SSM opponents are probably actually multiple groups, not a single, homogeneous group. magellan01, for example, has no connection to any group opposing SSM on religious grounds.
mswas has repeatedly stated that he favors SSM, but that he does not like the arguments employed by some pro-SSM people and, being an argumentative sort, he is battling what he considers to be bad logic.
So you are guilty of making baseless assumptions regarding at least two of your opponents and magellan01 is right that your great, broad tar brush is not appropriate to this thread.
Actually the point was that maswas knew of no society that had any form of sanctioned SSM. There is at least one such society.
All of the evidence presented confirms that the marriage is considered the same as a male-female relationship. If you have other evidence, please present it.
Do you have any evidence to support your, and I quote, “guess”? I have presented evidence from more than one person that they are, in fact, accepted the same way a male-female marriage is accepted. Please present your evidence that this is not so.
This makes absolutely no sense. None. As has been shown, the marriages are not lesbian marriages. They are SSM. As I’m sure many married people in heterosexual marriages will testify, marriage may or may not include sex.
I am not desperate. There is no tone of desperation in my posts. I have presented factual information showing that there is indeed a society the like of which mswas was unaware. If you have something that contradicts what I have cited, other than your guess or your inabililty to believe, please show it.
I agree completely, tomndebb. It is off topic. I was merely trying to inform. Some people have refused to believe the facts offered, even tho they have no contrary evidence to present to back up their refusal.
It does exist, it is a marriage. It’s a fact. That’s all.
My bad. I was confused because I had recently typed something almost identical.
Oh, please. You always try to demonize any group you don’t like—and then in the most extreme way. It’s fucking ridiculous. Why the need to create an us versus them mentality. I would have thought that you, of all posters, would abhor such tactics. ::shrugs::
I love the smell of desperation. And what it does to those who give off its odor. On a scale of 1 to 10, you’re at about 9 trillion. And you’re hanging on to it.
Also, these lesbian relationships of the Nuer are also polygamist. Can you not see that they have no bearing on the word “marriage” in our culture. I call the entire thing bullshit, the product of a biased look at the culture by people with an agenda to make a point. There is no way you can have a marriage, one that resembles anything in western culture or any other, that has any relation to our meaning of the word where the participants can’t have sex under penalty of death.
But you keep hanging your hat on it.
Do you have a hat or something I can throw a few coins in?
Which he responded to in post 243. I’d never heard of the Nuer before this thread, but it’s clear from just the posts here that the marriages in question are not lesbian marriages, they are property and child-raising arrangements between two women which have the same status as opposite-sex marriages.
What is the legal difference between a man and a woman in the United States? What privileges, responsibilities and/or restrictions does one gender legally face that the other does not?
There was a time when women could not vote or possess property, for example. What are the modern equivalents?
What with all the side issues and obvious hijacking going on, may I assume that this question has been answered, and if so, would someone mind pointing out where?
Actually I don’t want to change the definition of marriage. I want to return it to stressing the meaningful part , love, and the quality of commitment, rather than the less meaningful stressing of gender only.
Apart from that I was only taking **your ** club analogy to it’s logical conclusion based on what you said. It’s not my fault your own analogy shows the weakness of your argument. btw, that little fact you mentioned about how we don’t use modifiers for marriage is no a fact at all.
I’ll grant you that for most of our history marriage has meant a man and a woman. What you haven’t established is that tradition should have any weight when it comes to SSM. We have this other interesting tradition in OUR culture. We change and grow as a society based on principles such as justice and equality. My conclusion is that lacking one shred of evidence that SSM will harm hetero couples or society as a whole in any way, I think the more important tradition is standing up for equal rights for our fellow citizens moving society forward.
That shows that sex between people of the same gender is illegal, not that female-female marriages do no exist, nor that they are illegal.
Again: these are not lesbian relationships. Please provide a cite that they are polygamist.
So you are now asserting that E. Kathleen Gough had a pro-SSM agenda when she wrote her paper in 1959? That E. E. Evans-Pritchard had a pro-SSM agenda when he wrote his papers in the 1930s? That Professors Schultz and Lavenda also each have a pro-SSM agenda so great that they would risk their professional reputation as anthropologists to insert it into a research paper about people from NW Africa? Seriously? That’s your contention? Do you have any evidence for that, or is this another one of your guesses?
Again, these marriages are not lesbian relationships. The purpose of the marriage is not to legitimize sexual congress. As has been pointed out many times, marriage does not of necessity include sex, nor procreation, nor the ability (or desire) for either.