Thread: SCOTUS decides on Prop 8 :D

Originally Posted by Ranger10

How do you know this? How? All I've seen are the same regurgitated arguments, but no solid, empirical data to back up this assertion. I mean, when I went and looked, all I found were the same things Kanati found, and that is that the IDEA of marriage started with a contract in the Jewish nation. And the term itself originated several thousand years later.

Yet now... for your argument to have any credibility, it MUST have been formulated thousands of years before there in Sumeria. How wonderfully convenient! If you have proof, by all means, share it. Otherwise, you're simply hoping that you're right because it supports your theory now. How is this argument any different than when you try and shoot down someone's "creationism" argument where they have no proof either? Don't you always say... "show me the proof"? And when they can't, doesn't that sort of signify that their view is either incomplete, no well thought out, or at the very least flawed? How is that different than now?

Come on Frost, show some consistency bro.

Mesopotamian Marriage Law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sumerian marriage existed, before the Jews "invented" it. While it only somewhat resembles modern-day marriage, it still existed.

Ancient Greek marriage law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ancient Greece also had marriage, anywhere from 600-800 years B.C. I doubt they got the idea from Jews, considering the lack of contact between distant cultures back in those days.

Also, I don't always say "show me the proof", those are some of the other arguers on here lol. That being said, proof is always good. Here you go

~Morningfrost

Originally Posted by Morningfrost

Mesopotamian Marriage Law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sumerian marriage existed, before the Jews "invented" it. While it only somewhat resembles modern-day marriage, it still existed.

Ancient Greek marriage law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ancient Greece also had marriage, anywhere from 600-800 years B.C. I doubt they got the idea from Jews, considering the lack of contact between distant cultures back in those days.

Also, I don't always say "show me the proof", those are some of the other arguers on here lol. That being said, proof is always good. Here you go

~Morningfrost

Sooo...

Marriage Law in Ancient Mesopotamia very much resembled property law. As Discerned from Hammurabi's Code, wives were bought and sold in a manner very much resembling slavery. The legal institution of marriage, its rules and ramifications, show that in the Mesopotamia world marriage and slavery were legal cousins.

Quick question, does this sound like the idea of marriage we recognize today? Do we buy our wives? Are they our slaves? I mean if gays are looking to buy and sell one another as slaves, then you might have a point. And if THIS is what marriage is, then the Southern Land owners were married to their slaves weren't they? Sound ridiculous doesn't it? Kinda like asserting that the definition of Mesopotamian "marriage" is the same as the one used today. It wasn't even close to the same thing.

And also, using the same source you are, the etymology of marriage is as follows...

The word "Marriage" derives from the Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250-1300CE.

So the term marriage didn't exist in Sumeria or Mesopotamia. So anytime you see the term marriage used to describe a union between two people in those two ancient civilizations, not only was the terminology NOT the same, but the understood parameters doesn't even resemble what the Jewish nation, and the Christian faiths have created, in any way shape or form. That would be like me asserting that "Intelligent Design" is a "science". You're trying to force a definition to fit a criteria because you want it to fit.

And even more comical is the Greek version, which states,

These regulations were founded on the generally recognized principle that it was the duty of every citizen to raise up a strong and healthy progeny of legitimate children to the state.

It wasn't a relationship that you and I would recognize as marriage, yet again. It was to pro-create in order to give healthy children to the state. Are we doing that now? Do homosexuals reproduce? Of course not. So yet again, this definition isn't even close to what we call marriage. It's another attempt to say, "Gee, doesn't this orange taste like an apple?"

And once again, the Jewish nation is just as old as the Greeks. Their writings and their doctrine are what we use today to define our idea of marriage, as well as what we use as the Bible.

The Judeo-Christian idea of marriage between a man and woman hasn't changed for thousand upon thousands of years. It wasn't codified until 2500BC in a little book we call the Bible, but it's origins are undeniable. In any way you define it, nothing else before or since uses the same concepts.

So lets fast forward to here and now...

I still maintain that our government, founded on Biblical principles, should not deemed itself capable of defining anything. Since it's become increasingly clear that people are not willing to allow Biblical precepts to act as a guide for their lives, and daily seek to remove those core foundations from the underpinnings of America, then I suggest you remove them ALL, including the idea of marriage, not just the ones you don't like. Otherwise, its the height of hypocrisy to assume otherwise.

This is true equality. Not "separate but equal", truly equal. Isn't that was this whole thing is about? Equality?

Originally Posted by DJ Mr. White

So, women had full rights when the English coined the term "marriage" right? They could vote, own property, etc.? Oh wait.

Were they slaves? Oh, right. Nevermind.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

Sooo...




Quick question, does this sound like the idea of marriage we recognize today? Do we buy our wives? Are they our slaves? I mean if gays are looking to buy and sell one another as slaves, then you might have a point. And if THIS is what marriage is, then the Southern Land owners were married to their slaves weren't they? Sound ridiculous doesn't it? Kinda like asserting that the definition of Mesopotamian "marriage" is the same as the one used today. It wasn't even close to the same thing.

