Uhhh, he's very clearly defined the status quo of marriage as one man and one woman, and it definitely hasn't been that since the beginning of human history.

Was it one man and two women then? (At the beginning ofc lmao)

My definition was union between man and women and that has absolutely been the case since we lived in caves. Polygamy vs monogamy is not what's being argued here. What's being argued is marriage being between opposing sexes and same.

Giving some obscure examples of some beta native culture that was swallowed up by superior tribes or a statistically minuscule population somewhere in India does not validate your point that historically marriage has also been between same sexes.

You're doubling down on the derp, I would stop at this point.

Also Jose is right I defined marriage after you made your assumptions.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Sep 22 2017 10:06pm

You infer and just assumed what he meant when in reality, he never even defined it.

This post was edited by JoseMcMaster on Sep 22 2017 09:59pm

I've been lurking this sub for years. This guy does this shit all the time that's why I signed up to call him out on his bullshit.

He distorts and (most of the time) interjects tiny little bits of information that wasn't said previously, or just flat out assumes something to fit his point; or to further push some type of argument that is NOT arguing for the sake of resolution, but just for the sake arguing.

AKA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eristic

This is not discussion, it's drivel trying to stroke an online ego to feel superior. This forum has 2k+ online users and what, < 1% partake in discussion in this section, I wonder why?

This post was edited by JoseMcMaster on Sep 22 2017 10:11pm

This sub forum used to be a good place for debate. (Back when Nephi and Inviction were around)

Should of signed up sooner.

I agree most of the discourse that takes place here is hardly intellectual and for the most part petty and partisan.

I still enjoy it from time to time, helps me refine my ideologies.

It actually has everything to do with it, because if you're not going to push for the legalizing of polygamy you're being inconsistent at best. You should also be pushing for removal of woman's rights, cuz, ya know, all of human history.

You're also minimizing other cultures. The most recent count of third gender in India was five percent, but that's a very low estimate since in recent years they have been discriminated against. The number is likely significantly higher.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Sep 22 2017 10:32pm

Your logic isn't sound. The parameters were set for this debate, you decided to go off on tangents like women being oppressed and polygamy. I'm no master debater but usually going off on tangents is a sign of losing an argument. Now you're trying to go off on the tangent of trans.

"discriminated against"

So you're acknowledging that the general culture there rejects this third gender, which would validate my point no? You would think in the example you provided of culture that has "accepted" same sex marriage that at least in that country same sex marriage would be legal and accepted?

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Sep 22 2017 10:53pm

Cultures change, the rejection was recent and reversing.

I was actually showing the inconsistency of your logic. You are cherry picking history to suite your desires, ignoring significant cultures, and cherry picking your definition of marriage.

Your "conservative" viewpoint isn't based on history if you aren't going to actually look at history.

It's as Skinned said initially, it's about social control, because I've demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt it isn't about history.