It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

4000 years of history wiped out by five SCOTUS Judges

page: 11
14
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Darth_Prime



You and MonkeyFishFrog need to invest




posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Confusing. If you go to the park and see a male dog trying to mount another male you think, stupid dogs they don't know whats right. How about two male ducks trying to have a life together, you would think... what a waste of time.

But its different for us more 'complicated' humans. Its the truth.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 12:18 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn



4000 years of history wiped out by five SCOTUS Judges




The oldest Codex of Law is the Hammurabi Code of law written about 600 years before the of Moses.


Gosh.

I had no idea that Americans were so willing and happy to accept the dictates and laws of people from the middle east.

And here I thought you guys preferred to establish your own laws and policies... But apparently, you'd much rather to be ruled by laws from foreigners of far away lands from a far away time.

Who'd a thunk ??



Yup, I learn something new on ATS every single day.




posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 12:25 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn


Just wait until Robotic Japanese females are thrown in the mix. Your Hammurabi's code will crumble like a stale cookie. Oh yeah, I almost forgot about virtual reality. We will never leave that world.

Get with the times...



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 01:36 AM
link   

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.


Yes, yes it is all distortions. Oddly enough it cultures and time that did ban homosexual marriages it was made very clear. You can disagree with history all you like but, it will not change it. And the you quote this poet who is of opinion that homosexual marriages were a perversion but, not uncommon. I do not know about you but, that is a pretty good case for homosexual marriages existing in history.

Something like this never occurred before? You sound just like people who were against interracial marriage complaining about the supreme court ruling in 67 that struck down those laws.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 03:40 AM
link   
So in 2015 we should obey laws created 4000 years ago? Riiiiight...

You ever come across the word 'progress'?



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 04:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
The oldest Codex of Law is the Hammurabi Code of law written about 600 years before the of Moses.

It would also seem under the Hammurabi Code of Laws that marriage was between a man and a woman. we can see this in the fact that no marriage between same sex was mentioned and wife is always presented as a her which is a female of the species. Her and Him are gneder specifics of the law. These laws were also copied by the Quran and the Hadiths


In 624 BC a Buddhist could participate in a same sex marriage in certain areas of the world. The religion itself rarely forbid it, but also told people to obey the local laws.

The US is made up of more than just Abrahamic religions, including those who practice no religion at all. What's the problem with anyone getting married? As long as people who don't believe in a certain marriage don't have to perform it, who gets harmed? We're already in a situation where Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Atheists shouldn't be recognizing each others marriages because they all used different traditions, involving different Gods, and yet... here we are.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 04:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
Confusing. If you go to the park and see a male dog trying to mount another male you think, stupid dogs they don't know whats right. How about two male ducks trying to have a life together, you would think... what a waste of time.

But its different for us more 'complicated' humans. Its the truth.


That's not what I think at all when I see that. If those animals are happy and able to provide for each other what's the problem?



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 04:07 AM
link   
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

Okuuuur!

Every time i hear Taylor Swift it's like Ewww.. and then this song comes on and i totally Guilty dance to it



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 04:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Darth_Prime

All I have to say is ConDRAGulations and enjoy this one then





posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Oh, yea, you are right, but see the laws that man created so the man can rewrite them, back in ancient times civil rights of human beings were not recognized as death by actions was the norm, so in the same way that written laws in ancient times allowed one human being to had the right to kill another so now that under the new written laws is a crime

I guess everybody have a way to interpret the laws that man created depending on their agendas.

Do all a favor and come back to modern times in the 21 first century



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: redhorse

you miss the point Marriage historically has been between one man and one woman never ever in any ancient society was same sex marriage ever allowed or legalizes


Not true:


Same-sex marriage was outlawed on December 16, 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law specifically outlaws marriages between men and reads as follows: When a man “marries” in the manner of a woman, a “woman” about to renounce men, what does he wish, when sex has lost its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed into another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment. (Theodosian Code 9.7.3)


Source

The early Catholic Church performed same-sex ceremonies and called it Adelphopoiesis:


Such ceremonies can be found in the history of the Catholic Church up until the 14th century and in the Eastern Orthodox Church up until the 18th century. Documented in Byzantine manuscripts from the ninth to the fifteenth centuries, prayers established participants as "'spiritual brothers' (pneumatikous adelphous) and contained references to sainted pairs, including most notably SS Sergius and Bacchus, who were famous for their friendship."


And there is also Affrèrement:


In late medieval France, it is possible the practice of entering a legal contract of "enbrotherment" (affrèrement) provided a vehicle for civil unions between unrelated male adults who pledged to live together sharing ‘un pain, un vin, et une bourse’ – one bread, one wine, and one purse. This legal category may represent one of the earliest forms of sanctioned same-sex unions.


I wonder just how many records were burned/destroyed by the Church during the Inquisition in order to force their form of Christianity on the world. It's probably amazing these records survived at all. These were the Christians the Founding Fathers warned us about and tried to protect us from...

But you knew that already, eh?



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   
I live in the United States and marriage between members of the same sex was acceptable by many of the tribes before the Europeans came with their guns and bribes filled smothered in biological weapons!
Just like others, from the roman empire came to their lands with their guns and conquered them.

