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.

 

Why is same-sex marriage wrong?

page: 12
11
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Darth_Prime

Subsequently when parental androgens levels are within healthy metrics homosexuality, ambiguous genitalia, transgender, ect are prevented.

As shown in the papers I cited in older posts.
edit on 7-7-2015 by alphastrike101 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: alphastrike101

That wasn't my point though. do you assume that everyone is supposed to be born straight? maybe Heterosexuals are the defect



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 05:10 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Darth_Prime

Healty levels of parental androgens prevent defects. And that when levels are out of balance all kinds of defects can occur and the levels of defects can vary based on how out of balance the androgens are.

This conclusion was not derived from someone looking to prevent homosexuality. It was found when trying to prevent ambiguous genitalia that would need corrective surgery. Researchers found that subsequently while preventing that defect homosexuality was also prevented.

Like most scientific breakthroughs it was an "thats odd" moment rather thank an "ah ha" moment.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: alphastrike101

So the conclusion is that Heterosexuality may be a defect



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   

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.


You might want to watch "wag the dog."

I have no high horse and it sucks often, but then I only entertain pneumatically experienced females. I think this virtual reality construct we operate within is pretty crazy, but that being the case it doesn't mean that my programming dictates that I should go along with the insanity.

After all, there I'd no virtue in being sane in an insane society.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   

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



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
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
edit on 7-7-2015 by Darth_Prime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   

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


Except for the simple fact that same sex marriages have been performed at least since ancient Mesopotamia as we have written records from the time period discussing the equities of a Male-Female v. Male-Male marriages. Likewise in Ancient Greece, China, Rome and Chritianity likewise performed same sex marriages until at least the 8th century. This includes the same sex marriage of two Saints... Sergius and Bachus in the 4th century. Emperor Nero married at least 2 men, 13 of the first 14 Roman Emperors were either BiSexual or Gay. Please look up Adelphopoiesis. Your continued insistence that marriage had been defined as solely between a man and woman for all of recorded history is just plain wrong.
edit on 7-7-2015 by Peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: alphastrike101

So the conclusion is that Heterosexuality may be a defect


Healthy metrics of parental androgens produced heterosexuality with no ambiguous genitalia.

unhealthy levels produced defects of various effect.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 07:42 PM
link   
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?



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   

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?



It's got nothing to do with anything. After looking at the "citations" it's all based on unproven epigenetic hupotheses so I'm not sure where the proof is on any of it. The whole thing is pseudoscience bull s# that rationalizes the thought process that homosexuality is a disorder. The entire notion is appallingly insulting to reason.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Peter vlar

Church!

People find different things to confirm their views so they don't have to take responsibility for them



edit on 7-7-2015 by Darth_Prime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   

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.


No.

Not everyone diagnosed with CAH is homosexual. Same as not every homosexual has CAH.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   

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


Marriage, with exception of one alleged example has always been defined as between a man and a woman (or multiple women). So where's this earth shattering redefinition, I don't see it, never heard of it.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: TechUnique


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.

In my opinion of course. Thank you TechUnique for the words of our God. Gay marriage is nothing new and it will be here long after we are all gone. You can see by ATS that almost all hate us with a passion and that is also nothing new. You nor I can stop the great disbelief in God.

Five lawyers in black robes told the nation what to honor. Not one of these sheep were given the right to cast a vote on this matter or to voice their opinion through their representatives and they are elated that they were forced to not be given that constitutional right of a vote. They cheer when the politicians and lawyers take them for a ride and tell them to shut up and be glad they think for you. Yep, they got taken again and they love it.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

Quick Question.. just throwing it out there but people seem not to always answer me


What if Religion was banned, Illegal and the States disallowed you to practice any Religion, churches would close.. of course you could in the privacy of your own home, but any public worship or signs of worship Crosses, Jewelry,Tattoos were Illegal and subject to jail etc

But in the constitution Religion was protected, just the states were not upholding the constitution so the Supreme Court ruled that Religion is Free to practice.. would you defend their actions? would you welcome the ruling?

or would you be upset the 5 People in black robes ruled in favor of a constitution that is supposed to keep and protect our freedoms allegedly



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Mesopotamia, the oldest known civilization, treated same-sex marriage the same as opposite-sex marriage and didn't even distinguish between them. They were seen as equal.

There is also Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep, two men that were married to each other and were buried together after their deaths in Egypt. They were often depicted touching nose to nose, the Egyptian representation of kissing.

First Nations of North America, prior to colonization, regularly practiced same sex marriages.

Your turn. You prove to me that same-sex unions never existed in history and that marriage only ever existed between a man and a woman.



new topics




 
11
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join