Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
Well, you'll never include everybody....
|
True. But if you simply exclude the portions of societies that do not fit your picture, then you are creating an unrealistic picture.
Quote:
Fair enough. In that 400 years, it has been common for a man to be married and also have a mistress, or to cheat. So much for monogamy.
Again, that wasn't part of the vows though. To have and to hold your wife and that chick on the side. You are again confusing individuals with the institution. Most males provide sperm to make a baby, just because a few of them are impotent or sterile doesn't mean that the male gender isn't the source for sperm.
|
That arguement doesn't even make sense.
Individuals make up the institution. You cannot define the institution without considering the individuals.
The vows represent the institution? Is that what you are saying?
Please clarify.
Quote:
With all due respect, if you 'lead,' then she must 'follow.' That does not imply an equal relationship.
Only to those with a limited and focused view. "Leader" doesn't always mean dictator.
|
You are most certainly welcome to explain yourself. How does one lead without another (or others) following?
Quote:
That 'spiel' is a promise not to leave each other, if you look at it's anatomy. But to answer your question, one would HOPE that this was the couple's intent, but there is was no guarantee of this.
What marriage imples is a very inividual thing, based on your upbringing.
There's not guarantee of anything in life. But absent a shotgun wedding, you would think that a woman wouldn't marry a man that wouldn't respect her. Respect is implied. We aren't talking about individuals. As I have said several times, "individuals" have married for citizenship, prostituition, etc. Can't judge "marriage" by each individual case. That would be like judging "humans" by Amy Winehouse.
|
I don't judge the institution at all. I think that it is different for different people. What the institution implies is different for different people.
Personally, I would hope that a woman would marry someone that respects her, but that is not an established/required part of Traditional marriage.
Quote:
The term 'natural childbirth' is a fairly recent one.
There has been great variety in different cultures with the birthing process. There are some that used herbal concoctions to alleviate the pain and there are others that did nothing. The point is that natural childbirth has varied greatly in practice, much like marriage has.
Actually the baby has pretty much come out of the same place throughout history. I doubt any woman has ever dropped a baby out of her mouth. I've given several examples of what I consider it to be, do you have any examples that contradict mine?
|
I am aware of this, and no one has questioned it.
You said that natural childbirth is thought of primarily one way, and I reminded you that babies that are born breech are also born through natural childbirth. 'Natural Childbirth' by that standard automatically includes both.
What is the point that you make here?