“What if you couldn’t marry the person you love?”

[babbelon]

While romance has in fact existed for thousands of years MARRIAGE FOR ROMANCE HAS NOT with the exception of those kings, queens and other royal/rich/powerful figures who could do whatever, whenever. Romantic marriage was out of the norm and was not considered acceptable by the general populace of the world. Romance was considered a luxury that only a few could afford and for the most part it only existed in writings and literature.

As a matter of fact even Kings, Queens and Emperors (for the most part) married from a selected audience of people who were beneficial to their kingdom and country over those who they were attracted to in lust or love.

A key point and perhaps error that I had made (aside from not mentioning the exceptions listed above) in my previous post was my anthropologically narrowed view (I am after all a physics/science buff not an anthropology/cultural history buff), While generally speaking, throughout the world marriage for love did take place and has been thoroughly documented, my opinion was formed using facts from European, Arabic/Middle Eastern, Native American, Asian and similar cultures which made up the majority of the worlds population for extended periods of time.

For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children. Romantic love, and even simple affection, were not considered essential.[10] In fact at some times, too much affection in a marriage was considered a sin[citation needed]. Historically, the perceived necessity of marriage has been a nearly universal source of stress.[11]

In Ancient Greece, no specific civil ceremony was required for the creation of a marriage - only mutual agreement and the fact that the couple must regard each other as husband and wife accordingly.[12] Men usually married when they were in their 20s or 30s [13] and expected their wives to be in their early teens. It has been suggested that these ages made sense for the Greek because men were generally done with military service by age 30, and marrying a young girl ensured her virginity.[14] Married Greek women had few rights in ancient Greek society and were expected to take care of the house and children.[15] Time was an important factor in Greek marriage. For example there were superstitions that being married during a full moon was good luck and, according to Robert Flacelière, Greeks married in the winter.[14]

Like with the Greeks, Roman marriage and divorce required no specific government or religious approval.[11] Both marriage and divorce could happen by simple mutual agreement.[11] There were several types of marriages in Roman society. The traditional ("conventional") form called conventio in manum required a ceremony with witnesses and was also dissolved with a ceremony.[11] In this type of marriage, a woman lost her family rights of inheritance of her old family and gained them with her new one. She now was subject to the authority of her husband.[16] There was the free marriage known as sine manu. In this arrangement, the wife remained a member of her original family; she stayed under the authority of her father, kept her family rights of inheritance with her old family and didn't gain any with the new family.[16]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriag...pean_marriages

I did not take into account, Roman, Greek or Egyptian history/literature.

So in conclusion, I still stand firmly on the ground which I have created with my original post. While marriage for love has existed for longer than 300-400 years, it has not been common practice among the general populace of the world for that long.

[babbelon]

eh.. tomatoes tomato's debating this further is pointless as I am clearly not an expert. to tell you the honest truth the only reason I have any idea at all about the topic of marriage (being a single guy who has never married) is because it was covered in a course I took in college as a "filler" for credits toward my degree.

[krahmaan]

This topic again? Boy, I didn't know what I was getting into when I created it. Well maybe I did, but what I didn't know was that more people would be for gay marriage than against it. LOL, hey I guess we learn something new everyday. Onward...

I have a story about a friend I once had. Let's call him Dan -to keep his real name safe. Dan was openly gay, and proclaimed this to everyone. I use to call him Dan-the-man or at other times Dan-my-man. But I was calling him this for a reason. Not to down him, because he was a good friend. Very true to his word he was. But deep within me I wanted Dan to know that he was a man. Not something else. Dan was born a man, so why should he run away from who he was borne as?

So every time I saw Dan, either around people or not I would call him: Dan-the-man! And I would say it with the highest respect for Dan, almost like he was "The Man".

One day, I saw my long time homosexual friend Dan walking with this lovely lady. I said, "Hey, Dan-my-man!" "Who's this fine girl, a special friend?" He said, "Yeah, she's special." So then I let him be. More days passed, and more often would I see Dan-my-man with this lady. Everyone thought that since Dan was gay, this new lady was just one of the gals. But one day something naturally wonderful happened...

Dan announced that he and his new lady friend we going to get married. Boy, was everybody shocked! We all thought that Dan was borne gay, well at least everybody except I. When asked why was Dan doing this? He simply replied that he wasn't sure, and just he had enough of being gay. This lady loved Dan-my-man for who he was (Dan), and somehow that sparked a love in Dan that brought out his true manhood -in my opinion.

The moral of this story? There is none. Just this is a true story, about a man who for years thought he was gay. I guess because he had no reason to think otherwise? But then one day he realized that his true manhood was within him and thus became (grew into) the HEIGHT of manhood...

A happily married family man. Good show, and hats off to you! My-Man-Dan.

[Muddy]

You sure his alias is "Dan"? 'Cause "Bartholomew the Man" or "Archie the Man" just doesn't have the same ring.

