CDZ Marriage IS the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

[Carla_Danger]

Some say marriage has always been between one man and one women. Not true ...


How marriage has changed over centuries

Has marriage always had the same definition?
Actually, the institution has been in a process of constant evolution. Pair-bonding began in the Stone Age as a way of organizing and controlling sexual conduct and providing a stable structure for child-rearing and the tasks of daily life. But that basic concept has taken many forms across different cultures and eras. "Whenever people talk about traditional marriage or traditional families, historians throw up their hands," said Steven Mintz, a history professor at Columbia University. "We say, 'When and where?'" The ancient Hebrews, for instance, engaged in polygamy — according to the Bible, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines — and men have taken multiple wives in cultures throughout the world, including China, Africa, and among American Mormons in the 19th century. Polygamy is still common across much of the Muslim world. The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development. Until two centuries ago, said Harvard historian Nancy Cott, "monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion" of the world population, found in "just Western Europe and little settlements in North America."


Gay 'marriage' in medieval Europe
Same-sex unions aren't a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples' gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as "spiritual brotherhoods" — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. Some historians believe these unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. But Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment, says it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned." That happened in 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian.

ROFLMNAO!

It's as if they lack the means to reason.

Marriage IS the Joining of One Man and One Woman. And this without regard to the idiocy that has attempted to define it otherwise.

Now you'll know them by there fruit.

Take a look at "what marriage has also been" and find a successful sustainable culture that has come as a consequence of ANY OF THAT NONSENSE.

You do realize that same sex marriage will soon be legal in all states?

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Now click you heels 3 times. You are incorrect.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Some say marriage has always been between one man and one women. Not true ...


How marriage has changed over centuries

Has marriage always had the same definition?
Actually, the institution has been in a process of constant evolution. Pair-bonding began in the Stone Age as a way of organizing and controlling sexual conduct and providing a stable structure for child-rearing and the tasks of daily life. But that basic concept has taken many forms across different cultures and eras. "Whenever people talk about traditional marriage or traditional families, historians throw up their hands," said Steven Mintz, a history professor at Columbia University. "We say, 'When and where?'" The ancient Hebrews, for instance, engaged in polygamy — according to the Bible, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines — and men have taken multiple wives in cultures throughout the world, including China, Africa, and among American Mormons in the 19th century. Polygamy is still common across much of the Muslim world. The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development. Until two centuries ago, said Harvard historian Nancy Cott, "monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion" of the world population, found in "just Western Europe and little settlements in North America."


Gay 'marriage' in medieval Europe
Same-sex unions aren't a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples' gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as "spiritual brotherhoods" — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. Some historians believe these unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. But Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment, says it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned." That happened in 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian.

ROFLMNAO!

It's as if they lack the means to reason.

Marriage IS the Joining of One Man and One Woman. And this without regard to the idiocy that has attempted to define it otherwise.

Now you'll know them by there fruit.

Take a look at "what marriage has also been" and find a successful sustainable culture that has come as a consequence of ANY OF THAT NONSENSE.

You do realize that same sex marriage will soon be legal in all states?

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Now click you heels 3 times. You are incorrect.

ROFL!

So the natural standard of marriage, which is direct a consequence of human physiology... OKA: REALITY; you claim is fantasy. Which you assert to lament fantasy.


LOK! That is adorable.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Some say marriage has always been between one man and one women. Not true ...


How marriage has changed over centuries

Has marriage always had the same definition?
Actually, the institution has been in a process of constant evolution. Pair-bonding began in the Stone Age as a way of organizing and controlling sexual conduct and providing a stable structure for child-rearing and the tasks of daily life. But that basic concept has taken many forms across different cultures and eras. "Whenever people talk about traditional marriage or traditional families, historians throw up their hands," said Steven Mintz, a history professor at Columbia University. "We say, 'When and where?'" The ancient Hebrews, for instance, engaged in polygamy — according to the Bible, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines — and men have taken multiple wives in cultures throughout the world, including China, Africa, and among American Mormons in the 19th century. Polygamy is still common across much of the Muslim world. The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development. Until two centuries ago, said Harvard historian Nancy Cott, "monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion" of the world population, found in "just Western Europe and little settlements in North America."


