Total Posts:88|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How do you define marriage?

imabench
Posts: 21,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2012 3:01:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I define marriage as one person saying to another person "Ill bet half my sh*t that the two of us can live together til we die and not hate each other by then"

How do you define marriage?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2012 4:43:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A formalized system for transferring property (including women) between and within families usually given ritualistic trappings.

Marrying someone you love originated as an idea in the 12th century. The first known marriage certificate was simply an exchange of a thirteen year old girl for several cows.

But god forbid we desecrate such a sacred institution.
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2012 6:58:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2012 4:43:34 PM, Wnope wrote:
A formalized system for transferring property (including women) between and within families usually given ritualistic trappings.

Marrying someone you love originated as an idea in the 12th century. The first known marriage certificate was simply an exchange of a thirteen year old girl for several cows.

But god forbid we desecrate such a sacred institution.

I like how you apply today's standards to 700 years ago. People only lived to be maybe 30, 700 years ago. That 13 year old girl was in her late 30's by today's standards. Once a girl had her first period she was considered a grown woman ready to be married and have children.
Things were not the same as they were 700 years ago. Nearly all marriages were "arranged". They were "arranged" because there was no time to fuss about with such nonsense as "Do I really love him" like today.Think of how stupid you were at 13. The decision as to who she would marry was made by an elder because they weren't stupid and new who would and who wouldn't be able to provide for her.
A woman had very little time to pass on the seed of the next generation and teach her children how to survive. It was survival of the fittest. That 13 year old girl was lucky to be wanted by someone and value was placed on her very existence. It is because of the institution of marriage that society has come so far.
If the institution of marriage did not exist back then as it did, it is unlikely you would have ever been born. The institution of marriage was the greatest thing that happened to women back then. It prevented the wholesale rape of women and them being left to raise children all on their own with no help from the father/father's all over the world. Context is everything.
With that being said, the institution of marriage still to this very day serves the same purpose, all be it things as far as modern conveniences have given women the choice in "who she marries". But take away all modern conveniences and it's right back to 700 years ago over night. You are soft and would never survive without all your modern luxuries. That is why you view history with the context of today's standards. You've never known anything but the cushy pampered life. Oh and living in the low rent district with running water, electricity and collecting welfare to pay for your rent and groceries is tantamount to living like royalty 700 years ago.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2012 7:08:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The only reason men are expected to provide for children that they conceive today is because of the institution of marriage 2000 years ago. The institution of marriage was created primarily for this purpose alone. You were taught that a man should take responsibility because of the institution of marriage. It wasn't because someone said 2000 years ago "You know, you ought to help feed and cloth that child" Society recognized the need for the institution of married to keep civilization civil.

Ya so go ahead and desicrate it. Who needs it.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
OllerupMand
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2012 7:25:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The holy union betwen either a man and a woman, a man and a man or a woman and a woman, just as Thor thought us.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 12:49:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
When you trade in a real flower for a plastic one, that's marriage.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
imabench
Posts: 21,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 1:41:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2012 6:58:37 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 8/24/2012 4:43:34 PM, Wnope wrote:
A formalized system for transferring property (including women) between and within families usually given ritualistic trappings.

Marrying someone you love originated as an idea in the 12th century. The first known marriage certificate was simply an exchange of a thirteen year old girl for several cows.

But god forbid we desecrate such a sacred institution.

I like how you apply today's standards to 700 years ago. People only lived to be maybe 30, 700 years ago. That 13 year old girl was in her late 30's by today's standards. Once a girl had her first period she was considered a grown woman ready to be married and have children.

She was considered ready to be married by everyone BUT the person who matters, the actual girl.

Things were not the same as they were 700 years ago. Nearly all marriages were "arranged". They were "arranged" because there was no time to fuss about with such nonsense as "Do I really love him" like today.

Do you think arranged marriages happened because girls had cold feet? Marriages back then werent meant to solidify love it was meant to be a property transaction between the father of the girl and the man marrying her. A father didnt arrange a marriage because he thought it was best for his daughter it was arranged so that he could give away his daughter in exchange for three goats and a chicken.

