security doesn't come from your usefulness to society it comes from the fact you possess a mind.

PS: aborted embryos aren't just inconvenient either.



Actually, it's essential in my opinion. If you can't explain why humans deserve a fundamental right to security that no other living being possesses, you can't explain why it's wrong to kill them? Why is killing people, a category in which you include human embryos, wrong in the first place?
Did you miss my first two posts?

You only responded to the last one.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
Did you miss my first two posts?

You only responded to the last one.

No, I also read them, but I prefered to only respond to your last post directly for simplicity sake and since the last one petty much covered the same points as the two others. If you think I have missed a key point of your argument please point it out.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I'm not confused at all.

You - on the other hand - are unwilling to admit that what you said and did previously was wrong.

The only reason I am so adamant about this is because you accused me of comparing homosexuals to child rapists when I brought up pedophilia as another example of an "inappropriate sexual attraction."

If you are now claiming that not all pedophiles are child rapists - then the argument you and others kept bludgeoning me with was flawed - just as I claimed all along.

I want you to admit that I never compared homosexuals to child rapists.

I want you to admit that I was right from the start and that you used your flawed argument to attack my character rather than my argument.

Once you admit and amend - I will no longer call you out.
Call me out forever if you want.
I've answered your question and addressed your point and clarified at least 5 times now.
I see you still don't understand why I took issue with your post, despite my explaining it over and over. I attacked your argument, in which you brought up pedophilia in a thread about gay marriage and explained why I felt that was a bogus comparison/argument. I've said nothing about your character; I don't even know you.

I don't believe that you were "right from the start," obviously.

It's not sinking into your brain, so keep at it, I guess. :shrug:
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
The decision to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.

Throughout the entirety of human history marriage has only been between men and women.

Your claim that current events should be included in my claim of precedent makes no sense.

If that made sense - then no one could ever source a precedent.

The Bible contains multiple descriptions of the many polygamous marriages that the people within it were engaging in at the time. :shrug: You're okay with that because it's between men and women? Is that the case?

You apparently need to read some history.
A good starting point:
History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia
The secret history of same-sex marriage

Not that it really matters anyway. We have gay marriages now, and they're not going anywhere. Despite your protestations against them.

What reason does anyone have to be against gay marriage, aside from beliefs gleaned from old books supposedly inspired by god(s)?
 
Last edited:

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
Call me out forever if you want.
I've answered your question and addressed your point and clarified at least 5 times now.
I see you still don't understand why I took issue with your post, despite my explaining it over and over. I attacked your argument, in which you brought up pedophilia in a thread about gay marriage and explained why I felt that was a bogus comparison/argument. I've said nothing about your character; I don't even know you.

I don't believe that you were "right from the start," obviously.

It's not sinking into your brain, so keep at it, I guess. :shrug:
No - you did not attack my argument - because I never compared homosexuals to child rapists.

You generated a false argument - attributed it to me - then attacked it. A strawman.

You used this strawman to attack my intelligence and beliefs - my character.

I was right about not all pedophiles being child rapists - despite what you and others said.

Without amending what you said previously - what you say now has zero value.
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
The Bible contains multiple descriptions of the many polygamous marriages that the people within it were engaging in at the time. :shrug: You're okay with that because it's between men and women? Is that the case?
It was a contract between men and women and it was used to produce children.

It qualifies as marriage. My opinion on whether or not it is "okay" doesn't matter.

I don't like arranged marriages - but they also qualify.
You apparently need to read some history.
A good starting point:
History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia
The secret history of same-sex marriage
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/23/-sp-secret-history-same-sex-marriage
The first link has been shared many times and does not show a single example of same-sex marriage.

I quickly browsed the second one and am inclined to come to the same conclusion.

Unless you could point to exactly where your example can be found in the article.
Not that it really matters anyway. We have gay marriages now, and they're not going anywhere. Despite your protestations against them.
"Not that it really matters anyway. We have slaves now, and they're not going anywhere. Despite your protestations against them." - Southern Slave Owner to Concerned Citizen
What reason does anyone have to be against gay marriage, aside from beliefs gleaned from old books supposedly inspired by god(s)?
Other than being factually and historically accurate - the population war that the West is desperately losing.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
"Not that it really matters anyway. We have slaves now, and they're not going anywhere. Despite your protestations against them." - Southern Slave Owner to Concerned Citizen

Are you seriously comparing two men or women getting married to slavery?

the population war that the West is desperately losing.

The population war? What's that and why should we care about it and how is gay marriage going to prevent the West from winning it?

