It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: bobs_uruncle
I remember in an English class a professor writing a quote by King James II when describing a newly renovated cathedral.
"The cathedral is amusing, awful and artificial."
She asked the class what we thought he meant by that. The replies were about the same across the board; He didn't like it, thought it was terrible, etc etc. She then told us all of us were wrong.
In 17th Century English amusing meant riveting (muse being the core part of the word); awful meant awesome or full of awe, and artificial meant progressive and artistic (especially in the time it was written, on the verge of the industrial revolution).
So, as you can see, the English language is ever changing. If every word kept its original definition, you wouldn't have people out there with English degrees that specialized in Olde English because it takes more than 4 years to learn to read Chaucer unabridged.
That's all well and good, gave you star as brought interesting information, but has marriage or it's definition changed, from even long before then? Not that I am aware of.
Cheers - Dave
1. Arranged alliances
Marriage is a truly ancient institution that predates recorded history. But early marriage was seen as a strategic alliance between families, with the youngsters often having no say in the matter. In some cultures, parents even married one child to the spirit of a deceased child in order to strengthen familial bonds, Coontz said.
3. Polygamy preferred
Monogamy may seem central to marriage now, but in fact, polygamy was common throughout history. From Jacob, to Kings David and Solomon, Biblical men often had anywhere from two to thousands of wives. (Of course, though polygamy may have been an ideal that high-status men aspired to, for purely mathematical reasons most men likely had at most one wife). In a few cultures, one woman married multiple men, and there have even been some rare instances of group marriages.
7. State or church?
Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.
9. Love matches
By about 250 years ago, the notion of love matches gained traction, Coontz said, meaning marriage was based on love and possibly sexual desire. But mutual attraction in marriage wasn't important until about a century ago. In fact, in Victorian England, many held that women didn't have strong sexual urges at all, Coontz said.
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: bobs_uruncle
Good to know you speak for most people and know what they think. Maybe you should go into law enforcement and become a detective, you know, solve all those cold cases, maybe figure out where a million children go missing a year. Something productive.
Cheers - Dave
Dave. Seriously. GOOD GAWD............
and you all wonder why you're losing ground.
Watch the movie The Birdcage. Get off your G-D high horse. And RELAX.
If that movie doesn't make you laugh at the absurdity of modern society, then nothing will. And if nothing will make you laugh, well, then -
it must suck to be you.
originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: bobs_uruncle
I remember in an English class a professor writing a quote by King James II when describing a newly renovated cathedral.
"The cathedral is amusing, awful and artificial."
She asked the class what we thought he meant by that. The replies were about the same across the board; He didn't like it, thought it was terrible, etc etc. She then told us all of us were wrong.
In 17th Century English amusing meant riveting (muse being the core part of the word); awful meant awesome or full of awe, and artificial meant progressive and artistic (especially in the time it was written, on the verge of the industrial revolution).
So, as you can see, the English language is ever changing. If every word kept its original definition, you wouldn't have people out there with English degrees that specialized in Olde English because it takes more than 4 years to learn to read Chaucer unabridged.
That's all well and good, gave you star as brought interesting information, but has marriage or it's definition changed, from even long before then? Not that I am aware of.
Cheers - Dave
The short and sweet answer is YES, MANY TIMES. Even presently, the concept of marriage is not shared universally across the world.
History of Marriage: 13 Surprising Facts
1. Arranged alliances
Marriage is a truly ancient institution that predates recorded history. But early marriage was seen as a strategic alliance between families, with the youngsters often having no say in the matter. In some cultures, parents even married one child to the spirit of a deceased child in order to strengthen familial bonds, Coontz said.
3. Polygamy preferred
Monogamy may seem central to marriage now, but in fact, polygamy was common throughout history. From Jacob, to Kings David and Solomon, Biblical men often had anywhere from two to thousands of wives. (Of course, though polygamy may have been an ideal that high-status men aspired to, for purely mathematical reasons most men likely had at most one wife). In a few cultures, one woman married multiple men, and there have even been some rare instances of group marriages.
7. State or church?
Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.
9. Love matches
By about 250 years ago, the notion of love matches gained traction, Coontz said, meaning marriage was based on love and possibly sexual desire. But mutual attraction in marriage wasn't important until about a century ago. In fact, in Victorian England, many held that women didn't have strong sexual urges at all, Coontz said.
As you can see the attitudes and definition of marriage has indeed changed and has never remained consistent.
This chart explains all the forms of marriage that exist in the Bible
Spoiler alert: Majority of them are polygamist.
Now, if you look at the discipline of Cultural Anthropology, we have a series of marriage definitions and classifications for past and present times.
