It is likely that the United States of America, perhaps the closest nation in history to a true Judeo-Christian Nation (besides Israel), may go further than pagan Rome or Greece and make Same-Sex Marriage the Law. If this is the case, of the few historical precedents to this were Sodom & Gamorrah, and the Minoan Greeks, both of which were destroyed by cataclysmic seismological events.
Judgment from God? Perhaps! Why? Homosexuals never keep their perversion to themselves. They cannot reproduce naturally, so they adopt other people's children or get artificially inseminated. Imagine the confusion of children forced into this situation. God will not allow them to perish without hope of salvation. Does history repeat itself? What about Yellowstone...?
Forgot where I found this, but it’s a good explanation.
“In ancient Greek and Roman civilization, marriages were private agreements between individuals and families. Community recognition of a marriage was largely what qualified it as a marriage. The state had only limited interests in assessing the legitimacy of marriages. Normally civil and religious officials took no part in marriage ceremonies, nor did they keep registries. There were several more or less formal ceremonies to choose from (partly interchangeable, but sometimes with different legal ramifications) as well as informal arrangements.”
The Greeks liked to marry women who did as they were told by their husbands. They did not join in the philosophical debates, they were ‘women’. The men liked to enjoy boys on the side, many different ‘boys’.
That’s the homosexual way. Mucha partners.
The implication IS that those cultures never spun into lunacy.
The Greeks thought it was a passing phase. The “passive” partner was an adolescent or youth, who they’d assumed would outgrow it. The “active” partner was a mature man who already had a wife and probably children. The attachment wouldn’t last for him either, though he might move on to another youth.
I expect Chief Justice Roberts to sell us out.
This Supreme Court hearing is a sham and any ruling in favor of mandatory acceptance of sodomy is arguably void on its face.
First: No federal court has jurisdiction to judge marriage as marriage is neither a right nor a privilege. For proof of this fact try to marry your adult sibling. As such its not covered under the 14th’s jurisdiction, nor is it a civil rights claim.
Second: Marriage is an establishment of religion. The First Amendment bars the government from changing it.
Third: Kagan and Ginsberg by publicly advocating for forced public acceptance of sodomy have demonstrated a bias as well as conflict of interest requiring them to recuse themselves from the case. They have not done so.
The absence of the forgoing arguments in front of the court and the refusal to recuse themselves by the two who have shown the most conflict of interest in the case are proof the hearing today is a sham.
[[Scalia: ‘Why no ancient Greek gay marriages?’]]
Because people honest enough to admit it always knew gay acts were deviant acts not worthy of marriage- that’s why
Pssssst- Scalia- IF you or your buddies allow gay marriage, then you MUST allow pedophile marriages, necromancer marriages, people marrying close relatives, people marrying animals, etc etc etc-
Homosexuality is a DEVIANT lifestyle CHOICE- just as the others mentioned are DEVIANT lifestyle choices-
IF you allow one DEVIANT lifestyle CHOICE under the guise of ‘tolerance’ then you are declaring it’s ok to be tolerant of some DEVIANT lifestyle choices but not others-
A man and woman couple are NOT Deviating form natural tendencies- all other forms of sexual expression ARE DEVIATIONS from natural affections-
THAT is why homosexual marriages have never been allowed! Even in Greece
Where do you find evidence either the Sodomites or the Minoans had SSM? I’m unaware of any.
Breyer noted heterosexual marriage has been the law everywhere for thousands of years, and suddenly Bonauto was asking for immediate change.
“Why can’t these states wait and see” if the other states’ experiments in gay marriage leads to harm?
Bonauto answered that under the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause, the same-sex couple she represented should not have to wait. Furthermore, she claimed, changes to previous marriage laws, such as eliminating prohibitions to inter-racial marriage, had been greatly unsettling to many people, but it was still the right thing to do.
***Under her reasoning, then the 19th amendment was completely unnecessary as were the civil rights and voting rights acts.***
The point of the 13th and 14th ammendments were to make whole and equal under the law the rights of blacks and Indians.
Oh, and to ensure some debts were paid as a result of 600, 000 dead guys actions...
Just asking: is there a constitutional right to heterosexual marriage?
The Admiral
No, but it often rhymes.
This could become ve-r-r-r-ry interesting in late June when the decision is announced. I expect a bad decision. But then, Ted Cruz is drafting a proposed amendment to the Constitution that would exempt the states from equal protection requirements regarding the definition of marriage. Should be right in his wheelhouse as SCOTUS announces the term ending opinions.
ping
I’m sure the Justices have many friends who are divorce attorneys who stand to benefit substantially from gay marriage. Perhaps they should recuse themselves.
The Minoans were already pretty beat up by the time of the volcano. They had mainland invaders.
Ping!
The harshest of God’s judgments shall surely, as always, fall: that we shall be forced to live with the consequences of our actions.
Plus as has been noted already, the can of worms will be completely emptied in that the Institution won't be limited to just two people, where you'll see unrelenting efforts to legitimize polygamy, polyamory – not to mention other deviant lifestyle "desires".