Think of how stupid you were at 13. The decision as to who she would marry was made by an elder because they weren't stupid and new who would and who wouldn't be able to provide for her.

An elder who was more interested in what they would get in exchange from the groom's family (usually money or some kind of resources)

A woman had very little time to pass on the seed of the next generation and teach her children how to survive. It was survival of the fittest. That 13 year old girl was lucky to be wanted by someone and value was placed on her very existence. It is because of the institution of marriage that society has come so far.

An institution built off of selling off your daughter to the highest bidder.

The institution of marriage was the greatest thing that happened to women back then.

Youre kidding right?

It prevented the wholesale rape of women and them being left to raise children all on their own with no help from the father/father's all over the world. Context is everything.

They were selling daughters INTO rape, you think any girl wants to raise children at the age of 13? On the other hand the daughters father didnt help his daughter raise children at all, the girl was ALWAYS forced to raise them on her own.

With that being said, the institution of marriage still to this very day serves the same purpose, all be it things as far as modern conveniences have given women the choice in "who she marries". But take away all modern conveniences and it's right back to 700 years ago over night.

Too bad it only took 700 years for parents to get their sh*t together

You are soft and would never survive without all your modern luxuries. That is why you view history with the context of today's standards. You've never known anything but the cushy pampered life. Oh and living in the low rent district with running water, electricity and collecting welfare to pay for your rent and groceries is tantamount to living like royalty 700 years ago.

This sounds more like an old geezers rant then an actual argument.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 2:06:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2012 7:08:54 PM, sadolite wrote:
The only reason men are expected to provide for children that they conceive today is because of the institution of marriage 2000 years ago. The institution of marriage was created primarily for this purpose alone. You were taught that a man should take responsibility because of the institution of marriage. It wasn't because someone said 2000 years ago "You know, you ought to help feed and cloth that child" Society recognized the need for the institution of married to keep civilization civil.

Ya so go ahead and desicrate it. Who needs it.

Uh...marriage is much, much older than 2,000 years. It existed in asia, the middle east, and africa long before that.

Yet you act as though 0 A.D. marked some definitive change in how the world conceptualizes marriage.

You win the Ignorant Eurocentric of the Month award.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 2:07:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2012 3:26:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The holy union of one man and one woman, as God intended.

So God would never condone marriage between one man and several women?
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 2:17:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 2:07:19 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/24/2012 3:26:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The holy union of one man and one woman, as God intended.

So God would never condone marriage between one man and several women?

A just God would.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 2:18:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2012 6:58:37 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 8/24/2012 4:43:34 PM, Wnope wrote:
A formalized system for transferring property (including women) between and within families usually given ritualistic trappings.

Marrying someone you love originated as an idea in the 12th century. The first known marriage certificate was simply an exchange of a thirteen year old girl for several cows.

But god forbid we desecrate such a sacred institution.

I like how you apply today's standards to 700 years ago. People only lived to be maybe 30, 700 years ago. That 13 year old girl was in her late 30's by today's standards. Once a girl had her first period she was considered a grown woman ready to be married and have children.
Things were not the same as they were 700 years ago. Nearly all marriages were "arranged". They were "arranged" because there was no time to fuss about with such nonsense as "Do I really love him" like today.Think of how stupid you were at 13. The decision as to who she would marry was made by an elder because they weren't stupid and new who would and who wouldn't be able to provide for her.
A woman had very little time to pass on the seed of the next generation and teach her children how to survive. It was survival of the fittest. That 13 year old girl was lucky to be wanted by someone and value was placed on her very existence. It is because of the institution of marriage that society has come so far.
If the institution of marriage did not exist back then as it did, it is unlikely you would have ever been born. The institution of marriage was the greatest thing that happened to women back then. It prevented the wholesale rape of women and them being left to raise children all on their own with no help from the father/father's all over the world. Context is everything.
With that being said, the institution of marriage still to this very day serves the same purpose, all be it things as far as modern conveniences have given women the choice in "who she marries". But take away all modern conveniences and it's right back to 700 years ago over night. You are soft and would never survive without all your modern luxuries. That is why you view history with the context of today's standards. You've never known anything but the cushy pampered life. Oh and living in the low rent district with running water, electricity and collecting welfare to pay for your rent and groceries is tantamount to living like royalty 700 years ago.

