arma virumque cano (et alia)
Hey, Pooch, take your dumb ass quote over to an Islamic page and let them explain it to you. Expect a digital stoning or virtual beheading. orlin sellers
The presence of a few instances, here and there, of gay marriage do not change the fact that it was not the norm for all of history. Historians are welcome to point to those as examples of it not being unheard of, but to claim that there is no "traditional marriage" down through history is stretching the data beyond credibility. Of course, that is something you love to do on other topics, so why should this be any different.
Is there anything the same now as it was a thousand years ago? Certainly there were gays around a thousand years ago.It's always nice to see those who cry for freedom and are willing to take guns against a government because it might ban a certain gun, ignore the rights of humans.
Did I suggest that there were no gays around a thousand years ago? No.Did I call for the ignoring of the rights of gays? No.Move on troll.
You are suggesting that gays don't have the same rights to get married by saying they are out of the norm and saying their numbers have been so small. Their numbers would have been bigger but back then they might have been killed for coming out and getting married. Move on homophobic.
Actually, Anonymous troll, my comment did not say anything one way or the other about the right of gays to get married. Instead, what it did was point out that Laci's assertion, that historians were unable to determine what "traditional marriage" was, was obviously ludicrous. He was overstating his evidence so much as to render his argument laughable.This wasn't a matter of opposing gay marriage, but of opposing the use of a bad and illogical argument merely because it was bad and illogical.
Of course it's a matter of opposing gay marriage for you troll. You define traditional marriage as not including same sex marriage.