DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Back at you my brutha.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
You're getting all hissy over this hissy thing...OH-OH; according to SM description, you're having a hissy.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Historically there never was such a prohibition, with the exception of some Democrat controlled State governments in the Old South. There's no evidence of such in Biblical history, in medieval Europe or anywhere that the US derives its traditions.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
You're getting all hissy over this hissy thing...
Why are you havng a hissy, over me commenting on someone else having a hissy.
You sure do get emotional, over this.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
But aren't you getting hissy that I called someone hissy about calling me hissy?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
ok...so then traditions to you are something longer than a couple of hundred years and must extend beyond the US's borders?
must all traditions always be followed? what traditions do you believe should not be followed? example:
marrying girls right after they mature into puberty, around 13 or 14....that has a long tradition, and has been a tradition as long as marriage, evidence of it in the bible, in medieval europe or anywhere the us derives its traditions....do you support that tradition?
keep in mind that tradition was alive and well in the US until recently
W
WinterBorn
Guest
I have realized that disagreeing with SM is SM's new definition of "hissy".
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Yes, I guess not allowing 13 years old girls to marry grown men, especially if its a deal made by the girl's father, is going against centuries of marital traditions.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
it existed in this country in the beginning....so it has traditions in the US....
SM's and PMP's argument has basically come down to:
tradition
changing the law
both are fatally flawed, tradition as i am almost positive SM's doesn't support the above tradition, changing the law because i know PMP supported prop 8 in CA that "changed" the constitution to deny gays the right to marry...
that is why PMP refuses to answer my questions while falsely claiming he has...because he knows his stance is intellectually dishonest
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. My point is that the traditions of marriage are long and have been refined over millennia. Moreover, they have never included queers, and have always included one man to one woman. The definition has included the examples that you cite, but in the US they have since been refined out.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
But aren't you getting hissy that I called someone hissy about calling me hissy?
NAH.
I did find it amusing that you were having a hissy, over someone else's comment, and that you then had a hissy, over being called on the hissy you were having.
Why are you having a hissy, over this??
W
WinterBorn
Guest
So you admit that the definition has changed before. Well, just consider the gay marriage as "refining out" the opposite sex requirement.
You'll never even notice that its gone.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
He's just emotional over his beliefs and then he has a hissy, when they are challanged and proven to be inaccurate.
As a matter of fact, I just responded to him; about him having a hissy over being called on an earlier hissy he was having.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you weren't clear...do you support this tradition or not?
what i think you're saying is, you're ok with the US getting rid of that tradition, but not getting rid of the so called prohibition or definition that only a man and woman can marry.....if so, that is an intellectually dishonest stance, as you allow one long tradition to change, but not another
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Let's not forget about the age old tradition of being able to slap your wife around and even forcing her to have sex.
DAMN, that tradition was around forever.
And then there's the old tradition about keeping your woman barefoot and pregnant.
AH YES, SM just longs for the good old days.
When men were men and the woman were terrified of them.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
It was a tradition for centuries that women could not own property. It was owned by her husband.
And what about wives working? Traditionally that didn't happen. They even made teachers and nurses quit their jobs when the got married.
Boy, those were the good old days, huh?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Since my grandparents were married in the 1920's and my parents in the 1950's you mean like back then? Sorry but I never experienced that type of behavior between the two. In fact I've traced my family history back 9 generations and there was one instance way back where the old man was a bore as you describe, and his name is only mentioned with disdain still now.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
DAMN STRAIGHT, SKIPPY!!
Put another log on the fire.
Cook me up some bacon and some beans.
And go out to the car and change the tyre.
Wash my socks and sew my old blue jeans.
Come on, baby, you can fill my pipe,
And then go fetch my slippers.
And boil me up another pot of tea.
Then put another log on the fire, babe,
And come and tell me why you're leaving me.
Now don't I let you wash the car on Sunday?
Don't I warn you when you're gettin fat?
Ain't I a-gonna take you fishin' with me someday?
Well, a man can't love a woman more than that.
Ain't I always nice to your kid sister?
Don't I take her driving every night?
So, sit here at my feet 'cos I like you when you're sweet,
And you know it ain't feminine to fight.
So, put another log on the fire.
Cook me up some bacon and some beans.
Go out to the car and lift it up and change the tyre.
Wash my socks and sew my old blue jeans.
Come on, baby, you can fill my pipe,
And then go fetch my slippers.
And boil me up another pot of tea.
Then put another log on the fire, babe,
And come and tell me why you're leaving me.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
post 915