So, you agree with me that marriage originated as a means of persons other than the bride deciding how to transfer property (including the bride) between or within families.

The only thing you seem to be arguing is that it was a historically appropriate institution, namely because the women weren't mentally capable of making the decisions themselves.

I do like how you completely ignore the political and economic side of marriage, how parents used arranged marriages as bargaining chips to divide/combine land or cement inter-family loyalties.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 3:14:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I believe a marriage is a sacred union between a penis and a vagina.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 8:02:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 2:18:46 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/24/2012 6:58:37 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 8/24/2012 4:43:34 PM, Wnope wrote:
A formalized system for transferring property (including women) between and within families usually given ritualistic trappings.

Marrying someone you love originated as an idea in the 12th century. The first known marriage certificate was simply an exchange of a thirteen year old girl for several cows.

But god forbid we desecrate such a sacred institution.

I like how you apply today's standards to 700 years ago. People only lived to be maybe 30, 700 years ago. That 13 year old girl was in her late 30's by today's standards. Once a girl had her first period she was considered a grown woman ready to be married and have children.
Things were not the same as they were 700 years ago. Nearly all marriages were "arranged". They were "arranged" because there was no time to fuss about with such nonsense as "Do I really love him" like today.Think of how stupid you were at 13. The decision as to who she would marry was made by an elder because they weren't stupid and new who would and who wouldn't be able to provide for her.
A woman had very little time to pass on the seed of the next generation and teach her children how to survive. It was survival of the fittest. That 13 year old girl was lucky to be wanted by someone and value was placed on her very existence. It is because of the institution of marriage that society has come so far.
If the institution of marriage did not exist back then as it did, it is unlikely you would have ever been born. The institution of marriage was the greatest thing that happened to women back then. It prevented the wholesale rape of women and them being left to raise children all on their own with no help from the father/father's all over the world. Context is everything.
With that being said, the institution of marriage still to this very day serves the same purpose, all be it things as far as modern conveniences have given women the choice in "who she marries". But take away all modern conveniences and it's right back to 700 years ago over night. You are soft and would never survive without all your modern luxuries. That is why you view history with the context of today's standards. You've never known anything but the cushy pampered life. Oh and living in the low rent district with running water, electricity and collecting welfare to pay for your rent and groceries is tantamount to living like royalty 700 years ago.

So, you agree with me that marriage originated as a means of persons other than the bride deciding how to transfer property (including the bride) between or within families.

The only thing you seem to be arguing is that it was a historically appropriate institution, namely because the women weren't mentally capable of making the decisions themselves.

I do like how you completely ignore the political and economic side of marriage, how parents used arranged marriages as bargaining chips to divide/combine land or cement inter-family loyalties.

Ya marriage was created for bargaining purposes. Never mind you will never get it. You live in a sheltered world and have no concept of true reality. You think all the modern conveniences of life apply. They don't. With out them your arguments crumble. The institution of marriage was created to promote society and protect women. . You apply modern day economics to 700 years ago. Nothing is the same as it was 700 years ago. You could not stomach life 700 years ago. That is why you attempt to make the argument that marriage was just a bargaining tool and nothing more . Your ignorance of history and the way life was 700 years ago is blatantly obvious. It is intellectually angering to read what you write. You are A typical of all youth today. You think you know something that 100 generations before you didn't when it comes to social issues. Nothing you have thaught of when it comes to marriage hasn't already been said. Marriage is still here and it will be here when you are dead and gone. That has been true for every person just like you before you. 2000 years of history has proven them wrong and it will prove you wrong. But you go ahead and think you are being intellectually superior to every generation before you when it comes to the purpose of marriage and it's "non" importance to holding society together. You also don't address half of my points. Like why you believe a man should take responsibility for conceiving a child being the major one. If in fact you do believe that. I am inclined to believe you think the govt should do that and you should be able to screw as many woman and father as many children you want and take no responsibility for your actions at all. And If not Why? Why shouldn't you be able to just screw and father children with impunity. It's no skin off your nose you don't have to take care of the child.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
imabench
Posts: 21,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 11:58:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 11:56:58 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/25/2012 2:07:19 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/24/2012 3:26:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The holy union of one man and one woman, as God intended.