[krahmaan]

Originally Posted by Muddy

You sure his alias is "Dan"? 'Cause "Bartholomew the Man" or "Archie the Man" just doesn't have the same ring.

I'll PM you his real first name, but just not his full title.

But, in my neighborhood I could say Muddy-my-man, my-man-Muddy, or even Muddy-the-man. It would still be valid jargon. Meaning, you're the MAN!

Bartholomew the Man

Really liked that one.

[riternity]

stop thinking of marriage

[Muddy]

Originally Posted by riternity

stop thinking of marriage

ok

[krahmaan]

Originally Posted by riternity

stop thinking of marriage

Did you mean me?
Or everyone in this thread?
A bit confused..

[antirem]

Against...

Just as I am against evil left handers! Its so unnatural... my god dictates my morals and since i dont understand what seperation of church and state is I dictate my morality to others even if they say they were not made to use their right hand.

[Muddy]

Originally Posted by antirem

Against...

Just as I am against evil left handers! Its so unnatural... my god dictates my morals and since i dont understand what seperation of church and state is I dictate my morality to others even if they say they were not made to use their right hand.

Left-handed people are unnatural? Surely you jest.

[krahmaan]

What does using your left hand have to do with uncontrolled lust? Writing and procreation are not even closely related to the subject of marriage. So I guess you are 'really' for it? -you do have a right to your opinions.

No one here is persecuting you for what you believe to be as right. At least not that I know of. And no one here has forced anything on you, we are miles apart this being the internet and all. That's why I created this thread -to hear both sides respectfully.

[kbeus21]

I feel that Gay Marriage and the freedoms that these people are facing seem to reflect the fights that most sub cultures in America have gone through. I believe anything that we do not understand we fear and personally I do not understand how two people of the same sex can love each other in a passionate way. I believe this fear is what stemmed world war 2 and has also brought about such groups as the KKK and pretty much every street gang in the world. So will gay marriage destroy America as it stands today? To answer that is simple, did giving voting right to woman destroy America? Did giving freedom to the African Americans destroy America?(well that one was pretty close-civil war) But my point remains the same if we take the rights away from people then we become what us as Americans hate. Sure we can call it a union or what ever but that would be like saying to women or african Americans you guys can have the right under certain conditions. It needs to be decided one way or the other are gay people equal or are they substandard. That is what the choice is about and I personally am very surprised that America in this day and age is this fearful of giving people rights. To end I would like to quote the declaration of independence "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal: that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;" Our fore fathers gave us freedom that now we are so apt to take away from the minority I really hope that America will not reverse in its way of thinking.

[krahmaan]

Originally Posted by kbeus21

I feel that Gay Marriage and the freedoms that these people are facing seem to reflect the fights that most sub cultures in America have gone through. I believe anything that we do not understand we fear and personally I do not understand how two people of the same sex can love each other in a passionate way. I believe this fear is what stemmed world war 2 and has also brought about such groups as the KKK and pretty much every street gang in the world. So will gay marriage destroy America as it stands today? To answer that is simple, did giving voting right to woman destroy America? Did giving freedom to the African Americans destroy America?

I don't see your point at all, sorry to say. I don't see how gays have been lynched for over 400 years and stung up by their necks -skinned alive or with their gentiles cut off. Like African Americans had to endure. No, I don't see how that relates to choosing a sex partner at all.

From my recollection this issue has only been voted on once. So how are any rights being taken away? Before Proposition 8 was even voted on and the people had their say didn't some Mayor from San Fransisco go over the people's heads? Gavin Newsom

Then California put Prop 8 on the ballot and we voted. It didn't pass, no going over our heads forcing us to teach our children some story that doesn't agree with how men and women are naturally made and reproduce.

So I cannot see how gay rights to choose to live such a life come even close to the struggles of African Americans in this country. It's an insult, no a mockery for someone to even suggest a similarity.

[Muddy]

Originally Posted by krahmaan

...their gentiles cut off...

To only associate with Jews? I guess that could be rather limiting.

[krahmaan]

Originally Posted by Muddy

To only associate with Jews? I guess that could be rather limiting.

The Jews got to keep more than that..

[Muddy]

Originally Posted by krahmaan

The Jews got to keep more than that..

They got to keep their "gentiles"?

[krahmaan]

I thought you were talking about circumcision.
But you can elaborate your position more -if you wish.

[Muddy]

Originally Posted by krahmaan

I thought you were talking about circumcision.
But you can elaborate your position more -if you wish.

Um...OK, two words. Gentiles. Genitals.

[krahmaan]

Originally Posted by Muddy

Um...OK, two words. Gentiles. Genitals.

Gentle, gentlemen? No, Genitalia.

[alter-ego]

I think you should have added a neutral or no preference option to the poll because I believe having that option would only yield true results. In my case I'm neither for or against gay marriage, I do not support it but I would not ever take a stand against it either, hence neutral.