The Political Thread

  • Welcome to "The New" Wrestling Smarks Forum!

    I see that you are not currently registered on our forum. It only takes a second, and you can even login with your Facebook! If you would like to register now, pease click here: Register

    Once registered please introduce yourself in our introduction thread which can be found here: Introduction Board


Chris

Dreams are Endless
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
383,682
Reaction score
155,534
Points
128
Age
28
Location
Texas
Favorite Wrestler
tLCb5kv
Favorite Wrestler
OEndG4L
Favorite Wrestler
ArsUxsj
Favorite Wrestler
mrperfect2
Favorite Wrestler
eelOIL6
Favorite Wrestler
BryanDanielson1
Favorite Sports Team
sfa
Favorite Sports Team
dallascowboys
Favorite Sports Team
sanantoniospurs
Favorite Sports Team
texasrangers
Dakstang said:
I'll say this and this is the end of it. Christians consider marriage a religious thing. It is why most of them take places in Churches. Holy matrimony. Ring a bell?
Yes, that can still be a thing for Christians. However, separately, marriage is also recognized by law and whether other religions get married in different ways or with different beliefs attached does not effect Christian marriage which is still protected for any Christian to participate in the way they want
 

CakeWalker

Fancy a slice?
Joined
Mar 30, 2020
Messages
83,920
Reaction score
24,136
Points
118
Favorite Wrestler
TigerMask1
Favorite Wrestler
AZs1Z5p
Favorite Wrestler
E3RY3ej
Favorite Sports Team
2fIlV8l
Favorite Sports Team
Stewart52
Favorite Sports Team
Brad6
Favorite Sports Team
OH6F0Jl
"Separation of church and state" is paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

We don't technically have this in the UK - so its crazy to think, you don't even have this freedom in the US - despite it being in your consitution
 

Hidden Blaze

The Wanted Man
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
207,235
Reaction score
72,434
Points
128
Age
33
Location
Crawford County, GA
Favorite Wrestler
chrisjericho
Favorite Wrestler
MOLAnG4
Favorite Wrestler
edge
Favorite Wrestler
homd3TG
Favorite Sports Team
gLxCq87
Favorite Sports Team
WrE8t1L
Favorite Sports Team
lurU13l
Favorite Sports Team
HHst8yg
He ticks all of the boxes for me.

I have not seen one thing or opinion he has shared that could even in the wildest imagination even be considered centrist let alone conservative.
I actually think people should enter this country legally. I’m not as hard on it as you probably would be. Since I think they should reform the system because it takes to damn long for someone to get legalized, and by the time they do, they could be killed by what they wanna escape.

I don’t agree with burning down cities and breaking shit with riots

Hell you and me bonded over the fact that we both have a gun for protection. Like shit.
 

Y2Jayne

2 levels above, 2 steps ahead
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
13,984
Reaction score
9,184
Points
113
Location
Toxic Lounge
Favorite Wrestler
chrisjericho2
Favorite Wrestler
DeSDzbM
Favorite Wrestler
9nCExBd
Favorite Wrestler
LDuO6dG
Favorite Wrestler
LBaYVuW
Favorite Wrestler
ToxicA
Can they really force a woman to remain pregnant in some states if the pregnancy is dangerous for her? Read about it this morning, it's fucked up. Imagine a young healthy couple deciding to start a family, the woman learns a few weeks later that there's a risk she'll bleed out before she can even get into an ambulance, and there's nothing she can do about it.
 

CakeWalker

Fancy a slice?
Joined
Mar 30, 2020
Messages
83,920
Reaction score
24,136
Points
118
Favorite Wrestler
TigerMask1
Favorite Wrestler
AZs1Z5p
Favorite Wrestler
E3RY3ej
Favorite Sports Team
2fIlV8l
Favorite Sports Team
Stewart52
Favorite Sports Team
Brad6
Favorite Sports Team
OH6F0Jl

The origins of marriage​

The institution of marriage is now the subject of a bitter national debate. How did marriage begin and why?​



How old is the institution?
The best available evidence suggests that it's about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.


What was it about, then?
Marriage's primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man's children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man's property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: "I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring." Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else.

When did religion become involved?
As the Roman Catholic Church became a powerful institution in Europe, the blessings of a priest became a necessary step for a marriage to be legally recognized. By the eighth century, marriage was widely accepted in the Catholic church as a sacrament, or a ceremony to bestow God's grace. At the Council of Trent in 1563, the sacramental nature of marriage was written into canon law.