So God would never condone marriage between one man and several women?

Only if I'm doing it.

100 man points to you
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Clash
Posts: 220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 12:09:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together. The spouses seal (consummate) and renew their union by conjugal acts—acts that constitute the behavioral part of the process of reproduction, thus uniting them as a reproductive unit. Marriage is valuable in itself, but its inherent orientation to the bearing and rearing of children contributes to its distinctive structure, including norms of monogamy and fidelity. This link to the welfare of children also helps explain why marriage is important to the common good and why the state should recognize and regulate it." - Girgis, George and Anderson, authors of "What is Marriage?"

This.
Jellyfish
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 3:11:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2012 3:01:13 PM, imabench wrote:
I define marriage as one person saying to another person "Ill bet half my sh*t that the two of us can live together til we die and not hate each other by then"

How do you define marriage?

There are three types of marriage: legal, personal, and religious.

The marriage between two people could be a combination of the three.

Legal marriage is defined by the government and is to get the legal benefits and status. (i.e. tax breaks)

Personal marriage is the promise and joining between two or more people saying they are one and will be together for the rest of their lives.

Religious marriage is the joining of two people by one or more gods or goddesses depending on their specific religion.
All I got is nothing but a little bit of love
Gonna give it to the people then they'll see
Then they'll see
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 12:32:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 8:02:41 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 8/25/2012 2:18:46 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/24/2012 6:58:37 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 8/24/2012 4:43:34 PM, Wnope wrote:
A formalized system for transferring property (including women) between and within families usually given ritualistic trappings.

Marrying someone you love originated as an idea in the 12th century. The first known marriage certificate was simply an exchange of a thirteen year old girl for several cows.

But god forbid we desecrate such a sacred institution.

I like how you apply today's standards to 700 years ago. People only lived to be maybe 30, 700 years ago. That 13 year old girl was in her late 30's by today's standards. Once a girl had her first period she was considered a grown woman ready to be married and have children.
Things were not the same as they were 700 years ago. Nearly all marriages were "arranged". They were "arranged" because there was no time to fuss about with such nonsense as "Do I really love him" like today.Think of how stupid you were at 13. The decision as to who she would marry was made by an elder because they weren't stupid and new who would and who wouldn't be able to provide for her.
A woman had very little time to pass on the seed of the next generation and teach her children how to survive. It was survival of the fittest. That 13 year old girl was lucky to be wanted by someone and value was placed on her very existence. It is because of the institution of marriage that society has come so far.
If the institution of marriage did not exist back then as it did, it is unlikely you would have ever been born. The institution of marriage was the greatest thing that happened to women back then. It prevented the wholesale rape of women and them being left to raise children all on their own with no help from the father/father's all over the world. Context is everything.
With that being said, the institution of marriage still to this very day serves the same purpose, all be it things as far as modern conveniences have given women the choice in "who she marries". But take away all modern conveniences and it's right back to 700 years ago over night. You are soft and would never survive without all your modern luxuries. That is why you view history with the context of today's standards. You've never known anything but the cushy pampered life. Oh and living in the low rent district with running water, electricity and collecting welfare to pay for your rent and groceries is tantamount to living like royalty 700 years ago.

So, you agree with me that marriage originated as a means of persons other than the bride deciding how to transfer property (including the bride) between or within families.

The only thing you seem to be arguing is that it was a historically appropriate institution, namely because the women weren't mentally capable of making the decisions themselves.

I do like how you completely ignore the political and economic side of marriage, how parents used arranged marriages as bargaining chips to divide/combine land or cement inter-family loyalties.