Gay 'marriage' in medieval Europe
Same-sex unions aren't a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples' gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as "spiritual brotherhoods" — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. Some historians believe these unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. But Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment, says it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned." That happened in 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian.

ROFLMNAO!

It's as if they lack the means to reason.

Marriage IS the Joining of One Man and One Woman. And this without regard to the idiocy that has attempted to define it otherwise.

Now you'll know them by there fruit.

Take a look at "what marriage has also been" and find a successful sustainable culture that has come as a consequence of ANY OF THAT NONSENSE.

You do realize that same sex marriage will soon be legal in all states?

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Now click you heels 3 times. You are incorrect.

ROFL!

So the natural standard of marriage, which is direct a consequence of human physiology... OKA: REALITY; you claim is fantasy. Which you assert to lament fantasy.


LOK! That is adorable.

ROFLMAO!!! Soon it we be legal in every state.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

ROFLMNAO!

It's as if they lack the means to reason.

Marriage IS the Joining of One Man and One Woman. And this without regard to the idiocy that has attempted to define it otherwise.

Now you'll know them by there fruit.

Take a look at "what marriage has also been" and find a successful sustainable culture that has come as a consequence of ANY OF THAT NONSENSE.

You do realize that same sex marriage will soon be legal in all states?

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Now click you heels 3 times. You are incorrect.

ROFL!

So the natural standard of marriage, which is direct a consequence of human physiology... OKA: REALITY; you claim is fantasy. Which you assert to lament fantasy.


LOK! That is adorable.

ROFLMAO!!! Soon it we be legal in every state.

So what?

Not one single male who is playing house with another male and likewise for the females will be married.

They could claim themselves starting lineman in the Dolphins... And even where some court illicitly declared that they could legally claim themselves to be linebackers for the Dolphins... That in no way would make them Linebackers for the Phins.

But it would identify them is delusional.

Just as claiming that two people of the same gender are suitable for marriage identifies them, as their willfully engaging in sexual behavior with people of the same gender identifies them.

 

[Carla_Danger]

You do realize that same sex marriage will soon be legal in all states?

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Now click you heels 3 times. You are incorrect.

ROFL!

So the natural standard of marriage, which is direct a consequence of human physiology... OKA: REALITY; you claim is fantasy. Which you assert to lament fantasy.


LOK! That is adorable.

ROFLMAO!!! Soon it we be legal in every state.

So what?

Not one single male who is playing house with another male and likewise for the females will be married.

They could claim themselves starting lineman in the Dolphins... And even where some court illicitly declared that they could legally claim themselves to be linebackers for the Dolphins... That in no way would make them Linebackers for the Phins.

But it would identify them is delusional.

Just as claiming that two people of the same gender are suitable for marriage identifies them, as their willfully engaging in sexual behavior with people of the same gender identifies them.

They are just as legally married as anyone else, and have the same contract.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Now click you heels 3 times. You are incorrect.

ROFL!

So the natural standard of marriage, which is direct a consequence of human physiology... OKA: REALITY; you claim is fantasy. Which you assert to lament fantasy.


LOK! That is adorable.

ROFLMAO!!! Soon it we be legal in every state.

So what?

Not one single male who is playing house with another male and likewise for the females will be married.

They could claim themselves starting lineman in the Dolphins... And even where some court illicitly declared that they could legally claim themselves to be linebackers for the Dolphins... That in no way would make them Linebackers for the Phins.

But it would identify them is delusional.

Just as claiming that two people of the same gender are suitable for marriage identifies them, as their willfully engaging in sexual behavior with people of the same gender identifies them.

They are just as legally married as anyone else, and have the same contract.

False... Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

They'll be legally pretending to be something that doesn't exist.

