Support For Same Sex Marriage Grows

[chequita guevara]

[Q=Ben Kenobi;5587132]Under Christianity and Judaism, yes it has, and that goes pretty far back, almost to the beginnings of recorded history.[/q]

You've discovered the tautology, under religion the concept of marriage has always been religious. The funny thin is you think you've proved something significant. Do you not wonder why no one here has any respect for you?

Perhaps there's a reason why the two have been so closely associated with the most successful societies. Do you think there's no rationale why the two are connected to one another?

Well, let's see, any religion that opposed marriage would probably go the way of the Shakers. That right there would be a pretty good indicator of why old and new religions support it. Religions support eating too, so I doubt it will be hard to find a correlation between them.

The point is, marriage can easily exist without religion and it has. Confucianism has been around longer than Christianity, and it's a philosophy, not a religion.

Of course, this all ignores my point, which is we don't know whether marriage predates religion or vice versa and that marriage can exist without religion. Now you will throw up something else irrelevant and pretend you've struck a blow. ****ing moron.

[KrazyHorse]

Would you say that North America and Europe are stronger now then they were 70 years ago?

Yes. Of course.

70 years ago Europe was getting ready to tear itself apart IN ITS SECOND CIVIL WAR IN 25 YEARS.

GDP per capita in the US was ~1/8 of today (in constant dollars)

Lifespans were 20 years shorter

Progress.

Historically, Europe is the weakest now then it's been in a long, long time, since before Columbus.

Europe is stronger now than at any other point in history. Its people live longer, healthier, better-informed, more productive lives than ever before. If you're talking militarily, its current military would DESTROY the military of Europe at any previous point.

[chequita guevara]

Would you say that North America and Europe are stronger now then they were 70 years ago?

I don't see it.

Historically, Europe is the weakest now then it's been in a long, long time, since before Columbus.

So, you're saying that religion leads to imperialism and the domination of other people. Finally coming around.

[Wiglaf]

[Wiglaf]

Stop your strange homoerotic flirtations, Wiggy. I am ONE HUNDRED PERCENT RED-BLOODED HETEROSEXUAL.

Your CONSTANT PMs containing pictures of African-American men in various states of undress only arouse me SLIGHTLY.

As you live in DC I suggest you take the Metro to Northeast with a sign reminiscent of the one worn by Bruce Willis at the beginning of Die Hard III and allow the locals to take their frustrations out on your darkstar.

This post contains so many factual errors, it may as well be written by a ******. Bruce Willis did not shoot up the projects in Die Hard III, you idiot, that was the one with the runway and the fat black cop eating donuts. Second, darkstar is meaningless even according to urban dictionary. What you meant was darksaber, because black penises are shaped like sabers. Anyone who has taken biology in college knows this, so I am not sure how you have a doctorate in pyhiscst.

[KrazyHorse]

HAH.

WIGGY IS DRAKE.

GUARANTEED HE GOT THAT FROM MARGINALREVOLUTION.COM

[Dis]

I'm still against them. Just make civil unions and be done with it. But I also think marriage should be exempt from the legal system and should be a religious and/or traditional ceremony only. Couples getting married should get a separate civil union agreement- the same kind that gay couples get. I know that sounds complicated, but I just don't get how marriage became some big money maker for the lawyers. I believe it should be a ceremony about love and all that crap, not about legal rights.

[Ben Kenobi]

You've discovered the tautology, under religion the concept of marriage has always been religious.

Marriage as a religious concept has been seen as a part of Christianity and Judaism, back until then.

The funny thin is you think you've proved something significant. Do you not wonder why no one here has any respect for you?

Where did I say I proved something significant? It's blindingly obvious to anyone that marriage has had religious significance for thousands of years. I was challenging Che's point, who claims otherwise.

Well, let's see, any religion that opposed marriage would probably go the way of the Shakers.

Good. Now, extend that to another concept. What happens to a society that rejects marriage?

That right there would be a pretty good indicator of why old and new religions support it. Religions support eating too, so I doubt it will be hard to find a correlation between them.

So you think marriage is just as important to the survival to a society as eating?

The point is, marriage can easily exist without religion and it has.

Has it? That's my point. The current understanding of marriage in our society dates back to the Christians and the Jews, both of whom exist today.

The concept of marriage as a civil institution is very, very new. The concept of marriage as exclusively civil institution, isn't seen anywhere at all.

Societies that do not believe in religion do not believe in marriage either, and tend to fragment. I don't believe there is any reason for marriage unless you have some sort of religious understanding.

As for your non-sequitur of Confucianism isn't a religion, you might as well say that Buddhism isn't a religion either. That's a no true scotsman if I ever saw one.