Ya marriage was created for bargaining purposes. Never mind you will never get it. You live in a sheltered world and have no concept of true reality. You think all the modern conveniences of life apply. They don't. With out them your arguments crumble. The institution of marriage was created to promote society and protect women. . You apply modern day economics to 700 years ago. Nothing is the same as it was 700 years ago. You could not stomach life 700 years ago. That is why you attempt to make the argument that marriage was just a bargaining tool and nothing more . Your ignorance of history and the way life was 700 years ago is blatantly obvious. It is intellectually angering to read what you write. You are A typical of all youth today. You think you know something that 100 generations before you didn't when it comes to social issues. Nothing you have thaught of when it comes to marriage hasn't already been said. Marriage is still here and it will be here when you are dead and gone. That has been true for every person just like you before you. 2000 years of history has proven them wrong and it will prove you wrong. But you go ahead and think you are being intellectually superior to every generation before you when it comes to the purpose of marriage and it's "non" importance to holding society together. You also don't address half of my points. Like why you believe a man should take responsibility for conceiving a child being the major one. If in fact you do believe that. I am inclined to believe you think the govt should do that and you should be able to screw as many woman and father as many children you want and take no responsibility for your actions at all. And If not Why? Why shouldn't you be able to just screw and father children with impunity. It's no skin off your nose you don't have to take care of the child.

You do realize that unless you are several hundred years old, you grew up with comparatively identical "modern conveniences" to myself versus someone in the 1200s. So please, drop the "these young 'uns" act as though your age has some relevance.

"Bargaining" was a major part of survival back then, so it's not trivial to say that marriage is a form of bargaining. It's factually correct.

Again, you don't disagree with me, you just think I'm trivializing it by calling it bargaining.

I find it fascinating that you keep citing 1200 as the date when there were no modern conveniences which make "marriage for love" allowable, yet 1200 is precisely the era when the Troubadors popularized the concept of marriage based on love.

Even more amusing is you citing 2,000 years as a significant date for the concept of marriage. It adds that nice stench of eurocentrism to your naive idealization of the institution of marriage.
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 9:59:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You still don't get it. Bargaining? What you are so ignorantly referring to is called a "dowry" What you think is a right is not. Marriage is a privilege. The only difference between now and 700 years ago is that you don't have to prove your worth anymore to be married. Modern conveniences have made it possible to just get married on a whim. But make no mistake, that is all predicated on the fact that you are relying on someone else to provide those convinces to you. Which by the way can all be turned off at the flick of a switch. Are you so naive as to think all the convinces you have are going to last forever? Mother nature or some raving lunatic will wipe them all out over night. This isn't a matter of "if" it is a matter of "when|.
700 years ago you had to prove your worth and ability to support a wife and children. You had to put up insurance and prove you could "bring home the bacon." So yes animals were used as dowry's to prove ones worth. You of course look at animals from a 21st century point of view which makes you look all the more ignorant. Your last response was to argue samantics over "dates". As if they are at all relevant to the purpose of marriage. How completely fickle. And last but not least please address why a man should or should not provide for children he conceives and where you get your philosophy for this position. I have addressed all your points that have relevance to the purpose of marriage and some that don't.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 10:07:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
So there is no reason to believe ancient man did not want marriage to keep tabs on his child-breeder to ensure the person inheriting his chickens and goats is actually of his blood?
OllerupMand
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 10:25:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 10:07:48 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
So there is no reason to believe ancient man did not want marriage to keep tabs on his child-breeder to ensure the person inheriting his chickens and goats is actually of his blood?

No dna tests meant that no matter what he really couldn't keep taps. That is why inheritance and family line went with the womans side of the family in many societies.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 11:55:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 9:59:49 AM, sadolite wrote:
You still don't get it. Bargaining? What you are so ignorantly referring to is called a "dowry" What you think is a right is not. Marriage is a privilege. The only difference between now and 700 years ago is that you don't have to prove your worth anymore to be married. Modern conveniences have made it possible to just get married on a whim. But make no mistake, that is all predicated on the fact that you are relying on someone else to provide those convinces to you. Which by the way can all be turned off at the flick of a switch. Are you so naive as to think all the convinces you have are going to last forever? Mother nature or some raving lunatic will wipe them all out over night. This isn't a matter of "if" it is a matter of "when|.
700 years ago you had to prove your worth and ability to support a wife and children. You had to put up insurance and prove you could "bring home the bacon." So yes animals were used as dowry's to prove ones worth. You of course look at animals from a 21st century point of view which makes you look all the more ignorant. Your last response was to argue samantics over "dates". As if they are at all relevant to the purpose of marriage. How completely fickle. And last but not least please address why a man should or should not provide for children he conceives and where you get your philosophy for this position. I have addressed all your points that have relevance to the purpose of marriage and some that don't.

