History of "Traditional" Marriage.

[tumbleweed41]

Today, presidential candidate Mitt Romney made it a point to tell graduating students at Liberty University (a Protestant Christian private college); “So it is today with the enduring institution of marriage, Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman."

The enduring institution of marriage.

Apparently, this "enduring institution" was not so enduring in Mexico, where Mitt's great-grandfathers practiced polygamy. But, hey, to be fair, on Barack Obama's father's side, his great-grandfather and grandfather had multiple wives.

To be clear, this is not an attack on the practice of polygamy. It is a look back at the real history of marriage.

Marriage has had many variations throughout history, from the homosexual unions practiced in ancient Greece, including lesbian unions,to the polygamy practiced by various Muslim, Christian and Jewish sects.

The Old Testament is filled with instances of polygamy and multiple wives. The taking of slaves as "second wives" seemed to be of no moral consequence.

Polyandry has also been practiced throughout history across the world, and is referenced in the Hindu epic, Mahabharata.

The point being, there is no "enduring institution" of marriage, as described by Mr. Romney. Marriage and family units have varied and changed throughout history. And even today varies from society to society, and family to family.

And to ignore this, especially in ones own family history, is intentionally dishonest and serves no purpose other than pandering to those who would deny civil rights to a specific group of people for no other reason than personal religious beliefs and bigotry.

 

[HerDotness]

Good points, Tumbleweed.

As is typical, Romney is simply currying votes. I don't think it'll do him that much good, however. The hardcore fundamentalist Christians don't consider him an actual Christian, so he might as well save his breath where they're concerned.

He may sway a few mainstream Christians or satisfy those who'd vote for him simply because he's a Republican as well as those who dislike Obama.

I think this could develop into a very interesting election. It remains to be seen if those favoring gay marriage whether straight or gay can organize well enough to overcome the fact that blacks and latinos do not generally like the idea of gay marriage at all according to recent polls.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Didn't the Greeks and Romans have "unions" between children and adults as well?

 

[Storm]

Didn't the Greeks and Romans have "unions" between children and adults as well?

No. At least, no moreso than any other culture.

I believe you're thinking of the tradition of pederasty, but that is not the same thing. As repugnant as it may be to modern sensibilities, it was not pedophilia.

 

[Storm]

pedophilia was an accepted practice in those societies.

No, it wasn't. See the edit.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Didn't the Greeks and Romans have "unions" between children and adults as well?

Some Greeks, and Romans, among others in history, took young boys as lovers.

But this is in no way endorsing pederasty. The issue here is consenting adults.
The fact is that "traditional" marriage is not so traditional.

 

[blackout]

Today, presidential candidate Mitt Romney made it a point to tell graduating students at Liberty University (a Protestant Christian private college); “So it is today with the enduring institution of marriage, Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman."

The enduring institution of marriage.

By this logic, men should still own their wives as property as well.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

No, it wasn't. See the edit.

We're talking about grown men having sex with boys. Let's not play games with semantics

 

[Storm]

Some Greeks, and Romans, among others in history, took young boys as lovers.

But this is in no way endorsing pedophilia. The issue here is consenting adults.
The fact is that "traditional" marriage is not so traditional.

Again, pederasty and pedophilia are not the same thing. Pedophilia involves prepubescent children, pederasty adolescents.

 

[Draka]

We're talking about grown men having sex with boys. Let's not play games with semantics

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand. The point being that MARRIAGE has been defined many different ways, throughout many different cultures and religions throughout time, and that to say that "one man and one woman" is the "traditional" marriage is a false statement.

 

[tumbleweed41]

We're talking about grown men having sex with boys. Let's not play games with semantics

Let's not derail the thread with strawmen.

Again, the issue here is the so called "traditional" marriage, and how that applies to consenting adults today.

 

[Storm]

We're talking about grown men having sex with boys. Let's not play games with semantics

I'm not.

