4000 years of history wiped out by five SCOTUS Judges

a reply to: kitzik

You really need to go back through the thread and see who I replied to. Anyway, you are making a point about religion and homosexual marriage, I have been making points about religion, marriage and homosexuality. I don't care if there has or ever WILL BE a religiously sanctioned homosexual relationship. I really don't care.

I do know that people who would condemn another person for the love they have deserves nothing but pity.

a reply to: beezzer

And smoke cigarettes.
We've come a long way baby...!

a reply to: MrSpad

Christian Emperors who enforced a law that when two men are married they have to as equals with neither playing the roll of the submissive women or be burned alive.

This is distortion of what was this law about, it is not about "marriage" it is about prohibiting homosexuality. A first step from a permissive customs ( again not marriages) of pagan Rome towards intolerant Christian ethics.

You may find quotes like this

Martial, the first-century A.D. Roman poet, reports incidences of male-male marriage as kinds of perversions, but not uncommon perversions, speaking in one epigram (I.24) of a man who “played the bride yesterday.” In another (12.42) he says mockingly, “Bearded Callistratus gave himself in marriage to…Afer, in the manner in which a virgin usually gives herself in marriage to a male. The torches shone in front, the bridal veils covered his face, and wedding toasts were not absent, either. A dowry was also named. Does that not seem enough yet for you, Rome? Are you waiting for him to give birth?”

etc etc

But, please find me some legalese language of Roman marriage laws concerning "same sex marriage" There is nothing.

You know that just a month or so ago, "Pride parades" existed and homosexuals were not exactly hiding and beaten to death, yet something changed after Supreme Court legislation. And this something or similar to this never occurred before.

originally posted by: kitzik
a reply to: MrSpad

Christian Emperors who enforced a law that when two men are married they have to as equals with neither playing the roll of the submissive women or be burned alive.

This is distortion of what was this law about, it is not about "marriage" it is about prohibiting homosexuality. A first step from a permissive customs ( again not marriages) of pagan Rome towards intolerant Christian ethics.

You may find quotes like this

Martial, the first-century A.D. Roman poet, reports incidences of male-male marriage as kinds of perversions, but not uncommon perversions, speaking in one epigram (I.24) of a man who “played the bride yesterday.” In another (12.42) he says mockingly, “Bearded Callistratus gave himself in marriage to…Afer, in the manner in which a virgin usually gives herself in marriage to a male. The torches shone in front, the bridal veils covered his face, and wedding toasts were not absent, either. A dowry was also named. Does that not seem enough yet for you, Rome? Are you waiting for him to give birth?”

etc etc

But, please find me some legalese language of Roman marriage laws concerning "same sex marriage" There is nothing.

You know that just a month or so ago, "Pride parades" existed and homosexuals were not exactly hiding and beaten to death, yet something changed after Supreme Court legislation. And this something or similar to this never occurred before.

Congratulations!

You've just proved bigotry is also as old as time itself.

Big win for you!

#End sarcasm

originally posted by: RobinB022
a reply to: beezzer

And smoke cigarettes.
We've come a long way baby...!

As long as you just do it in the kitchen.

See? I can be liberal also!

a reply to: markosity1973

It is not a bigotry, but inherent moral imperative. I can't change myself, "I have no choice"

a reply to: markosity1973

It seems that the whole thread is like 4000/2000 years out of date but hey, what ya gonna do right?

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Who cares? We don't live in Babylon. If the Babylonians wanted their rules followed in perpetuity, they shouldn't have been conquered by the Persians.

Duh.

originally posted by: kitzik
a reply to: markosity1973

I can't change myself, "I have no choice"

That is the lamest and most selfish cop out I have ever heard

What you need to say is I WON'T change myself.

News flash for you princess;

Some of us i.e. ME and others too were born into very conservative and very religious households. We had NO CHOICE but to change our views on being gay, because it happened to US.

To you and all of those who espouse your views I say the below;

a reply to: markosity1973

Bitter much that I was parodying your motto "I have no choice " ?

a reply to: markosity1973

*Dances*

I don't know if this topic is more upsetting, or the fact that i'm dancing to a Taylor Swift song

originally posted by: kitzik
a reply to: markosity1973

Bitter much that I was parodying your motto "I have no choice " ?

Oh honey, why would I be bitter at you?

Sorry for you yes, bitter never.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: markosity1973

*Dances*

I don't know if this topic is more upsetting, or the fact that i'm dancing to a Taylor Swift song

Haha, well Taylor just got adopted by us for her anti-bigotry anthem.

It's okay to have a wee two step to her now

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: ignorant_ape

I don't agree with the laws but the gender articles are very clear.

I guess you can take any sentences from any texts then, out of their context and.... it's now BS.

Sorry but you did shoot in your own boat you know.

Jeff

Now look there’s been many strange things in history:

I believe there’s a record of a man marrying a lamb or goat, sheep, and a dog here or there.

So a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman looks tame in comparison


I wonder what the code of Hammurabi would have to say about that.

Seriously?
It took 4000 years to fix this issue?
Perhaps even more parades are in order. That is a long long wrong.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Not sure you actually read my post? No..I am not advocating for a law that determines someones guilt or innocence by whether or not they sink or swim after they have leapt into a river.

This is virtually the same as the "She's a witch!" skit from Monty Python.

a reply to: Willtell

I'm sure in those days they had their fair share of shepherd love affairs. LOL After, all those dancing satyrs came from somewhere!

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: markosity1973

*Dances*

I don't know if this topic is more upsetting, or the fact that i'm dancing to a Taylor Swift song

I never thought I would turn into a Swiftie but every time this song comes on in a store I'm the one grooving the aisles not caring if anyone is watching.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I don't agree with the laws but the gender articles are very clear.

the most blatant admission possible that you are cherry picking

here the hint - the gender articles that you wish you use ARE part of the law you wish to ignore

ergo - cherry picking

its that simple

you cannot simply chose to demand that the gender articles of hammurabi`s code be accepted - and ignore the requirement for adulterers to be strangled