Again, historically, this is like a five year old telling a four year old that said young 'un doesn't understand how hard it is to join the AARP.

"The only difference between now and 700 years ago is that you don't have to prove your worth anymore to be married."

Good lord, man, do you even look at history books when you write this stuff?

I don't even have to leave our hemisphere to show how misguided that is.

First off, Christians were marrying by mutual consent without even needing a priest up till the late 16th century, so citing "modern conveniences" as the only relevant barrier to love-based marriage is moronic.

The average age of marrying between the 14th and 19th century was 25 years of age (http://www.exploregenealogy.co.uk...), well past the age considered appropriate today for a woman to make her own choice.

Rome is another example of how simplistic your understanding is.

They had multiple forms of marriage. Conventio in manum was a ceremony with a witness leading to a loss of rights of inheritance to her old family and gaining a new one. Under Sine Manu marriage, the wife remains holding the rights to her old family and does not gain from the new family.

"And last but not least please address why a man should or should not provide for children he conceives and where you get your philosophy for this position."

This is perhaps my favorite part. I put forward the theses that marriage exists as an institution to perpetuate property, including women who birth children, and your challenge to me is not that I am wrong, but that I can't find an alternative.

I have no problem with marriage as a system of perpetuating property rights. I have a problem with arranged marriages being categorized as "father knows best" beneficial patriarchy created solely for women's inability to make reasonable decisions themselves.

Also, this may shock you, but not ALL SOCIETIES IN THE WORLD have marriage. Yet you find it completely unfathomable how humans could survive without the institution.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 1:14:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 11:55:25 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/26/2012 9:59:49 AM, sadolite wrote:
You still don't get it. Bargaining? What you are so ignorantly referring to is called a "dowry" What you think is a right is not. Marriage is a privilege. The only difference between now and 700 years ago is that you don't have to prove your worth anymore to be married. Modern conveniences have made it possible to just get married on a whim. But make no mistake, that is all predicated on the fact that you are relying on someone else to provide those convinces to you. Which by the way can all be turned off at the flick of a switch. Are you so naive as to think all the convinces you have are going to last forever? Mother nature or some raving lunatic will wipe them all out over night. This isn't a matter of "if" it is a matter of "when|.
700 years ago you had to prove your worth and ability to support a wife and children. You had to put up insurance and prove you could "bring home the bacon." So yes animals were used as dowry's to prove ones worth. You of course look at animals from a 21st century point of view which makes you look all the more ignorant. Your last response was to argue samantics over "dates". As if they are at all relevant to the purpose of marriage. How completely fickle. And last but not least please address why a man should or should not provide for children he conceives and where you get your philosophy for this position. I have addressed all your points that have relevance to the purpose of marriage and some that don't.

Again, historically, this is like a five year old telling a four year old that said young 'un doesn't understand how hard it is to join the AARP.

"The only difference between now and 700 years ago is that you don't have to prove your worth anymore to be married."

Good lord, man, do you even look at history books when you write this stuff?

I don't even have to leave our hemisphere to show how misguided that is.

First off, Christians were marrying by mutual consent without even needing a priest up till the late 16th century, so citing "modern conveniences" as the only relevant barrier to love-based marriage is moronic.

The average age of marrying between the 14th and 19th century was 25 years of age (http://www.exploregenealogy.co.uk...), well past the age considered appropriate today for a woman to make her own choice.

Rome is another example of how simplistic your understanding is.