Monogamous Marriage: Marriage exclusive to two people
Polygamy Marriage: Marriage with multiple partners (non-gender specific)
Polygyny Marriage: Marriage where a man has multiple wives
Polyandry Marriage: Marriage where a woman has multiple husbands
Polygyandry Marriage: A group marriage where everyone has multiple husbands and wives (lesser known and practiced but still exists)
The Nuer Clan of Egypt have a long standing tradition that if a woman is found to be barren, she is declared an honorary man and is allowed to take a wife. She selects a sperm donor from the clan to impregnate her wife. The child is declared the progeny of the two women and they become a family unit.
originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: bobs_uruncle
I remember in an English class a professor writing a quote by King James II when describing a newly renovated cathedral.
"The cathedral is amusing, awful and artificial."
She asked the class what we thought he meant by that. The replies were about the same across the board; He didn't like it, thought it was terrible, etc etc. She then told us all of us were wrong.
In 17th Century English amusing meant riveting (muse being the core part of the word); awful meant awesome or full of awe, and artificial meant progressive and artistic (especially in the time it was written, on the verge of the industrial revolution).
So, as you can see, the English language is ever changing. If every word kept its original definition, you wouldn't have people out there with English degrees that specialized in Olde English because it takes more than 4 years to learn to read Chaucer unabridged.
That's all well and good, gave you star as brought interesting information, but has marriage or it's definition changed, from even long before then? Not that I am aware of.
Cheers - Dave
The short and sweet answer is YES, MANY TIMES. Even presently, the concept of marriage is not shared universally across the world.
History of Marriage: 13 Surprising Facts
1. Arranged alliances
Marriage is a truly ancient institution that predates recorded history. But early marriage was seen as a strategic alliance between families, with the youngsters often having no say in the matter. In some cultures, parents even married one child to the spirit of a deceased child in order to strengthen familial bonds, Coontz said.
3. Polygamy preferred
Monogamy may seem central to marriage now, but in fact, polygamy was common throughout history. From Jacob, to Kings David and Solomon, Biblical men often had anywhere from two to thousands of wives. (Of course, though polygamy may have been an ideal that high-status men aspired to, for purely mathematical reasons most men likely had at most one wife). In a few cultures, one woman married multiple men, and there have even been some rare instances of group marriages.
7. State or church?
Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.
9. Love matches
By about 250 years ago, the notion of love matches gained traction, Coontz said, meaning marriage was based on love and possibly sexual desire. But mutual attraction in marriage wasn't important until about a century ago. In fact, in Victorian England, many held that women didn't have strong sexual urges at all, Coontz said.
As you can see the attitudes and definition of marriage has indeed changed and has never remained consistent.
This chart explains all the forms of marriage that exist in the Bible
Spoiler alert: Majority of them are polygamist.
Now, if you look at the discipline of Cultural Anthropology, we have a series of marriage definitions and classifications for past and present times.
Monogamous Marriage: Marriage exclusive to two people
Polygamy Marriage: Marriage with multiple partners (non-gender specific)
Polygyny Marriage: Marriage where a man has multiple wives
Polyandry Marriage: Marriage where a woman has multiple husbands
Polygyandry Marriage: A group marriage where everyone has multiple husbands and wives (lesser known and practiced but still exists)
The Nuer Clan of Egypt have a long standing tradition that if a woman is found to be barren, she is declared an honorary man and is allowed to take a wife. She selects a sperm donor from the clan to impregnate her wife. The child is declared the progeny of the two women and they become a family unit.
Hmmm.... Always man and wooman or man and multiple woomans. I didn't see anything about Bruce and Doug or Sheela and Debbie (except the Nuer clan reference)?
Pay the church, pay the state, it's all about the Benjamin's.
Cheers - Dave
originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: alphastrike101
So the conclusion is that Heterosexuality may be a defect
originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: alphastrike101
Are you someone with CAH? Do you know of anybody personally with CAH?
If you answered "no" to either one, you don't know squat about it or its effects no matter how many papers you cite. It is far different living it.
originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: alphastrike101
What does ambiguous genitalia. have to do with it.. all this time people thought homosexuality was a Disorder, and it could be Heterosexuality is the Defect right?
originally posted by: alphastrike101
originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: alphastrike101
Are you someone with CAH? Do you know of anybody personally with CAH?
If you answered "no" to either one, you don't know squat about it or its effects no matter how many papers you cite. It is far different living it.
Non sequitur.
originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: bobs_uruncle
Your argument was that we forced the Redefinition of Marriage, when it has been proven to be redefined multiple times
Hopefully the fact that my feelings about this topic come only from a place of love is evident in this video. I don't hate anyone for any reason and I wish only that people come to accept God for who and what he is.