Did this change the nature of marriage?
Church blessings did improve the lot of wives. Men were taught to show greater respect for their wives, and forbidden from divorcing them. Christian doctrine declared that "the twain shall be one flesh," giving husband and wife exclusive access to each other's body. This put new pressure on men to remain sexually faithful. But the church still held that men were the head of families, with their wives deferring to their wishes.
When did love enter the picture?
Later than you might think. For much of human history, couples were brought together for practical reasons, not because they fell in love. In time, of course, many marriage partners came to feel deep mutual love and devotion. But the idea of romantic love, as a motivating force for marriage, only goes as far back as the Middle Ages. Naturally, many scholars believe the concept was "invented" by the French. Its model was the knight who felt intense love for someone else's wife, as in the case of Sir Lancelot and King Arthur's wife, Queen Guinevere. Twelfth-century advice literature told men to woo the object of their desire by praising her eyes, hair, and lips. In the 13th century, Richard de Fournival, physician to the king of France, wrote "Advice on Love," in which he suggested that a woman cast her love flirtatious glances—"anything but a frank and open entreaty."


Did love change marriage?
It sure did. Marilyn Yalom, a Stanford historian and author of A History of the Wife, credits the concept of romantic love with giving women greater leverage in what had been a largely pragmatic transaction. Wives no longer existed solely to serve men. The romantic prince, in fact, sought to serve the woman he loved. Still, the notion that the husband "owned" the wife continued to hold sway for centuries. When colonists first came to America—at a time when polygamy was still accepted in most parts of the world—the husband's dominance was officially recognized under a legal doctrine called "coverture," under which the new bride's identity was absorbed into his. The bride gave up her name to symbolize the surrendering of her identity, and the husband suddenly became more important, as the official public representative of two people, not one. The rules were so strict that any American woman who married a foreigner immediately lost her citizenship.

How did this tradition change?
Women won the right to vote. When that happened, in 1920, the institution of marriage began a dramatic transformation. Suddenly, each union consisted of two full citizens, although tradition dictated that the husband still ruled the home. By the late 1960s, state laws forbidding interracial marriage had been thrown out, and the last states had dropped laws against the use of birth control. By the 1970s, the law finally recognized the concept of marital rape, which up to that point was inconceivable, as the husband "owned" his wife's sexuality. "The idea that marriage is a private relationship for the fulfillment of two individuals is really very new," said historian Stephanie Coontz, author of The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. "Within the past 40 years, marriage has changed more than in the last 5,000."
Advertisement


Men who married men
Gay marriage is rare in history—but not unknown. The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives. In second- and third-century Rome, homosexual weddings became common enough that it worried the social commentator Juvenal, says Marilyn Yalom in A History of the Wife. "Look—a man of family and fortune—being wed to a man!" Juvenal wrote. "Such things, before we're very much older, will be done in public." He mocked such unions, saying that male "brides" would never be able to "hold their husbands by having a baby." The Romans outlawed formal homosexual unions in the year 342. But Yale history professor John Boswell says he's found scattered evidence of homosexual unions after that time, including some that were recognized by Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches. In one 13th-century Greek Orthodox ceremony, the "Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union," the celebrant asked God to grant the participants "grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smart Marx

Chris

Dreams are Endless
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
383,682
Reaction score
155,534
Points
128
Age
28
Location
Texas
Favorite Wrestler
tLCb5kv
Favorite Wrestler
OEndG4L
Favorite Wrestler
ArsUxsj
Favorite Wrestler
mrperfect2
Favorite Wrestler
eelOIL6
Favorite Wrestler
BryanDanielson1
Favorite Sports Team
sfa
Favorite Sports Team
dallascowboys
Favorite Sports Team
sanantoniospurs
Favorite Sports Team
texasrangers
Toxicoholic said:
Can they really force a woman to remain pregnant in some states if the pregnancy is dangerous for her? Read about it this morning, it's fucked up. Imagine a young healthy couple deciding to start a family, the woman learns a few weeks later that there's a risk she'll bleed out before she can even get into an ambulance, and there's nothing she can do about it.
Not yet that I've seen. Most if not all have provision for saving the mothers life. The scary thing is, fairly recently bills had been introduced and failed with lines that included no exceptions. They failed but the fact that they were even specifically included in the language us terrifying. Quite a few states have no exceptions for rape or incest tho
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hidden Blaze