They had multiple forms of marriage. Conventio in manum was a ceremony with a witness leading to a loss of rights of inheritance to her old family and gaining a new one. Under Sine Manu marriage, the wife remains holding the rights to her old family and does not gain from the new family.

"And last but not least please address why a man should or should not provide for children he conceives and where you get your philosophy for this position."

This is perhaps my favorite part. I put forward the theses that marriage exists as an institution to perpetuate property, including women who birth children, and your challenge to me is not that I am wrong, but that I can't find an alternative.

I have no problem with marriage as a system of perpetuating property rights. I have a problem with arranged marriages being categorized as "father knows best" beneficial patriarchy created solely for women's inability to make reasonable decisions themselves.

Also, this may shock you, but not ALL SOCIETIES IN THE WORLD have marriage. Yet you find it completely unfathomable how humans could survive without the institution.

When exactly do you date "modern conveniences?" Because the average age of marriage in even the 1800s was 18 years old.
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 1:41:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
All right marrige serves no pupose and has had little to noyhing to do with the evolution of society. Your right it is an atiquated thing of the past and should be treated as a novelty. I conceede. Yours is superior.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 1:45:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 1:41:28 PM, sadolite wrote:
All right marrige serves no pupose and has had little to noyhing to do with the evolution of society. Your right it is an atiquated thing of the past and should be treated as a novelty. I conceede. Yours is superior.

Either one of three things occurred:

1. You believe "transferring property between and within families" has "little to noyhing to do with the evolution of society."

2. You have not read/comprehended anything I wrote.

3. You are doing a very, very bad job of covering up your inability to argue for your views.

Feel free to choose.
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 2:58:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 1:45:42 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/26/2012 1:41:28 PM, sadolite wrote:
All right marrige serves no pupose and has had little to noyhing to do with the evolution of society. Your right it is an atiquated thing of the past and should be treated as a novelty. I conceede. Yours is superior.

Either one of three things occurred:

1. You believe "transferring property between and within families" has "little to noyhing to do with the evolution of society."

2. You have not read/comprehended anything I wrote.

3. You are doing a very, very bad job of covering up your inability to argue for your views.

Feel free to choose.

No, marrige was created to transfer property from one family to another. I see the light now.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 3:00:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 2:58:12 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 8/26/2012 1:45:42 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/26/2012 1:41:28 PM, sadolite wrote:
All right marrige serves no pupose and has had little to noyhing to do with the evolution of society. Your right it is an atiquated thing of the past and should be treated as a novelty. I conceede. Yours is superior.

Either one of three things occurred:

1. You believe "transferring property between and within families" has "little to noyhing to do with the evolution of society."

2. You have not read/comprehended anything I wrote.

3. You are doing a very, very bad job of covering up your inability to argue for your views.

Feel free to choose.

No, marrige was created to transfer property from one family to another. I see the light now.

So 3.
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 3:53:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 3:00:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/26/2012 2:58:12 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 8/26/2012 1:45:42 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/26/2012 1:41:28 PM, sadolite wrote:
All right marrige serves no pupose and has had little to noyhing to do with the evolution of society. Your right it is an atiquated thing of the past and should be treated as a novelty. I conceede. Yours is superior.

Either one of three things occurred:

1. You believe "transferring property between and within families" has "little to noyhing to do with the evolution of society."

2. You have not read/comprehended anything I wrote.

3. You are doing a very, very bad job of covering up your inability to argue for your views.

Feel free to choose.

No, marrige was created to transfer property from one family to another. I see the light now.

So 3.

#1 but now you have shown me the light now I do belive it.

Now I am wondering why I got married at all, as all the reasons I did so are apparently not relevant and have nothing to do with marriage at all. May as well get a divorce and do what I really want instead of playing this stupid charade called commitment and the family unit. If someone wants my wealth they can just sue me and take it, don't have to be married to do that . What a dumb AZZ I have been. The kids and wife have welfare to support them, what on earth would they need me for? I wounder why they even let me stay around. What if anything do I have to offer them. They can get everything that I could offer from the govt without having to deal with my presence and utter social intellectual stupidity.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%