PS: the second article does present some same-sex marriages in late Rennaissance, celebrated in Church, but with tragic endings with one couple being exiled and fined and another burnt to the stake for heresy. It also mention the marriages contracted by lesbian couple where one of the partner posed as a man a bit in the same way many young women engaged in male exclusive careers. There was of course the case of lesbian transwomen marrying women and heterosexual transmen marrying women that made everything a bit complicated for the jurists of the time.

It does make the argument that should marriage be defined as the exclusive cohabitation and sexual union of two people, a definition often use in anthropology and one closer to the current definition of marriage in the 20h century than that centered on the production of heirs, then there is hundreds of homosexual marriages in the history of Europe.
 
Last edited:

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
Are you seriously comparing two men or women getting married to slavery?
This cannot be an honest question.

I was pointing out the absurdity of SkepticThinker's arguments that, "The status quo does not change" - "The status quo cannot be questioned" - "The status quo is morally/intellectually/historically correct".
The population war? What's that and why should we care about it and how is gay marriage going to prevent the West from winning it?
You can go ahead and Google that one.
PS: the second article does present some same-sex marriages in late Rennaissance, celebrated in Church, but with tragic endings with one couple being exiled and fined and another burnt to the stake for heresy. It also mention the marriages contracted by lesbian couple where one of the partner posed as a man a bit in the same way many young women engaged in male exclusive careers. There was of course the case of lesbian transwomen marrying women and heterosexual transmen marrying women that made everything a bit complicated for the jurists of the time.
Some homosexual couples during the Renaissance deceived clergyman into marrying them - which led to tragic endings - and you are arguing that this proves that there were legitimate same-sex marriages during that time?
It does make the argument that should marriage be defined as the exclusive cohabitation and sexual union of two people, a definition often use in anthropology and one closer to the current definition of marriage in the 20h century than that centered on the production of heirs, then there is hundreds of homosexual marriages in the history of Europe.
I agree.

If the current redefinition of marriage (which I am protesting) were used then that would be the case.

You would be committing the error of presentism if you were to do that though.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
You can go ahead and Google that one.

I did. Do you support a conspiracy theory peddled by neo-nazi, pseudo-Crusaders and other maniacs of their ilk? You are offended and opposed to the fact some women elect to abort embryos who can't think, feel, suffer and socialise, but you support the idea that the world is engaged in grand scheme to destroy "the white race" and that it must not be lost at all cost? Excuse me if I find this pivot surprising. It's a bit like if someone was arguing against the cruelty of legal executions, but turned around to support carpet bombing of enemy territories. Then again, that's probably not how you perceive this "population war", but that's certainly one very popular way it's perceived and presented. Feel free to present your vision of it if you don't support the one described above. I know it's the title of a popular political philosophy book that espouse the idea that population growth and surge is a main driver of war and conflict in human history and that a sustainable stable population will be necessary to avoid civilisational and environmental collapse. Is that more what you are referring to? (also even knowing that I don't see how stopping gay marriage would have any impact on this "war", it's not like making gay wedding illegal will make gay people turn straight.)

Also, to return on the subject of homosexual marriages, while it would be false to say that those unions were officially recognised, it does show that their legalisation in current time derives in direct line to prior transformation of marriages from an institution design to insure family lines and upon which inheritence laws are structured to an institution dedicated to the celebration of love and couple life. If love is about two person loving each other and living together, potentially raising children, of course homosexual unions should be included in that. There is no reason they should not or, if you think you can, please do so. Are you making the argument that marriage should return to the institution it used be over a century ago with divorce being severely restricted, women being stripped of a large portion of their civic rights, the return of dotery, bride's price and illegitimate children status and laws?
 
Last edited:

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
I did. Do you support a conspiracy theory peddled by neo-nazi, pseudo-Crusaders and other maniacs of their ilk? You are offended and opposed to the fact some women elect to abort embryos who can't think, feel, suffer and socialise, but you support the idea that the world is engaged in grand scheme to destroy "the white race" and that it must not be lost at all cost? Excuse me if I find this pivot surprising. It's a bit like if someone was arguing against the cruelty of legal executions, but turned around to support carpet bombing of enemy territories. Then again, that's probably not how you perceive this "population war", but that's certainly one very popular way it's perceived and presented. Feel free to present your vision of it if you don't support the one described above. I know it's the title of a popular political philosophy book that espouse the idea that population growth and surge is a main driver of war and conflict in human history and that a sustainable stable population will be necessary to avoid civilisational and environmental collapse. Is that more what you are referring to? (also even knowing that I don't see how stopping gay marriage would have any impact on this "war", it's not like making gay wedding illegal will make gay people turn straight.)
I literally know nothing about what you are talking about here.

When I mentioned "population war" I claimed that it was a war being fought against the "West" - not white or any other race.

Western ideologies have created the most freedom and wealth ever seen in the history of the world - but those who oppose Western ideologies are reproducing at a significantly higher rate.