I don't know, for some reason, I don't think the Middle Eastern area is such a great place to dive into their history and obtain the moral truths. I mean it is a religion that started out conquering and stealing land that belonged to others and to this day is still doing it!



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Schooling time.

The Pagans of Europe accepted same sex marriage.
Native Americans accepted same sex marriage.
Even the damned CATHOLIC CHURCH accepted same sex marriage.
Various societies and tribes around the world at various times throughout Human history have accepted same sex marriage.

The Catholic, Christian, Muslim faiths do not have a patent on marriage.
Traditional marriage does not exist.
There has never been a globally accepted or recognized singular form of marriage and there never will be.

Your chosen religious group has no more of a claim on marriage than any other person in our society. You do not get to claim that because a document says something we must all adhere to that belief (that would make you no better than the Taliban, right?)

Your traditions mean nothing to society, and your translation of what a marriage is means nothing to anyone else.
Two people being recognized as married in our society and law has NO IMPACT AT ALL on you as a citizen, your belief system, or your rights and freedoms. Therefore, you have absolutely no stake in how the nation and your society as a whole defines marriage.

Stoning women to death was tradition once.
Refusing women the right to be educated was tradition once.
Slavery of others was tradition once.

I guess you think all of these things should also be adhered to?



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
Confusing. If you go to the park and see a male dog trying to mount another male you think, stupid dogs they don't know whats right. How about two male ducks trying to have a life together, you would think... what a waste of time.

But its different for us more 'complicated' humans. Its the truth.


Massive facepalm.

I'm assuming you're a teenager?
I can understand why these things might be confusing for a kid, but you should know that homosexuality has been seen in thousands of different species and it has nothing to do with procreation. I think you might just need to pay more attention in biology class



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: kitzik
a reply to: boymonkey74

The burden of proof is all on you. We have many remaining laws about marriage and it never mentions a marriage between man and man.


The bible hasn't even got the testicles to call sexxx by its real name, it is all about lying with such, laying down with such, begetting and there is no f!%@ing at all. The only real f"@$, and it is one of the mind, is what happened to Maria(y), while she was asleep. C'mon guys, take it for what it is and move on.


We need not get to far off topic but you must understand God is not a man like you nor does he use crass language as men do when he inspired his word. The words he preserved are words that represent his deity and we would expect such from God.

Lay and lying are but a few words but so is knew and know to represent carnal knowledge.

Gen 4:1 ¶ And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived,

Ge 9:2 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
24 ¶ And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him .

Even testicles is a word God would not use, he uses words that best represent his high moral character and deity, not wanting to arouse lusts of any kind in people uses the word stones, even when he speak of a mans private part he says privy member.

We all know what stones and privy member are now don't we?

Deut 23:1 ¶ He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

Lev 21:20 . . . , or hath his stones broken;

You see God is able to preserve his word in a way that reflects his high moral character and deity and only one Bible has this, all others are creations of men for to make profit.






edit on 11-7-2015 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

you are confusing acceptance with marriage. these two things are different. That was the problem. For 30 plus years we have been acceptant of homosexuals and their practice but it wasn't enough for them they want to marry as well because current laws would not allow them to have certain benefits. Such as the partner getting their SSI after they died.

Insurance policies were different you can designate anyone to be the beneficiary. You can add anyone onto your insurance policies after 1997 as long as they are in your house. There was nothing really to benefit LGBT in getting married except to change the 4000 plus year meaning of marriage to include Same Sex.

Many of you argued that using ancient laws of Hammurabi was antiquated and needed change, but yet at the same time you want us to take the one, that ONE example of a homosexual Partners in Egypt as the normal practice in Egypt historically and that is in error, it was not.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Oh, yea, you are right, but see the laws that man created so the man can rewrite them, back in ancient times civil rights of human beings were not recognized as death by actions was the norm, so in the same way that written laws in ancient times allowed one human being to had the right to kill another so now that under the new written laws is a crime

I guess everybody have a way to interpret the laws that man created depending on their agendas.

Do all a favor and come back to modern times in the 21 first century


Once AGAIN, I only quoted the laws of Hammurabi for the sake to establish that Marriage at that time over 4000 years ago was recognized as between a male and a female.

my point being five SCOTUs feel they are more educated and need not consult the traditional recognition of marriage as being between one and male and one female and rule that it is between two people regardless of gender. Next it will be animals and children. Because after all now it is a right. And marriage has never been a right in any country under any set of law up until the 20Th Century.

what is amazing is NOW only same sex marriages is a protected RIGHT under the US Constitution.


edit on 11-7-2015 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Oh do you want to live by those rules then? They seem a little chauvinistic and more than a little archaic to me.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge

I am amazed that the point was totally over looked by such educated people as yourself in order to promote your agenda.

We did not post it to show ACCEPTANCE of any middle eastern laws.

ONCE AGAIN, for the upteenth time the laws were shown that legally the recognition of one male and one female in marriage goes back thousands of years. And that tradition understanding of what a marriage is was over looked by the SCOTUS



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join