I'm not saying that you can't procreate or have sex with your cousin, and many animals do it, I'm just saying that monogamy doesn't necessarily impede genetic diversity. It seems we are again confusing each individual circumstance with the whole picture.

An individual may be born with a genetic susceptibility for kidney disease and need dialysis to stay alive, that doesn't mean that we should decide that peeiing isn't the "Traditional" way that humans expel liquid waste and is very important.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

Yet, a person's rights aren't removed or hindered by society, just cause they 'expel liquid waste' in a less-then-traditional manner...

It's different, sure...But even though you 'do it differently', you still aren't treated differently or expected to conform to the 'norm' or 'traditional way' by society.

In fact, society ACCOMODATES for your 'difference' and still affords you the same rights, privelages, and oppertunities that includes your 'different and non-traditional' needs...

You're not look down at, or thought less of, just cause you don't urinate standing up...And if someone was to treat you in such a manner, law is on your side to penalize anyone that would treat you less because of that difference.

What's traditional for one person, doesn't mean it's necessarily traditional for another...Tradition is as diverse for the individuals involved as there are traditions that exsist...

I entirely agree on that. There are those that do not.

We are not limited by basic biology because of the nature of our big brains.

This is NOT to say that we are not animals. Indeed we have all of the insticts and reactions of animals though we may call them by different names. Our variations are typical of those that exist in the natural world.

If one is to discuss marriage, one must recognize that, by nature, it is NOT biologically advantageous and it is NOT a function of the natural order of things.

I have seen graphical representation of the divorce rate over the decade, and the introduction of female equality. It seems rather distinctive that a hike in "divorce" rate occurred at the time that women started becoming legally equal.

And I think that makes sense, because it is much easier for a relationship to work as "head of the household - subordinate" than it is to work as equals. Compromise is harder than one person making the rules.
(And I say none of this to imply that women should not have equality, but rather to demonstrate an issue that has a REAL impact on "traditional marriage"...)

And regarding the "expansion of the legal definition of the institution", in my experience people who claim that gay marriage is somehow detrimental to "traditional marriage" typically cannot substantiate or even explain their claim. It's more of a slogan that is passed around by people who don't question its validity.
As a debating point, it just cannot survive the light of logical thought.


That's rather interesting, and I suspect that such a move could realistically help some marriages.
Living in a relationship where both people work can be tough on the relationship. Especially if the two don't have the same hours.
More would be gained by addressing some of the REAL problems with relationships. Pre-marriage counseling could be very effective.
I've seen stats that show evangelicals have a higher divorce rate than atheists. In the article I was reading that info in, it postulated that it could have something to do with an expectation in evangelicals that people should get married, stressed potentially above and beyond focusing on WHO you should marry, and what to expect in the marriage.

Unfortunately, society has taken the "vegging out" approach. Some areas have a required separation period before a divorce is allowed. But what is really done in that time-frame beyond wait?

I think the monogamy aspect of "Traditional Marriage" also carries with it a bit of responsibility and maturity. That's why you say all those vows and stuff. "That big brain" should be able to override those more animalistic instincts. If you want to act like an animal and NOT be monogamous, hit and rape your woman, or procreate elsewhere, you should have the brain to know you are not ready for a "Traditional Marriage" or make sure you find a like-minded mate. "Traditional Marriage" is like "natural childbirth". We think of it as a baby exiting the vagina headfirst and alive. Just because a lot of "other" things can happen that we might not like, "natural childbirth" has an understood connotation and is preferred.

Natural Birth

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

I'm sorry... I'm not quite sure how that relates to the discussion about biology...

That would be incorrect. We do not override our instincts as much as we channel them in to socially acceptable forms. This is true of most communal animals on some level, and especially true of the primates (of which we are a part).


As I said, humans ARE animals. I have also mentioned that females have not had legal protections until fairly recently. (our lifetime, as you and I are of similar age) Do you disagree with this?

There are few that believe that those who choose not to marry in the traditional way are not human. Some people choose to have many sexual partners. This does not make them less human in any sense. They just choose a lifestyle that others do not.

As for beatings and rapes, I already said that the history of equality is very short. There is no way to quantify that. If it was not a crime to rape your wife, then how could we know how often it was done? How can we know if women just submitted rather than facing violence?

We can't.



Lots of babies have been born breech.

They landed on their feet, and kept going!

no one would try to say that they are not a result of natural childbirth.

So we are gonna go back to observing animals to determine our behavior. Monkeys and other animals get sexually active and mate at the onset of puberty. In humans, that is starting as low as 7 and 8 years old. In our society humans that can't control THAT instinct are demonized even though they are just doing what their animalistic urges are telling them. So obviously we expect some control of those instincts.

I also don't think humans were necessarily supposed to be monogamous. I am married, but I still find plenty of women desirable. But I have a responsibility to my family. Whether it's society or biology that ties me to my son and wife, I feel a strong bond to them.

