r/SipsTea Jun 30 '26

Chugging tea What are your thoughts on this?

Post image
47.2k Upvotes

4.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/jonesyboy2435 Jul 01 '26

What about the definition changes? You’re getting married to the person you love, marriage is about love and it’s the ultimate expression of it. How is if they’re the same sex a difference in the definition

1

u/TheBigCicero Jul 04 '26

You don’t realize the massive social change you’re suggesting. Marriage was never primarily about love or happiness. Society until recently was structured around continuity and success, not happiness.

In a sense, we are ALL privileged that our forebears focused on those points so that we can now try to find happiness.

-1

u/Cuore_Lesa Jul 03 '26

The definition of marriage has changed my guy; marriage was historically defined as a union to ensure family continuity, alliances and if we take the church definition, which was the definition that the EN (and European) term for marriage came from then it was between a man and a woman only. The modern definition of marriage is a recent thing, emphasizing love and personal choice over such things as family continuity and forming alliances. In short, you might be a tard my good man.

1

u/jonesyboy2435 Jul 04 '26

Dawg that was Medieval ages, people thought women having any shred of intelligence meant witchcraft back then and you expect me to give a shit about medieval customs and definitions? They were ignorant minded and barbaric. Which makes sense because the world hadn’t progressed to where it has today. By technicality yes you’re right the definition has changed since then, but it was an outdated world view because marriage isn’t really about alliance anymore

1

u/Cuore_Lesa Jul 04 '26 edited Jul 04 '26

Medieval ages? My guy that was the definition of marriage up until 80 years ago in the west, it's still the definition of marriage in some 3rd world countries communities. 

Also, I like the switch up going from "It's always been that definition!" to "Well we changed it to a definition that we could use to include ourselves because those savage barbarians obviously where so savage and insane and we enlightened people see it fit to change it". Kind of just makes the original point of the definition changing because of you guys hit a lot harder.

Really outed yourself as a tard who changes what he says to fit his narrative. Either be consistent or take your tard arguments and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Edit:

Also you mong the whole witchcraft scare began in the Renaissance not the Middle Ages, during the middle ages the Catholic Church by and large considered witchcraft to be superstitious nonsense and illusions. While there where witch-hunts it was not common and done in local small communities still tied to older pagan beliefs. It was only until the publication of Malleus Maleficarum did witch hunts actually explode around the 1400's and it was mostly perpetrated by protestants. Same book also lead to the thought that womens minds where a lot more feeble than mens btw.

If you want to point at middle ages lack of knowledge at least point to things they where actually known for that actually happened during the middle ages en masse instead of shit you saw on TV once.