I view pederasty much like slavery - an alien practice repugnant to modern sensibilities, but the way of the world at the time. It was, however, DEFINITIVELY not pedophilia.

Remember, life was shorter, and people matured more quickly by necessity. A 17 year old was an adult by every measure, just a young one. They did not have the luxury of sheltered, extended childhood. Hit puberty? Time to take on adulthood!

Pedophilia, however, is another matter entirely. It involves the sexual abuse of PREPUBESCENT children who are not biologically ready.

 

[Storm]

Let's not derail the thread with strawmen.

Again, the issue here is the so called "traditional" marriage, and how that applies to consenting adults today.

:sorry1:

Jungle, if you wish to continue discussing this, kindly start another thread and link me to it.

 

[Kathryn]

Disclaimer first - I am in favor of equal protection under the law for any consenting adults who enter into a marriage contract.

That being said, correct me if I am wrong, but the overwhelming majority of civilizations throughout history have considered marriage to be between males and females. I know there have been some scattered exceptions, but I'm addressing the majority of civilizations, not the few exceptions.

I'm not saying that view is right or wrong - just historical - since we are discussing the history of "traditional" marriage. Traditionally speaking (not that that means it's correct), marriage has been a contract between males and females, not same sex unions.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Disclaimer first - I am in favor of equal protection under the law for any consenting adults who enter into a marriage contract.

That being said, correct me if I am wrong, but the overwhelming majority of civilizations throughout history have considered marriage to be between males and females. I know there have been some scattered exceptions, but I'm addressing the majority of civilizations, not the few exceptions.

I'm not saying that view is right or wrong - just historical - since we are discussing the history of "traditional" marriage. Traditionally speaking (not that that means it's correct), marriage has been a contract between males and females, not same sex unions.

Yet the rhetoric lately is "between one man and one woman".

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Let's not derail the thread with strawmen.

Again, the issue here is the so called "traditional" marriage, and how that applies to consenting adults today.

My point is that the Greeks and Romans may not have exactly given us a good model of family and sexual behavior. The human race has evolved in many ways. Surely in days long since past we lived without law and order. Just because some behavior was a part of our history at one time doesn't mean we should revert back to it.

 

[HerDotness]

The fact of the matter is that marriage as a legal contract began primarily in order to consolidate families and property.

Until well after the Middle Ages, most people didn't bother to get their relationships sanctioned by marrying. Only the aristocracy needing to have legal attestation that offspring were of the family for purposes of bestowing titles upon heirs (even though they very often were fathered by someone other than the woman's husband) found much value in marriage since it brought wealth and property from one family to another.

 

[Kathryn]

Yet the rhetoric lately is "between one man and one woman".

Right. I disagree vehemently that that is the have all end all of "traditional marriage."

I find it especially ironic coming from Mitt Romney.

If he wants to win the election - which I think is a very doubtful shot in the dark - he needs to focus on the economy.

 

[tumbleweed41]

My point is that the Greeks and Romans may not have exactly given us a good model of family and sexual behavior. The human race has evolved in many ways. Surely in days long since past we lived without law and order. Just because some behavior was a part of our history at one time doesn't mean we should revert back to it.

Is anyone advocating "reverting"?

This is a discussion on the history of marriage.

And I agree, we are evolving socially. And the evolution currently being advocated by those in the LGBT community is state sanctioned same-sex marriage.

And many who speak against it use the history of "traditional" marriage as a tool to deny it.

Thus the discussion on what is "traditional" marriage.

 

[Draka]

Just because some behavior was a part of our history at one time doesn't mean we should revert back to it.

You mean like how it was once the accepted practice to deny marriage rights to people just because they were "different" and not "traditional"? That it was once acceptable to openly discriminate against others? That it was part of our history to withhold rights from a minority just because the majority had equality issues?

You're very right then, we certainly shouldn't revert to those behaviors. Withholding rights from a minority that the majority holds based merely on perceived differences and prejudices is quite wrong.