And also, using the same source you are, the etymology of marriage is as follows...



So the term marriage didn't exist in Sumeria or Mesopotamia. So anytime you see the term marriage used to describe a union between two people in those two ancient civilizations, not only was the terminology NOT the same, but the understood parameters doesn't even resemble what the Jewish nation, and the Christian faiths have created, in any way shape or form. That would be like me asserting that "Intelligent Design" is a "science". You're trying to force a definition to fit a criteria because you want it to fit.

And even more comical is the Greek version, which states,



It wasn't a relationship that you and I would recognize as marriage, yet again. It was to pro-create in order to give healthy children to the state. Are we doing that now? Do homosexuals reproduce? Of course not. So yet again, this definition isn't even close to what we call marriage. It's another attempt to say, "Gee, doesn't this orange taste like an apple?"

And once again, the Jewish nation is just as old as the Greeks. Their writings and their doctrine are what we use today to define our idea of marriage, as well as what we use as the Bible.

The Judeo-Christian idea of marriage between a man and woman hasn't changed for thousand upon thousands of years. It wasn't codified until 2500BC in a little book we call the Bible, but it's origins are undeniable. In any way you define it, nothing else before or since uses the same concepts.

So lets fast forward to here and now...

I still maintain that our government, founded on Biblical principles, should not deemed itself capable of defining anything. Since it's become increasingly clear that people are not willing to allow Biblical precepts to act as a guide for their lives, and daily seek to remove those core foundations from the underpinnings of America, then I suggest you remove them ALL, including the idea of marriage, not just the ones you don't like. Otherwise, its the height of hypocrisy to assume otherwise.

This is true equality. Not "separate but equal", truly equal. Isn't that was this whole thing is about? Equality?

Ok, I'm gonna try and answer your rebuttals, despite the fact that they make less and less sense the more I read them.

As I said in my response about ancient Sumerian law, their version of marriage only vaguely resembles modern-day marriage....in that there was a man, a woman, and children. Yes women were considered property back then, but there was still an institution of marriage. This applies even more strongly in the Greek version. Also, what does homosexuality have to do with ancient marriage customs? So people thousands of years ago weren't as open-minded as people today. Does that really surprise you?

Were any of those relationships built on love and understanding like today's marriages are "supposed" to? No, not at all. Were they still marriages? Yes. You seem to be forgetting that even in the concept of marriage things aren't all rainbows and butterflies. As recently as a few centuries ago, arranged marriages were still very common. They were instituted for various reasons (political alliances being the most common), yet not one of those reasons involved love....and that was just a few hundred years ago at most.

But since none of these arguments appear to be penetrating your skull, let me try it from a different angle. Let's look at wagons. They're pretty common (or at least were, but you know what I mean). They existed in multiple cultures at multiple times. Did the idea or concept of the wagon originate with one particular group of people? Unlikely. Instead, they were "created" by multiple civilizations that were 100% independent of each other. Let's say one culture "invented" the wagon a long time before another, but that the second culture still invented it on it's own. Does that mean that only the first culture has a right to use the term wagon? Or the wagons themselves? Not on your life.

The absolute most that religion can try and lay claim to is the term marriage....and yet even that would be incorrect. The term marriage wasn't used back in ancient Israel, because they didn't speak English. Therefore some random guy in England created the term marriage, and it was merely set equivalent to whatever term the Jews used, just as it was also set equivalent to whatever term the Spanish used, or the Italians used, or the Greeks used.

~Morningfrost

Originally Posted by Morningfrost

Ok, I'm gonna try and answer your rebuttals, despite the fact that they make less and less sense the more I read them.

As I said in my response about ancient Sumerian law, their version of marriage only vaguely resembles modern-day marriage....in that there was a man, a woman, and children. Yes women were considered property back then, but there was still an institution of marriage. This applies even more strongly in the Greek version. Also, what does homosexuality have to do with ancient marriage customs? So people thousands of years ago weren't as open-minded as people today. Does that really surprise you?

Were any of those relationships built on love and understanding like today's marriages are "supposed" to? No, not at all. Were they still marriages? Yes. You seem to be forgetting that even in the concept of marriage things aren't all rainbows and butterflies. As recently as a few centuries ago, arranged marriages were still very common. They were instituted for various reasons (political alliances being the most common), yet not one of those reasons involved love....and that was just a few hundred years ago at most.

But since none of these arguments appear to be penetrating your skull, let me try it from a different angle. Let's look at wagons. They're pretty common (or at least were, but you know what I mean). They existed in multiple cultures at multiple times. Did the idea or concept of the wagon originate with one particular group of people? Unlikely. Instead, they were "created" by multiple civilizations that were 100% independent of each other. Let's say one culture "invented" the wagon a long time before another, but that the second culture still invented it on it's own. Does that mean that only the first culture has a right to use the term wagon? Or the wagons themselves? Not on your life.

The absolute most that religion can try and lay claim to is the term marriage....and yet even that would be incorrect. The term marriage wasn't used back in ancient Israel, because they didn't speak English. Therefore some random guy in England created the term marriage, and it was merely set equivalent to whatever term the Jews used, just as it was also set equivalent to whatever term the Spanish used, or the Italians used, or the Greeks used.

