This makes absolutely no sense. The distinction between polygamy vs monogamy has zero relevance to what i defined marriage to be. Marriage has always existed in polygamous and monogamous forms so why would i claim to support one over the other as the orthodox meaning of the word marriage in that context?

You continue to put words in my mouth and going off on tangents. I never affirmed or denied polygamy in this thread.

So then you're fine with legalizing polygamy?

Women in American couldn't work unless they were young, couldn't keep their wages, were legally allowed to be beat, and if they fled had no right to their children , which they were forced to have due to no women's health care being available and the nonconsensual nature of a lot of relations then....

He wanta traditional marriage based in historical fact. If you go outside direct Western history and include other people, or Mormons, then polygamy is on the table. Traditionally speaking.

But he means Leave it to Beaver sitcom nuclear families. Lots of Growing Pains....I bet he loves Kirk Cameron and that Left Behind show....wonders what it is really going to br like for the people left here....all liberals for sure.....as all the Christians fly into space naked through their Rapture-Hatch home improvement.....

Oh believe me I know what he means.

He wants to cherry-pick the convenient parts of history, and never really came to terms with the fact that history existed pre-1950.

He's just like most other modern conservatives. Obsessed with the prosperity brought by liberal policies and destruction of Europe at the hands of a right-wing dictator.

I noticed every time you get verballed in an argument you always pontificate and go off on some loosely related tangent and try to tie it in the original debate.

I've been here long enough, i know you're a smart guy and you can do better bro. We were very clearly talking about the meaning of the concept of marriage historically in respect to heterosexuality vs something else. There are countless & independent of each other examples in history that support my perspective.



I pointed to countless examples of marriage the way i define it as the status quo of antiquity, not just 1950s.

You know nothing about me. I was born in a country that was impoverished by leftist ideology in action. Not only that but leftist ideals on property and religion directly persecuted my ancestors. My homeland finally started to somewhat recover after they were opened up to the west and capitalist ideals.

You live in one of the best countries in the world made possible by the protestant work ethic and "right" economic policies.

Too bad that wasn't what the basis for your agument was, or you might have a point.

You never said "there are examples in the past that are this way"

You said "it's how its been for all of time"


And once again, unless you're going to treat women like property and allow multiple marriages, you don't have any historical ground to stand on. You don't get to cherry pick "men and women" and make a convincing or sound argument.

You're a broken record. Women being treated like property or polygamy does not negate the fact that marriage, defined as union between man and women is truth historically. Let me reiterate this for the 15th time the argument is not the dynamics of marriage (inequality, or whatever else.) but the historical understanding that it's precisely between a male and a female.

Even the cultures that had common place homosexuality had the definition i'm using. Pointing to crazy Nero or some other anecdotal "proof" that marriage was actually also between same sexes and accepted is nonsense. You can't point to .001% of historical marriages being between same sexes and say well actually marriage also meant this. It's very easy to find outliers in thousands of years of history. Outliers do not define conventional meaning and understanding for 99.99% of people.

Yeah, you keep pointing it out.

It's an invalid defense.

You're selectively using your argument form to justify something you agree with, then completely ignoring it when you don't like the conclusions.

No, that's what you're doing.

Keep nipping at my heels young one.