But such is the nature of the mental disorder that presents as sexual deviancy.

 

[CMike]

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

 

[CMike]

Because same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts...

On what basis are sexually deviant citizens eligible for participation in an institution which is an extension of the human physiological sexual standard?

They can participate. They can still marry a person of the opposite sex.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Now click you heels 3 times. You are incorrect.

ROFL!

So the natural standard of marriage, which is direct a consequence of human physiology... OKA: REALITY; you claim is fantasy. Which you assert to lament fantasy.


LOK! That is adorable.

ROFLMAO!!! Soon it we be legal in every state.

So what?

Not one single male who is playing house with another male and likewise for the females will be married.

They could claim themselves starting lineman in the Dolphins... And even where some court illicitly declared that they could legally claim themselves to be linebackers for the Dolphins... That in no way would make them Linebackers for the Phins.

But it would identify them is delusional.

Just as claiming that two people of the same gender are suitable for marriage identifies them, as their willfully engaging in sexual behavior with people of the same gender identifies them.

They are just as legally married as anyone else, and have the same contract.

False... Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

They'll be legally pretending to be something that doesn't exist.

But such is the nature of the mental disorder that presents as sexual deviancy.

Straight from of the Duggars playbook. ROFLMAO!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Because same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts...

On what basis are sexually deviant citizens eligible for participation in an institution which is an extension of the human physiological sexual standard?

They can participate. They can still marry a person of the opposite sex.

Of course.

But that would be Marriage.


Let's not pretend that the opposition was speaking of Marriage.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am glad that Keys is adhering to the rules again. Good for him.

Now if he would realize that his personal opinion means nothing.

But words and their definitions mean everything.

SCOTUS will define the meaning of marriage, not Keys.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

ROFLMAO!!! Soon it we be legal in every state.

So what?

Not one single male who is playing house with another male and likewise for the females will be married.

Sure they will. Marriage is a legal construct. It's what ever the lawmakers decide it is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

ROFLMAO!!! Soon it we be legal in every state.

So what?

Not one single male who is playing house with another male and likewise for the females will be married.

Sure they will. Marriage is a legal construct. It's what ever the lawmakers decide it is.

Thousands have been married. Keys' opinion means nothing.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

ROFLMAO!!! Soon it we be legal in every state.

So what?

Not one single male who is playing house with another male and likewise for the females will be married.

Sure they will. Marriage is a legal construct. It's what ever the lawmakers decide it is.

Well, I wonder what other legal constructs humanity has come up with that were otherwise illegitimate?

Are you here to claim that such 'legalities' turn what is otherwise demonstrably 'wrong' into something akin to 'right'?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keys ' opinion of that which is wrong or right is his only and not binding on anyone.

But SCOTUS opinion will be binding on Keys.

 

[PratchettFan]

If that makes you feel better. It is the position of the courts which matters. You can think contracts are pretty birdies if it makes you happy.

Well yes... Explain for the benifit of the board, how little one's word means in a contract. I think that would be very helpful.

Ok, for the benefit of the board. One's word is irrelevant in a contract. In a handshake agreement it certainly means something, or in a wager. But the purpose of a written contract is that the agreement is written down and is enforced by the legal system. It doesn't matter whether or not one keep's their word. It only matters that they meet their obligations under the contract. If people kept their word, then a written contract would not be necessary.

LOL!

Ok... We're making progress.


So those things that are written down... What are they and what purpose do they serve?

And what is it that the legal system is enforcing, exactly?

And how does that differ from one 'not living up to their word?

I don't require an education from you on contracts and I seriously doubt you are looking for one from me. So just make your point.

The point is made.

That you do not understand that the point was made, should serve as your notice that you're in dire need of an education... Of which Contracts 101 should be a part.

One's word, in terms of what one expects to give and to receive, is the explicit point of a contract.

There is no separating the two.

Ah, then you are wrong. I'm glad we could straighten that out.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well yes... Explain for the benifit of the board, how little one's word means in a contract. I think that would be very helpful.

