Because you are excluding a LARGE portion of human history and living arrangements.


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.

With all due respect, if you 'lead,' then she must 'follow.' That does not imply an equal relationship.

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.


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.

Well, you'll never include everybody....

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.

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.

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.


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?

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

Natural Childbirth. The center of discussion on a thread about "Traditional Marriage".

Oh. Fxashun is here. That explains everything.

This focus seems trivial compared to other issues. Like if a child were born by Caesarian, does that automatically negate certain rights of inheritance between mother/father and child?

While some may consider "traditional marriage" to be superior, that's not really an issue.
Some people consider whites superior to blacks and christians superior to jews. Perhaps some statistical data can be offered to substantiate those claims.

But regardless, the two different groups are TREATED equally despite any individual beliefs on superiority.

If a "traditional marriage" is considered to be "man is the head of the household", we don't disregard the marital rights of couples who don't have man as the "head of the household". And vice versa.

Cause quite frankly, there is no REAL "traditional marriage". Even the modern expectations of "traditional marriage" are in flux compared to how long the concept has existed.
Perhaps a more accurate description would be "ideal marriage", because it involves some people's IDEALS as to what a "marriage" should be...
"Tradition" just sounds better for propaganda purposes, just like "attacking traditional marriage" sounds more like a rallying cry than "wanting to ensure that only one ideal of marriage is recognized"...

True. But if you simply exclude the portions of societies that do not fit your picture, then you are creating an unrealistic picture.

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.


You are most certainly welcome to explain yourself. How does one lead without another (or others) following?

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.

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?

In your case, I think you might need to just keep a check on your own words..And make sure you know what you are talking about in the first place. Then most of our problems will take care of themselves. My most favoritest pixie.

My discipline is off the hook...It seems others can't control themselves around me though.

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

Your discipline is adequate and I have no doubt that is only because you have been warned about losing it. I suggest you lose the thinly veiled smart-ass insults like the one I bolded above.

And in case you are wondering...no, you have no lee-way here and yes, I am going light on others when they choose to engage you.

Have fun.

What some attention mongering activist does as some kind of statement in Europe has zero to do with the gay marriage debate in America. Did you have a point with this?

Actually, you are a bit overly sensitive on that one Garbage Dude...I call her that because she is a tiny woman...A pixie. And she also has a Pixie hair cut. That wasn't an insult at all. Sorry to disappoint you, but that warning was uncalled for. She IS my favoritest Pixie. And if I did offend her, I apologize, but I've called her that before and she didn't seem to mind.

And I am still curious what posts you read that made you so contemptuous toward me. Why don't you kick me a PM and we can work this out...Or if you just like being contemptuous, never mind, just be contemptuous if that's your "thing".

__________________
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 thought we were talking about "Traditional Marriage" not "Gay Marriage". And my point was that we have gone from observing the incidences of penguins, bonobos, and chimps, to the Greeks who practiced all kinds of illicit behavior to try and make a case that "Traditional marriage" is a flawed concept. I was only pointing out that left to individuals, ANYTHING is possible. THAT was my point.

__________________
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 wasn't intending to bring this up, and certainly not publicly, but since someone else did...

For the record, when you refer to me in a way that minimizes me, I find it disrespectful and offensive. When you minimize my opinions or arguments by calling me "cute," it sends the message that you consider me to be inferior to you.

Before you roll your eyes and say "yeah, right," consider that a neutral third party, IP, a person I have never spoken with, quickly picked up on it independently. (IP, thank you for defending me.)

You should not assume that the lack of direct negative feedback from me on your comments means that I approve of or enjoy them. If I stopped to write you a private note every time you said something to or about me that I found disrespectful, so we could discuss it in detail, I wouldn't have much time left to do anything else on this forum.

I regret making my picture and some personal details available to you, because it appears that has permanently colored your view of me. Your perceptions of my values, beliefs, and opinions, the ONLY things I am here to talk about, have clearly been negatively affected by your knowledge of my physical appearance, and the fact that I am gay.

I have to wonder how differently you would treat me if I espoused the exact same views, but you thought I was a 40 year old, fat, balding, straight male.