CakeWalker

Fancy a slice?
Joined
Mar 30, 2020
Messages
83,920
Reaction score
24,136
Points
118
Favorite Wrestler
TigerMask1
Favorite Wrestler
AZs1Z5p
Favorite Wrestler
E3RY3ej
Favorite Sports Team
2fIlV8l
Favorite Sports Team
Stewart52
Favorite Sports Team
Brad6
Favorite Sports Team
OH6F0Jl
Gay marriage is rare in history—but not unknown. The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives. In second- and third-century Rome, homosexual weddings became common enough that it worried the social commentator Juvenal, says Marilyn Yalom in A History of the Wife. "Look—a man of family and fortune—being wed to a man!" Juvenal wrote. "Such things, before we're very much older, will be done in public." He mocked such unions, saying that male "brides" would never be able to "hold their husbands by having a baby." The Romans outlawed formal homosexual unions in the year 342. But Yale history professor John Boswell says he's found scattered evidence of homosexual unions after that time, including some that were recognized by Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches. In one 13th-century Greek Orthodox ceremony, the "Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union," the celebrant asked God to grant the participants "grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints."
 

Dakstang

Offensive
Joined
May 8, 2020
Messages
8,879
Reaction score
1,147
Points
113
Favorite Wrestler
stonecold
Favorite Wrestler
shawnmichaels
Favorite Wrestler
undertaker
Favorite Sports Team
YvaoyYu
Yes, that can still be a thing for Christians. However, separately, marriage is also recognized by law and whether other religions get married in different ways or with different beliefs attached does not effect Christian marriage which is still protected for any Christian to participate in the way they want
We can go around and around about this all day if you want.

Do you think at some point I am going to say, "Hey you are right! You changed my mind!"

It is a pointless and fruitless debate I have been through many times. It has not and will not ever change my opinion. You asked my opinion, I gave it. I gave the reasoning behind it. Now you want to poke and prod and try to invalidate it. It is pointless to continue. That is why I have stayed out of this thread so long. Same old arguments. Nobody gains any ground.
 

Chris

Dreams are Endless
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
383,682
Reaction score
155,534
Points
128
Age
28
Location
Texas
Favorite Wrestler
tLCb5kv
Favorite Wrestler
OEndG4L
Favorite Wrestler
ArsUxsj
Favorite Wrestler
mrperfect2
Favorite Wrestler
eelOIL6
Favorite Wrestler
BryanDanielson1
Favorite Sports Team
sfa
Favorite Sports Team
dallascowboys
Favorite Sports Team
sanantoniospurs
Favorite Sports Team
texasrangers
It kinda sounds like Dak is saying only Christians in general should be allowed to be "married" in America and everyone else should only be civil unions tbh lol I'm sure he'll reply telling me how wrong this is and how only the gays shouldn't marry tho
 

Chris

Dreams are Endless
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
383,682
Reaction score
155,534
Points
128
Age
28
Location
Texas
Favorite Wrestler
tLCb5kv
Favorite Wrestler
OEndG4L
Favorite Wrestler
ArsUxsj
Favorite Wrestler
mrperfect2
Favorite Wrestler
eelOIL6
Favorite Wrestler
BryanDanielson1
Favorite Sports Team
sfa
Favorite Sports Team
dallascowboys
Favorite Sports Team
sanantoniospurs
Favorite Sports Team
texasrangers
Dakstang said:
We can go around and around about this all day if you want. Do you think at some point I am going to say, "Hey you are right! You changed my mind!" It is a pointless and fruitless debate I have been through many times. It has not and will not ever change my opinion. You asked my opinion, I gave it. I gave the reasoning behind it. Now you want to poke and prod and try to invalidate it. It is pointless to continue. That is why I have stayed out of this thread so long. Same old arguments. Nobody gains any ground.
got it, I'll see you tomorrow (I said next week yesterday and that proved wrong)
 

CakeWalker

Fancy a slice?
Joined
Mar 30, 2020
Messages
83,920
Reaction score
24,136
Points
118
Favorite Wrestler
TigerMask1
Favorite Wrestler
AZs1Z5p
Favorite Wrestler
E3RY3ej
Favorite Sports Team
2fIlV8l
Favorite Sports Team
Stewart52
Favorite Sports Team
Brad6
Favorite Sports Team
OH6F0Jl
It kinda sounds like Dak is saying only Christians in general should be allowed to be "married" in America and everyone else should only be civil unions tbh lol I'm sure he'll reply telling me how wrong this is and how only the gays shouldn't marry tho

I don't know why you bother - he only likes engaging with liberals.
 

