[quote=“John_Mace, post:59, topic:609411”]
So what? That doesn’t mean it was the definition of marriage.
:rolleyes:[/QUOTE
Courts enforced the racial laws, it was for all purposes the definition. It was not until after World War II that the courts started to overturn the racial restrictions on marriage.
The bible is quite clear about wives being property, emoticons do not disprove that assertion.
A: There were laws preventing people of different races from marrying.
B: There were/are laws preventing people of the same sex from marrying.
It does not follow that the reason(s) for A & B were the same.
In the first case, it stemmed from the view that blacks were chattel, property, less than human, going back to the 3/5ths compromise in the constitution. In the second case, the reasoning is ingrained in us due to 1) western history, 2) the natural world, 3) the idea that marriage should align with procreation as it generally provides the ideal situation for the raising of children, and 4) primarily due to #3, marriage is a valuable institution to our society. Granted that #4, has only recently been contemplated, as such a notion as SSM was seen as ridiculous on its face, due to 1, 2, and 3.
Nope. In 1940, there were 18 states with no anti-miscegeneation laws. And those 18 states had 52% of the US population. Most people in the US lived in places where the definition of marriage included interracial marriages.
I don’t know whether it does or not, but even if it does, that does nothing to prove your eyerollingly absurd assertion.
By Western History you are speaking of Christian Western History?
You are also forgetting that a black man was considered 3/5ths as far a voting went but women had no vote until the suffrage movement, which by my calculation is 0/5ths.
As to your point 3 and 4, are the unfertile allowed to marry?
Biblical authority is the authority they are claiming, and the rule set they want to force on others who do not hold their views.
Same sex partnerships were allowed in pre-christian roman times as well as in native american populations, the christian mythology is the entirety of their argument.
So why is at irrelevant?
Because there are hundreds of prohibitions in the Bible that most people don’t adhere to. You need to cite that people opposed to SSM also consider their wives to be chattel.
For example, is it your contention that Barack Obama considers Michelle to be his “chattel”?
I said the most vocal against it, not all opposed to SSM.
Evangelicals and the LDS leadership do tend to hold the view that women are to be subservient and obedient to their husbands.
Many evangelical leaders like Marc Driscoll are quite clear that they hold “traditional views” on marriage, to the point of blaming Ted Haggard “French Mistake” on his wives failure to put out enough.
So nice try with the strawman but yes, there are plenty who think of their wives as chattel, I do not know if Mr Obama is one.
But yes, the religious do tend to ignore their own teachings in their own lives, they just like to legislate and force others to follow other random bits of their books.
There is no rational reason to restrict two adults from entering a marriage contract, out side of bigotry and or trying to force your mythology on others.
[quote=“rat_avatar, post:65, topic:609411”]
By Western History you are speaking of Christian Western History?
Both.
I’m not forgetting that, at all. And if this were a thread having to do with voting rights, that would be something worth discussing. But it’s not. I responded to you because you seek to conflate the reasons why different races couldn’t marry and SSM. I just wanted to point out:
A: There were laws preventing people of different races from marrying.
B: There were/are laws preventing people of the same sex from marrying.
It does not follow that the reason(s) for A & B were the same.
Do you agree with that. If not, how? If so, why seek to conflate the to different issues?
Ah, so now you’ve moved the gaol post from “chattel” to “subservient”. I’ll check back after today’s football games and see if they’re back to where you had originally put them.
I hate you burst your snark, magellan, but that doesn’t really make much sense as a response to Jack Batty. He didn’t say “you and I have nothing in common,” he said, “You and I are miles apart on this one.” And you are. Jack’s arguing that gay and straight relationships should both be covered under the same legal term, he just doesn’t care what the term is. You insist that straight relationships should be considered marriage, and gay relationships should be considered anything but marriage. IIRC, you’ve previously stated that you think gays shouldn’t call their relationships “marriages” even informally. That really is an entirely different position than what Jack’s suggesting.
You seem to be making a huge leap in trying to equate some Christian and other religious doctrine that believes that the man is the head of the household and the notion that wives are chattel. PLease.
[quote=“magellan01, post:69, topic:609411”]
I did not make that claim, another poster did, I made the claim that there was federal case law to allow the prohibition of inter-racial marriage.
It is relevant in that it was one of the small number of legal decisions around the qualifications to marry by the federal courts though.
That being said from my standpoint A and B are the same from a humans rights perspective, they are both arbitrary limitations on marriage with little or no rational basis.
As to your argument same sex couples are quite capable of raising a child.
This is almost comically incorrect.
Slaves were considered 3/5ths of a person, of the purposes of congressional representation. Women, and free blacks, were considered a whole person for those purposes. Voting rights were an entirely separate issue.
No, the bible is very clear, women are property.
Many Abrahmic religions do not ascribe to this, but if you are a Biblical literalist like many evangelicals there is no way around it, women are property according to the book.
It’s a good thing all these “Biblical literalists” have you to tell them what to believe!
I hate to burst your bubble that you think you’ve burst my bubble, Miller, but I think you’ve joined the ranks of those with reading comprehension problems in this thread. It seems clear to me that he is NOT in agreement with me—at all. His opinion regarding the term is completely counter to mine, and in alignment with all those giving him a hard time. Which is what I find some entertaining.
That said, if your point was a smaller one…that I may have equated his “You and I are miles apart on this one.” with, as you offer, “you and I have nothing in common”, I might grant you that. But I don’t see how that matters. It doesn’t change his stance or mine. Or make the jackal-like pawing at him any less entertaining.
Or is there some other point you were trying to make?
Hah, this is funny, I assumed my Wyoming history class in High school was correct 
We were taught that the reason Wyoming was the first to give women the right to vote was that the state did not have enough votes to be a state otherwise.
So I assumed that gender had played a roll in how the house was apportioned but it did not, so I retract that part of my claim.
Women were still treated as property in this country unfortunately.
I really wouldn’t give a hoot what they believe, if they want to force their beliefs on others through laws it is their job to defend them.
So why should same sex marriage be illegal in your mind, or are you unwilling to share those views?
I still make the claim, that outside of bigotry and or religion there is no reason to disallow same sex marriage, and in this country, in theory religion is not a reason.
First, I didn’t say you made the “claim”. I pointed to lending credence to that claim by conflating the two issues. You seem to be of the mind that the reason for A (inter-racial marriage) has something to do with the reason for B (single-sex unions). Is that not your position?
And just because A & B may be discussed in the terms of human rights, that does not mean that those reasons have anything to do with each other. I laid the reasons out for you. Surely you noticed that the reasons are not the same.
I bring this up because it comes up quite often and I think it’s just a lazy way to argue for SSM (for which I think there are strong arguments, by the way). It is also an insult to those who suffered the unique, absolute indignity of chattel slavery and a slap in the face to logic and fair debate. People who do this seek to clench onto the emotional coattails of the country’s ugly history of slavery and hope no one notices. Sorry.
Also, your claiming that the distinction as to who can marry are “arbitrary” is just absurd.