So what is this toxic masculinity thing anyhow?

[Bill the Cat]

Mary had no valid claim to the English throne while the Tudor monarchy was still viable.

Wrong. Mary had a weaker claim while a LEGITIMATE heir was available. Elizabeth was a bastard in the eyes of the Catholic church, and in the eyes of the Catholic members of Parliament. It was not until after Henry's death that the Third Succession Act was passed which allowed the illegitimate child of a divorced and remarried king to assume the throne.

James succeeded Elizabeth I only because she was childless, through his great-grandmother Margaret Tudor, who was Henry VIII's elder sister. If Elisabeth had had a child, that child would have succeeded her (short of revolution) not James.

Thanks to a change in the rule of succession, yes. But at the time of Henry VIII's death, Mary was third in line. Elizabeth had no place before the Protestants changed the rules.

[Mountain Man]

This thread is starting to remind me of playing Crusader Kings II.

[Cow Poke]

Because you keep dancing around and trying to change it. Go away. You're just another hate-filled anti-Christian bigot searching for significance.

[Sparko]

except that was not your argument. You merely accused Christians of oppressing women based on scripture for 2000 years. And you have been unable to provide any such support for your accusations.

[Cow Poke]

except that was not your argument. You merely accused Christians of oppressing women based on scripture for 2000 years. And you have been unable to provide any such support for your accusations.

He doesn't have to provide support for it. All he need do is repeat it over and over and over until we get tired of responding.

The boy found some anti-Christian fodder on an anti-Christian website, and he is duty bound to repeat it over and over and over...

[Sparko]

He doesn't have to provide support for it. All he need do is repeat it over and over and over until we get tired of responding.

The boy found some anti-Christian fodder on an anti-Christian website, and he is duty bound to repeat it over and over and over...

And now that he realizes he was wrong, he is trying to change history and claim he was arguing something entirely different. As if nobody can just go back and read his past posts. He does that a lot too. Trying to gaslight people.

[Tassman]

Wrong. Mary had a weaker claim while a LEGITIMATE heir was available. Elizabeth was a bastard in the eyes of the Catholic church, and in the eyes of the Catholic members of Parliament.

It was not until after Henry's death that the Third Succession Act was passed which allowed the illegitimate child of a divorced and remarried king to assume the throne.

Thanks to a change in the rule of succession, yes. But at the time of Henry VIII's death, Mary was third in line. Elizabeth had no place before the Protestants changed the rules.

See above.

[Tassman]

You asked a silly question Tass:did society get it terribly wrong for all that time?

do matter.

First, there is no objective wrong or right in your world, there is just personal or collective opinion.

"Objective" wrong or right in your

Second, time is not relevant, are Chimps terribly wrong today for acting as they do? And primitive behavior is no more objectively right or wrong than less primitive behavior.

[Tassman]

except that was not your argument. You merely accused Christians of oppressing women based on scripture for 2000 years. And you have been unable to provide any such support for your accusations.

[tabibito]

Even "effectively" seems something of an overstatement. The religious settlement act and all that held sway for the better part of the first 30 years of Elizabeth 1's reign. And the small matter of insurrection around the thirtieth year of her reign, at the instigation of the Pope and Jesuit missionaries, only led to a clamp down - it didn't get Catholicism banned even then - though "effectively" might reasonably be stated at that point.


Actually, to line of succession after Henry's legitimate heirs (children born to his then current wife, Catherine). Mary and Elizabeth remained officially illegitimate, and were returned to succession on the basis of letters patent issued by Henry VIII or being nominated in his will - whoever was named in the will taking precedence. Had Henry nominated someone else as his successor in his will, neither would have acceded to the throne.

[seer]

do matter.

But that is not wrong in any objective sense, it is in fact how nature created us. Why do you hate nature so much?

That is just silly Tass, for us to evolve morally there needs to be an objective standard that we are moving towards. If not no behavior is more evolved than another. "What ever is, is right."

[Cow Poke]

And now that he realizes he was wrong,

I really don't think he's capable of thinking he was wrong.

he is trying to change history and claim he was arguing something entirely different. As if nobody can just go back and read his past posts. He does that a lot too. Trying to gaslight people.

I think the boy is henpecked at home, so he tries to take it out on us.

[Cow Poke]

And PRIOR to "two thousands years ago", women were equal with men in all respects, right?

[tabibito]

And strangely - when it came to advocating a change to equal opportunities for women, women were as opposed to it as were men.

[Tassman]

And PRIOR to "two thousands years ago", women were equal with men in all respects, right?