Of course, this all ignores my point, which is we don't know whether marriage predates religion or vice versa

Which is my point too. Recorded history shows that marriage and religion have always been around since recorded history. That is an argument suggesting very strongly that the two cannot exist without one another.

and that marriage can exist without religion.

Where's the evidence? And confucianism isn't relevant to your argument, unless you are saying that only western religions count as 'true religions'.

[Ben Kenobi]

So, you're saying that religion leads to imperialism and the domination of other people. Finally coming around.

Imperialism existed from 1000 to 1500? We see a doubling in the growth of Western Europe.

No, my point is that western society is in a precipitous decline from 1950 onwards, and the biggest change since then is in the growth of the liberalisation of society.

The other interesting thing is that colonial nations such as India are more productive then their neighbours who were not colonialised, simply due to their greater infrastructure.

[Ben Kenobi]

70 years ago Europe was getting ready to tear itself apart IN ITS SECOND CIVIL WAR IN 25 YEARS.

Fine. Let's go back then to 1913, when Western Europe alone had 35 percent of the total global output, with north america with another 22 percent on top of it.

GDP per capita in the US was ~1/8 of today (in constant dollars)

The point is that it's gone up far higher elsewhere. Europe is lagging. They have lost what Industrialisation gave them.

If liberalisation were a success, then we should be seeing Europe maintain their dominance. Instead, we see just the opposite, a decline that has accelerated in the last 30 years, and will continue to do so.

Europe is stronger now than at any other point in history.

Compared with other nations, they are weaker then they have been in a long time. Other nations have caught up and passed them.

Its people live longer, healthier, better-informed, more productive lives than ever before. If you're talking militarily, its current military would DESTROY the military of Europe at any previous point.

True, but they wouldn't destroy anyone else, and cannot protect them anymore. The standard isn't Europe in the past, but rather, the other nations of the world. Why has Europe fallen so far behind? You can blame decolonialisation, but the decline has accelerated since 1970, and is greater from 1970-1998, then it was from 1950-1973. The decline from 1950 to 1973 is a scant 0.6 percent. From 1973 to 1998, it is a full 5 percent.

[chequita guevara]

You know what, Ben, you are too stupid to continue bothering with.

Let's just take one little piece, and then I'm done with you. I did not challenge that marriage had religious significance, you half wit. I challenged the assertion that marriage has always been a religious institution. There are clearly periods in history that marriage has been secular, i.e., not part of a religious institution. Marriage may always have been part of religion (and that's questionable), but religion hasn't always been part of marriage.

[KrazyHorse]

The point is that it's gone up far higher elsewhere. Europe is lagging. They have lost what Industrialisation gave them.

a) Don't capitalize non-proper nouns. It makes you look even more retarded than you are

b) Per-capita GDP growth in Europe in the second half of the 20th century has been FASTER than growth AT ANY OTHER TIME in Europe. The rest of the world got to free-ride off of Western technical, economic, social and political knowledge. Duh. NO country gets 10% growth per year, year after year like China's been getting without aid like this. GREAT. I'm ALL in favour of EVERYBODY being rich. Unlike you, I'm not so horrible a person as to wish that other people languish in poverty so that I'm richer in comparison. You are a TERRIBLE person.

If liberalisation were a success, then we should be seeing Europe maintain their dominance.

The fact that you've actually made this assertion is all ANY random observer of this conversation would need to diagnose you as either terminally stupid or pathologically disingenuous.

Instead, we see just the opposite, a decline that has accelerated in the last 30 years, and will continue to do so.

Nope. What we've seen is a Europe (and NA) that continue to grow at a pace unmatched in human history except for underdeveloped nations which leverage the knowledge and capital of more developed nations to lift themselves up.

Compared with other nations, they are weaker then they have been in a long time. Other nations have caught up and passed them.

See above. How retarded can you get? Do you really expect that a continent occupying perhaps 5-10% of the arable land on the planet would continue to reign supreme? How the **** would THAT happen unless Europe deliberately stomped on less developed nations before they had a chance to emulate the European example?

True, but they wouldn't destroy anyone else

Europe as a region has a more proficient military than ANYBODY other than the US currently. They would stomp the **** out of any other individual country.

[KrazyHorse]

Everybody being rich
Everybody being free
Everybody laughing at Ben

[KrazyHorse]

By the way, the phenomenal growth of China and India only started in the last 30 years or so (even more recently for India). Before that, they were pretty much stagnant.

Meanwhile, Europe and NA have been happily chugging along at a reasonably quick pace of growth since the end of WWII (again, higher than EVER before)

What the **** makes you think that something changed in the West rather than something changing in the East?

[Dinner]

honestly, i think anything the government has its hands in should be a civil union. marraige has always been a religious institution. besides, who gives a **** what you call your relationship?

Separate but equal? I suppose you could call everything civil unions as you suggest but I believe the term marriage is to entrenched in society to change it now.