4000 years of history wiped out by five SCOTUS Judges

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Marriage it would seem has been between one man and one woman as indicated by the Code of Law established by Hammurabi.

No nations but the current ones has ever legalized marriage between the same sex.

so 4000 plus years of historical tradition is over thrown by five liberal SCOTUS judges without regard to the historical tradition.

I think about 20 other countries legalized this before the US in modern times. How would you blame just our supreme court? Also, see my other post, same sex marriage is not new to the world.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

But the only reason we know about those Laws is because an archeologist had the patience to dig in the dirt to discover a long dead society.

Please forgive me if I don't view failed states as a role model for the American system.

Hammurabi is an example of early lawmaking...not an example of what our laws should be.

Lol.
Keep it up OP threads like this turn people away from religion.
Your cults are dying off. Heck look at the millennials turning away from it in droves.
Humanity is growing up.
But keep on living in the dark ages dude it suits you.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

it is not cherry pick these definition of gender are not mental states but physical traits. Very important when trying to understand the age of marriage and how its was treated historically. I don't agree with the laws but the gender articles are very clear.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

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

One society and one set of laws does not represent all of mankind and they are pretty barbaric at that.

The women in that are displayed as property or cattle.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Considering that Hammurabi's code delegated women to chattel status I am just as glad that we don't follow it, but hey that's just me.

Saying that we have wiped out 4000 years of history because we are ignoring a singular part of Hammurabi's code is absurd. We don't drown women who commit adultery either so I think your "4000 years of history" was wiped out long ago.

I've seen some spectacular mental gymnastics on ATS before but this one definitely gets a 10. I mean, good job. Outstanding work.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Most of these were "destroyed" a long time ago have you spent your entire life crying about that too?

"130. If a man has ravished another's betrothed wife, who is a virgin, while still living in her father's house, and has been caught in the act, that man shall be put to death; the woman shall go free."

*cry* stupid progressives!

"142. If a woman has hated her husband and has said, "You shall not possess me," her past shall be inquired into, as to what she lacks. If she has been discreet, and has no vice, and her husband has gone out, and has greatly belittled her, that woman has no blame, she shall take her marriage-portion and go off to her father's house.

143. If she has not been discreet, has gone out, ruined her house, belittled her husband, she shall be drowned."

I want my Hammurabi Code back damnit! This out of control PC liberal madness has to stop! *cry*

Boy this will be fun in the next few decades in the interests of inclusion and equal rights what if three people love each other,or you love a chimera,your clone,a genetically enhanced AI...

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Bleat all you like the it is just marriage for all now.
You can't change it and seeing most people agree it was the right moral thing to do well you are wrong and the only excuse you have is your religion, which doesn't say much about it anyhow and you lot cherry pick and hide your bigotry behind your religion.
Like cowards.

a reply to: boymonkey74

not really did you know I found a pro homosexual scripture in the Holy Bible?

here is is

Romans 1:19 ¶ Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

According to this God gave them over to homosexuality because they did not give God glory and did not retain him in their hearts. the context of Romans 1 supports homosexuality as a form of God's judgement.

you don't have to accept it but homosexuality is of God's judgement and not because of love.

Love when the arguments against this come to 4000 year old laws, really shows how far people are willing to reach to justify their ignorance.

a reply to: Sremmos80

it is not about ignorance but about the origins of marriage and who it historically between.

Not one nation before modern times legalized same sex marriage. You wont find it any further back that a few years ago.

a reply to: reldra
This is a lie. There was NEVER same sex marriage before 21-st century. There was always homosexuals, at different times they had different level of acceptance, but NEVER EVER in any country same sex marriages were introduced in the legal code.

Your wikipedia article writing this

The first Roman emperor to have married a man was Nero, who is reported to have married two other men on different occasions.

But it is omitting the fact how it was reported by Roman historians, not exactly as a favorable deed, more like another misdeed of crazy Emperor.

Here is a report by the Roman historian Suetonius:

Besides the abuse of free-born lads, and the debauch of married women, he committed a rape upon Rubria, a Vestal Virgin. He was upon the point of marrying Acte, his freedwoman, having suborned some men of consular rank to swear that she was of royal descent. He gelded the boy Sporus, and endeavoured to transform him into a woman. He even went so far as to marry him, with all the usual formalities of a marriage settlement, the rose-coloured nuptial veil, and a numerous company at the wedding. When the ceremony was over, he had him conducted like a bride to his own house, and treated him as his wife. It was jocularly observed by some person, "that it would have been well for mankind, had such a wife fallen to the lot of his father Domitius." This Sporus he carried about with him in a litter round the solemn assemblies and fairs of Greece, and afterwards at Rome through the Sigillaria, dressed in the rich attire of an empress; kissing him from time to time as they rode together.

Here is another report from Roman historian Cassius Dio:

Now Nero called Sporus "Sabina" not merely because, owing to his resemblance to her he had been made a eunuch, but because the boy, like the mistress, had been solemnly married to him in Greece, Tigellinus giving the bride away, as the law ordained. All the Greeks held a celebration in honour of their marriage, uttering all the customary good wishes, even to the extent of praying that legitimate children might be born to them. After that Nero had two bedfellows at once, Pythagoras to play the rôle of husband to him, and Sporus that of wife. The latter, in addition to other forms of address, was termed "lady," "queen," and "mistress." Yet why should one wonder at this, seeing that Nero would fasten naked boys and girls to stakes, and then putting on the hide of a wild beast would attack them and satisfy his brutal lust under the appearance of devouring parts of their bodies? Such were the indecencies of Nero.

www.reformation.org...

if we have the right to marriage then we can marry whomever and whatever we like and as many as we like. Works good for the muslims and the mormons

a reply to: ChesterJohn

as in the days of Noah,'whatever' is the operative word

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

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Thing is all that to me and many is just BS, I believe in God but that is my business not yours and I sure will not preach about my relationship with God.
You don't know God you follow a book made by man and the sad thing is you fell for it.

Oh look a member of the flock.

The Code of Hammurabi also requires that we put to death anyone who frees a slave. So arguably the SCOTUS only destroyed like 150 years of history... the other 3850 years were already destroyed after the civil war.

Or maybe progress and destruction are not the same thing. And maybe Hammurabi isn't the point. Maybe the point is a book that happened to borrow quite a bit from Hammurabi's civilization- which would kind of imply the understanding that said book is discredited and requires a disguise. How telling.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: michaelbrux

the point being the oldest laws reflect that marriage is between one man and one woman.

What about those other "laws." Are you only choosing to up-hold the male/female aspect, or do wish to drown the woman who cheats-or throw the man from the city as well?

Keeping all those laws, or only those you agree with?

a reply to: kitzik

en.wikipedia.org...


Oh look it happened in Mesopotamia.

www.randomhistory.com...