Ok, for the benefit of the board. One's word is irrelevant in a contract. In a handshake agreement it certainly means something, or in a wager. But the purpose of a written contract is that the agreement is written down and is enforced by the legal system. It doesn't matter whether or not one keep's their word. It only matters that they meet their obligations under the contract. If people kept their word, then a written contract would not be necessary.

LOL!

Ok... We're making progress.


So those things that are written down... What are they and what purpose do they serve?

And what is it that the legal system is enforcing, exactly?

And how does that differ from one 'not living up to their word?

I don't require an education from you on contracts and I seriously doubt you are looking for one from me. So just make your point.

The point is made.

That you do not understand that the point was made, should serve as your notice that you're in dire need of an education... Of which Contracts 101 should be a part.

One's word, in terms of what one expects to give and to receive, is the explicit point of a contract.

There is no separating the two.

Ah, then you are wrong. I'm glad we could straighten that out.

LOL!

Golly, if baseless conclusion were argument, that could be considered valid. BUT... sadly, they're not.

Try again and this time you should try to construct a valid argument, wherein that which you claim to be wrong, is sustained through reasoning which demonstrates how and why it is wrong.

But you need to understand, that there's no means to mount a valid argument around your conclusion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

ROFLMAO!!! Soon it we be legal in every state.

So what?

Not one single male who is playing house with another male and likewise for the females will be married.

Sure they will. Marriage is a legal construct. It's what ever the lawmakers decide it is.

Well, I wonder what other legal constructs humanity has come up with that were otherwise illegitimate?

Are you here to claim that such 'legalities' turn what is otherwise demonstrably 'wrong' into something akin to 'right'?

Homosexuality is not “demonstrably wrong,” same-sex couples marrying is not “demonstrably wrong,” that's merely your errant, subjective, and irrelevant opinion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Asserting marriage is one man and one woman is merely a baseless conclusion.

Keys' subjective opinion is conclusive of nothing.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Homosexuality is not “demonstrably wrong,” same-sex couples marrying is not “demonstrably wrong,” that's merely your errant, subjective, and irrelevant opinion.

So my opinion is erroneous, subjective & irrelevant, but YOUR OPINION IS correct, objective and relevant?

Can you share with the board the specific equation used to make that assertion?

(Reader, you'll want to take note of the response or lack thereof, from the above cited contributor.

And set that response or lack thereof, against the definition of Relativism:

"Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes."

It is through this, perversion of reason, wherein relativism axiomatically rejects the objectivity that is essential to truth.

And with truth being essential to trust and, both of those being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

Now Marriage > IS < the Joining of One Man and One Woman, BECAUSE: (that means that you're about to see the BASIS for > WHY < MARRIAGE IS: THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN) Nature designed MAMMALS; part and parcel of which is the Human Species, with TWO DISTINCT but complimenting genders. Each respectively designed to join with the other, both physically and emotionally.

Wherein One Man and One Woman JOIN their distinct, but complimenting Bodies into ONE SUSTAINABLE BODY; which BY NATURAL EXTENSION... One Man and One Woman Join Together into One Legally recognized Body.

^ That standard is an OBSERVATION of INCONTESTABLE FACTS. ^

I've witnessed it, you've witnessed it, everyone you've ever known, everyone THEY ever knew, everyone of the people that THEY every knew, observed the same thing. It is as well known to each human being as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

It is "a judgment not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts, and it is not dependent on the mind for existence; it is actual, demonstrated by reality", thus it is objective.

So where the opposition comes to demand that Marriage as Defined by Nature is 'BASELESS... SUBJECTIVE OR Erroneous', you should ask them why they reject the incontrovertible facts at the foundation of Marriage.... and you'll find that their answer, IF they answer, will be within a degree or two of 'Marriage is what WE say it is'.

Now let's take a look at what subjective means: "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions".

Now, you decide which is objective; the facts as you and everyone you have ever known either in personal experience of through historic record have observed them, or the personal need which forges the opinion that 'WE decide what Marriage is.')