In no time at all Western ideals will be replaced because there will be no more people in the West.

I never claimed that this "population war" was my main point of concern. As I said - being factually and historically accurate are my main reasons.

I never claimed that homosexuals should not form lifelong unions - they just cannot refer to those unions as marriages - because they aren't.

The main purpose for marriage (and sex IMHO) is to have children. If you are not ready to have children then - IMHO - you are not ready for sex or marriage.

Putting my opinion aside for a second - historically - marriage has been about making babies - so I do not support any culture that changes that aspect of marriage.

I understand that many expectations of marriage have been changed and I recognize that same-sex marriage is merely the most recent nail in that proverbial coffin.

I would argue against all those others kinds of other relationships - but that hasn't been the topic of discussion.

The argument against "same-sex marriage" is more concrete and fact-based than any I would share against those others anyways.

If you made me President right now I wouldn't do anything to change "same-sex marriage" - because there are a lot more important things that would require my time and attention - but I would share my opinion about it whenever I felt the need.
Also, to return on the subject of homosexual marriages, while it would be false to say that those unions were officially recognised, it does show that their legalisation in current time derives in direct line to prior transformation of marriages from an institution design to insure family lines and upon which inheritence laws are structured to an institution dedicated to the celebration of love and couple life. If love is about two person loving each other and living together, potentially raising children, of course homosexual unions should be included in that. There is no reason they should not or, if you think you can, please do so. Are you making the argument that marriage should return to the institution it used be over a century ago with divorce being severely restricted, women being stripped of a large portion of their civic rights, the return of dotery, bride's price and illegitimate children status and laws?
Those examples are not bound to marriage - but culture.

All I have been arguing is that marriage has always been between a man and a woman - that's it.

Everything else is just gravy.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
No - you did not attack my argument - because I never compared homosexuals to child rapists.

You generated a false argument - attributed it to me - then attacked it. A strawman.

You used this strawman to attack my intelligence and beliefs - my character.

I was right about not all pedophiles being child rapists - despite what you and others said.

Without amending what you said previously - what you say now has zero value.
I've never attacked your intelligence.
You've been the one doing things like that.

Nor have I ever said that all pedophiles are child rapists. In fact, I've said more than 5 times now that some pedophiles are child rapists, but not all. Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to children, as I've also pointed out numerous times. You don't agree with that and have come up with your very own definition that doesn't fit with the commonly used definition.

Get off it.


I've been on discussion boards for many years now. Countless people on these boards have brought up pedophilia in threads about homosexuality. It's a common tactic that's been used to conflate the two very different things. You were following that old play book, and I pointed it out. I wasn't the only one to notice, as I'm sure you've noticed. I'm sorry that bothers you so much, but I call 'em as I see 'em.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
It was a contract between men and women and it was used to produce children.
As others have pointed out, marriage contracts have been used to secure and/or exchange family wealth throughout history, they've been used to oppress people, they've been used to produce children, they've been used to unite couples, etc., etc. There is no one reason for marriage in our history. And again, tradition shouldn't dictate anything. Just because something is traditionally done, doesn't make it right. Traditionally, women have been oppressed throughout history. So we should continue oppressing women because it's tradition? I think not.

It qualifies as marriage. My opinion on whether or not it is "okay" doesn't matter.
It sure seems like it does. You're making judgment calls about what marriage is *supposed* to be.

I don't like arranged marriages - but they also qualify.
Unless it's between two women or two men.

The first link has been shared many times and does not show a single example of same-sex marriage.

Emperor Nero reportedly married at least two men during his lifetime. You didn't see that?
During the Ming Dynasty period women would contractually bind themselves to younger females in elaborate ceremonies (men would bind themselves to other men as well). You didn't see that?

I quickly browsed the second one and am inclined to come to the same conclusion.
Unless you could point to exactly where your example can be found in the article.
It says that Native American, African and Asian cultures all have histories of same sex marriages/unions.

But again, I'm not sure why you think tradition should matter so much. I'd rather allow or disallow practices based on a reasoned consideration of the facts involved rather than on what some old book says or what people used to do or whatever. Does the practice harm anyone, for example? Not that I can see.

"Not that it really matters anyway. We have slaves now, and they're not going anywhere. Despite your protestations against them." - Southern Slave Owner to Concerned Citizen
Huh?

That's not my argument. It's yours.

Other than being factually and historically accurate - the population war that the West is desperately losing.

This doesn't answer my question.

The Bible is not factually and historically accurate. But even if it was, the question stands:
What reason does anyone have to be against gay marriage, aside from beliefs gleaned from old books supposedly inspired by god(s)?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
This cannot be an honest question.