As I said, humans ARE animals. I have also mentioned that females have not had legal protections until fairly recently. (our lifetime, as you and I are of similar age) Do you disagree with this?

I agree that womens rights are recent, and I agree with the laws that gave then rights. But I think as with most laws, the "old way" was there for a reason. And "equality" has a down side in this case. Single parenthood, easy divorce, and abortion are the result.

There are few that believe that those who choose not to marry in the traditional way are not human. Some people choose to have many sexual partners. This does not make them less human in any sense. They just choose a lifestyle that others do not.

Now we are talking about the individual again though. Individual humans are prone to anything. But some anythings are not acceptable to society. Not getting married is one thing. Wanting to marry something/one other than a person of your opposite gender is another.


As for beatings and rapes, I already said that the history of equality is very short. There is no way to quantify that. If it was not a crime to rape your wife, then how could we know how often it was done? How can we know if women just submitted rather than facing violence?
We can't.

If we can't verify something, why should we bring it up then. Let's hope human decency would minimize rape, married or not. Forcing someone to do something that they obviously don't want to do is wrong...period. "Traditional Marriage" implies respect for the partner Rape is quite a bit short on that. When this country was founded you could get married to a woman as young as 7 in some states, I have a hard time considering that "Traditional" as well.

Lots of babies have been born breech.
They landed on their feet, and kept going!
no one would try to say that they are not a result of natural childbirth.

That wasn't what I was saying, I was saying that "natural childbirth" is still the preferred method of delivery, even with the risks and pain involved. "Traditional Natural Childbirth" is without pain meds and all that modern stuff women rely on.
Natural Childbirth

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

Certainly you must acknowledge that this has been the case in human history? Humans have been married off BEFORE the onset of puberty, and often sexual activity begins at that point married or not.

Whether or not you and I like this, it is definitely so.

Quote:

I also don't think humans were necessarily supposed to be monogamous. I am married, but I still find plenty of women desirable. But I have a responsibility to my family. Whether it's society or biology that ties me to my son and wife, I feel a strong bond to them.

No doubt. That is a good thing.

One must also remember that although monogamy, in law or social construct, has existed for a long time, it has not been adhered to. And many societies have ignored this even with their rules.

The old laws were about control. If one sex has all of the power, how can a loving relationship that is good for the children occur? Each side has to stand on equal ground.


You can go through many of the abrahamic cultures to see this. Many of the non-Abrahamic cultures had different rules.


?

Is this your issue?

I'm sorry... You will have to elaborate here...

Like making a guy be responsible when his wife says "no?'

Again, you will have to elaborate.

Historically, 'traditional marriage' has NOT implied respect for a partner.


And through this, some are born one way and some another.
Having given birth to four big healthy babies, I think that I am the authority here. There is no such animal as 'traditional natural childbirth.'
Women have been dulling pain by assorted natural methods for centuries..

I am aware of many things in human history. Heck, in human present women are still married off before puberty in some countries. But that only questions the "age" part of the marriage. Up until recently in modern history "marriage" has always meant man and woman. That's the "Traditional" part of it.


No doubt. That is a good thing.
One must also remember that although monogamy, in law or social construct, has existed for a long time, it has not been adhered to. And many societies have ignored this even with their rules.


Again, in modern times, civilized people HAVE had marriage. And usually monogamous. Unless they live in Utah.


The old laws were about control. If one sex has all of the power, how can a loving relationship that is good for the children occur? Each side has to stand on equal ground.

The laws were about control, but the relationship didn't have to be that way. Every relationship needs a leader though. I don't see how having a leader can prevent having a healthy family.

Like making a guy be responsible when his wife says "no?'
Again, you will have to elaborate.


When his wife says no, a guy shouldn't have to rely on a law to make him stop. It is wrong to force sex on anyone that says no.

Historically, 'traditional marriage' has NOT implied respect for a partner.

How far back in history you going?

And through this, some are born one way and some another.
Having given birth to four big healthy babies, I think that I am the authority here. There is no such animal as 'traditional natural childbirth.'
Women have been dulling pain by assorted natural methods for centuries.

I understand that...But THAT ain't "natural childbirth". No meds in "natural childbirth". There is such a thing...I went to the classes with my wife and we looked at each other and said "yeah right". Didn't matter, my 100 lb wife wasn't having my 9 lb boy. Had to have a "C" and it sucked.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

actually, that would be incorrect.



[/quote]
Again, in modern times, civilized people HAVE had marriage. And usually monogamous. Unless they live in Utah.
[/quote]
Please define what you mean by modern times.

That is interesting. I have not found a reason that one of us should be the 'leader' in our relationship. To me a healthy relation ship should be equal.


Like making a guy be responsible when his wife says "no?'
Again, you will have to elaborate.

Quote:

When his wife says no, a guy shouldn't have to rely on a law to make him stop. It is wrong to force sex on anyone that says no.

My point exactly.

Only 35 40 years...

actually that, again would be incorrect.

What women have done for hundereds of yars would not be natural childbirth????