Chris

Dreams are Endless
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
383,682
Reaction score
155,534
Points
128
Age
28
Location
Texas
Favorite Wrestler
tLCb5kv
Favorite Wrestler
OEndG4L
Favorite Wrestler
ArsUxsj
Favorite Wrestler
mrperfect2
Favorite Wrestler
eelOIL6
Favorite Wrestler
BryanDanielson1
Favorite Sports Team
sfa
Favorite Sports Team
dallascowboys
Favorite Sports Team
sanantoniospurs
Favorite Sports Team
texasrangers
Not yet that I've seen. Most if not all have provision for saving the mothers life. The scary thing is, fairly recently bills had been introduced and failed with lines that included no exceptions. They failed but the fact that they were even specifically included in the language us terrifying. Quite a few states have no exceptions for rape or incest tho
@Toxicoholic this is an example of one that failed, they tried to pass this I'm Missouri right when it first leaked that Roe v Wade would be overturned, didn't even wait for the official decision cause they wanted it on the books ready. Specifies that even ectopic pregnancies being aborted would be illegal, thankfully it didn't pass

 
  • Like
Reactions: Y2Jayne

Dakstang

Offensive
Joined
May 8, 2020
Messages
8,879
Reaction score
1,147
Points
113
Favorite Wrestler
stonecold
Favorite Wrestler
shawnmichaels
Favorite Wrestler
undertaker
Favorite Sports Team
YvaoyYu
got it, I'll see you tomorrow (I said next week yesterday and that proved wrong)
I didn't say I was leaving bruh. Just saying it is pointless to share opinions or thoughts here unless it is people who agree and want to pat each other on the back about what good human beings they are.

Oh, and I keep seeing something about Ignored Members posting so if you are any of the following people I have you ignore and will not now nor ever read anything you post in this thread or the SB. Just so you don't waste your time.

Canadian Dragon, Charlotte, Deezy, Jobber Doink, Josh Drake, Judge Juicy, Moon Bird, Princess Rose, RDK, Sky, or War Pig.

Thank you.
 

Chris

Dreams are Endless
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
383,682
Reaction score
155,534
Points
128
Age
28
Location
Texas
Favorite Wrestler
tLCb5kv
Favorite Wrestler
OEndG4L
Favorite Wrestler
ArsUxsj
Favorite Wrestler
mrperfect2
Favorite Wrestler
eelOIL6
Favorite Wrestler
BryanDanielson1
Favorite Sports Team
sfa
Favorite Sports Team
dallascowboys
Favorite Sports Team
sanantoniospurs
Favorite Sports Team
texasrangers
Oh well if you're staying I'd love to know how gay civil liberties are okay in the Bible but gay marriage isn't. Also does that mean any non-christian marriage should be deemed a civil liberty by American law in your opinion?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hidden Blaze

CakeWalker

Fancy a slice?
Joined
Mar 30, 2020
Messages
83,920
Reaction score
24,136
Points
118
Favorite Wrestler
TigerMask1
Favorite Wrestler
AZs1Z5p
Favorite Wrestler
E3RY3ej
Favorite Sports Team
2fIlV8l
Favorite Sports Team
Stewart52
Favorite Sports Team
Brad6
Favorite Sports Team
OH6F0Jl
I didn't say I was leaving bruh. Just saying it is pointless to share opinions or thoughts here unless it is people who agree and want to pat each other on the back about what good human beings they are.

Oh, and I keep seeing something about Ignore Members posting so if you are any of the following people I have you ignore and will not now nor ever read anything you post in this thread or the SB. Just so you don't waste your time.



Thank you.

@Chris

can you ask if he he put me on Ignore

a) For not insulting him
b) For being a conservative
c) for being religious - but believing in a separation between religious bodies/state
d) being gay

I'm just curious - seeing as im not a liberal.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Y2Jayne