I was pointing out the absurdity of SkepticThinker's arguments that, "The status quo does not change" - "The status quo cannot be questioned" - "The status quo is morally/intellectually/historically correct".
Dude, that's your argument.



You can go ahead and Google that one.

Some homosexual couples during the Renaissance deceived clergyman into marrying them - which led to tragic endings - and you are arguing that this proves that there were legitimate same-sex marriages during that time?
Yes, of course.

Your claim is that marriages have always been between men and women. Clearly they have not if what is described here was going on.


I agree.

If the current redefinition of marriage (which I am protesting) were used then that would be the case.

You would be committing the error of presentism if you were to do that though.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I literally know nothing about what you are talking about here.

When I mentioned "population war" I claimed that it was a war being fought against the "West" - not white or any other race.

Western ideologies have created the most freedom and wealth ever seen in the history of the world - but those who oppose Western ideologies are reproducing at a significantly higher rate.

In no time at all Western ideals will be replaced because there will be no more people in the West.

I never claimed that this "population war" was my main point of concern. As I said - being factually and historically accurate are my main reasons.

I never claimed that homosexuals should not form lifelong unions - they just cannot refer to those unions as marriages - because they aren't.

The main purpose for marriage (and sex IMHO) is to have children. If you are not ready to have children then - IMHO - you are not ready for sex or marriage.

Putting my opinion aside for a second - historically - marriage has been about making babies - so I do not support any culture that changes that aspect of marriage.

I understand that many expectations of marriage have been changed and I recognize that same-sex marriage is merely the most recent nail in that proverbial coffin.

I would argue against all those others kinds of other relationships - but that hasn't been the topic of discussion.

The argument against "same-sex marriage" is more concrete and fact-based than any I would share against those others anyways.

If you made me President right now I wouldn't do anything to change "same-sex marriage" - because there are a lot more important things that would require my time and attention - but I would share my opinion about it whenever I felt the need.

Those examples are not bound to marriage - but culture.

All I have been arguing is that marriage has always been between a man and a woman - that's it.

Everything else is just gravy.
So is it your opinion that people who cannot produce children or do not want to produce should not marry? Would such a marriage be "illegitimate" to you?
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
Western ideologies have created the most freedom and wealth ever seen in the history of the world - but those who oppose Western ideologies are reproducing at a significantly higher rate. In no time at all Western ideals will be replaced because there will be no more people in the West.

Ideologies aren't bound to birth. You can birth a million babies it doesn't mean that when they will turn into adults they will support those ideals. Every single generation has "tweaked" with their culture, changed a few things, etc. The West has changed tremendously in the last two centuries and so did the rest of the world; mass communication and education has accelerated those change. It's by no means certain that the current dominant trait of western culture: secularism, democracy, capitalism, feminism, humanism, etc. will continue from one generation to another. Homosexual marriage doesn't threaten this. Homosexual marriage doesn't reduce the number of children born each year nor does it make the transmission of enlightenment, capitalist and socialist values more difficult. In fact, on the opposite, tolerance and equality of cisgender heterosexal people and other gender and sexual minorities is currently one of the defining trait of the West when compared to others. Homosexual marriage can be said to reinforce and enshrine one of the defining trait of the West compared to the rest of the world where homosexuality is often treated as a crime or a perversion.

I never claimed that homosexuals should not form lifelong unions - they just cannot refer to those unions as marriages - because they aren't.

The main purpose for marriage (and sex IMHO) is to have children. If you are not ready to have children then - IMHO - you are not ready for sex or marriage.

Homosexual marriages can have children and raise them either through prior heterosexual relationships, adoption, surrogate mothers, artificial insemination, etc. An homosexual marriage isn't necessarily a childless marriage (something that probably doesn't jive with your views of it). Does the marriage need to have children that were produced by good old sexual relationship to be valid? If so why aren't marriages impossible for infertile couples?

Putting my opinion aside for a second - historically - marriage has been about making babies - so I do not support any culture that changes that aspect of marriage.

Fallacious appeal to tradition there.

The argument against "same-sex marriage" is more concrete and fact-based than any I would share against those others anyways.

Then please do so because you can't have your butter and the money for the butter too.

Those examples are not bound to marriage - but culture.

All I have been arguing is that marriage has always been between a man and a woman - that's it.

Everything else is just gravy.

Marriage itself is "gravy"; it's a social construct that has been created by humans to fit unto their code of laws and proto-legal traditions. The only real, fundamental thing, is that sexual intercourse produce children, that people love and lust for one another and that raising people in group is a hell of a lot easier than alone. Marriage was never an absolute necessity for anything except to structure this natural human impulse to breed, have sex, form relationship, raise children and tack on it things like wealth transmission, clanic structure, rigid and permanent social hierarchy, etc.
 
Top