~Morningfrost

Penetrating my skull, huh? Class it up Frost, or bow out.

You're still missing the point. It's not that I care where marriage came from. I happen to have better evidence (in my opinion) than you that it is a uniquely Jewish idea, but neither of us has enough evidence about any ancient cultures to really persuade the other, so it's a moot point. But here, in this country, its a Judeo-Christian concept. Yet, you, and people like you, spend all their time removing those same kinds of concepts under the pretense of separation of church and state (prayer, assembly or anything that deals with Christianity) at every turn.

Yet in this case, you want to keep it? Do you have any idea how hypocritical that idea is? How, in one moment, you're happy to remove any reference to any religious concept when it applies to the state, until you get to something you happen to like, in which case, you keep it. How profoundly convenient.

I support the separation of church and state. In every way. Do you? Because asking the state to incorporate and define a RELIGIOUS term into it's adjudicated set of laws IS combining church and state. Even IF the term and concept of marriage were created by Hammurabi, it would still be a religious concept! Aren't we trying to remove all religious affiliations from our government?! So I suggest a course of action that will accomplish the same goal, while preserving the long fought over ideas atheists have been fighting for in this country, and NOW you want to combine the two?

Where is the logic that is so often praised in this forum? Why the double standard?

Originally Posted by Ranger10

Penetrating my skull, huh? Class it up Frost, or bow out.

You're still missing the point. It's not that I care where marriage came from. I happen to have better evidence (in my opinion) than you that it is a uniquely Jewish idea, but neither of us has enough evidence about any ancient cultures to really persuade the other, so it's a moot point. But here, in this country, its a Judeo-Christian concept. Yet, you, and people like you, spend all their time removing those same kinds of concepts under the pretense of separation of church and state (prayer, assembly or anything that deals with Christianity) at every turn.

Yet in this case, you want to keep it? Do you have any idea how hypocritical that idea is? How, in one moment, you're happy to remove any reference to any religious concept when it applies to the state, until you get to something you happen to like, in which case, you keep it. How profoundly convenient.

I support the separation of church and state. In every way. Do you? Because asking the state to incorporate and define a RELIGIOUS term into it's adjudicated set of laws IS combining church and state. Even IF the term and concept of marriage were created by Hammurabi, it would still be a religious concept! Aren't we trying to remove all religious affiliations from our government?! So I suggest a course of action that will accomplish the same goal, while preserving the long fought over ideas atheists have been fighting for in this country, and NOW you want to combine the two?

Where is the logic that is so often praised in this forum? Why the double standard?

The double standard is only visible by you, because we do not agree that marriage is a religious term, let alone a Judeo-Christian term. You believe it is, I'm quoted multiple pieces of evidence that says it's not. So no, I don't see the hypocrisy, because I'm not operating under the assumption that Christianity owns the term marriage....any more than Hindus or Buddhists or Muslims or pasta worshipers own the term.

I'm not here to shit on anyone's faith Ranger, but you're seeing this as an attack on religion when this is essentially an attack by religion upon the English language. Religion doesn't own any term in the English language, nor does anyone else.

~Morningfrost

Originally Posted by Morningfrost

The double standard is only visible by you, because we do not agree that marriage is a religious term, let alone a Judeo-Christian term. You believe it is, I'm quoted multiple pieces of evidence that says it's not. So no, I don't see the hypocrisy, because I'm not operating under the assumption that Christianity owns the term marriage....any more than Hindus or Buddhists or Muslims or pasta worshipers own the term.

I'm not here to shit on anyone's faith Ranger, but you're seeing this as an attack on religion when this is essentially an attack by religion upon the English language. Religion doesn't own any term in the English language, nor does anyone else.

~Morningfrost

No... it's not an attack on religion. I don't think that for a second. I'm simply pointing out that we've made a concerted effort to remove all religious references from government. Yet, marriage IS a religious reference. It's why 99.99% of marriage happen in a church. Now, whether the term of concept originates from either the Jews, or some other ancient religion, it's still a religious concept. But instead of removing it, like people are doing with every other idea (like "Happy Holidays", instead of "Christmas") you're embracing it.

I can tell the difference between an attack on religion, and the inconsistent application of separating church, any church, from state. So help me out, why is this different?

Originally Posted by Ranger10

No... it's not an attack on religion. I don't think that for a second. I'm simply pointing out that we've made a concerted effort to remove all religious references from government. Yet, marriage IS a religious reference. It's why 99.99% of marriage happen in a church. Now, whether the term of concept originates from either the Jews, or some other ancient religion, it's still a religious concept. But instead of removing it, like people are doing with every other idea (like "Happy Holidays", instead of "Christmas") you're embracing it.

I can tell the difference between an attack on religion, and the inconsistent application of separating church, any church, from state. So help me out, why is this different?

It's different solely because you believe marriage is a religious reference. I don't. You may also be surprised by how much of a minority your belief that marriage is a religious reference is.

~Morningfrost