Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump

[Montrovant]

I didn't make any claims about precedent. Again, I simply pointed out that your statement saying the concept of same sex marriage has only begun in the last few decades is false. If you said that the concept of same sex marriage as an equal legal contract to opposite sex marriage is recent, that would probably be accurate. On the other hand, there were apparently some tribes in Africa in pre-colonial times that allowed women to marry and treated it similarly to opposite-sex marriages.

History of Same Sex Marriage

For the purposes of this thread, how about 'same sex marriage is a recent idea in the US'?

The concept as a broad mainstream reality is recent. Sorry but 1-2 maybe sort of probable cases does not make a case for precedent.

In Africa, those cases probably involved widows or women from families with no men, and it had to do with property, not sex.

There is a similar concept found in the Balkans, (Albania I think), but again that has all to do with keeping family property in the family.

If all you are going to do is nit-pick, when my statement is 98% accurate, then go play somewhere else.

Feel free to stop replying. I never claimed that SSM is or has been common, nor that any precedents were set, nor that it was a mainstream legal construct. I simply pointed out that a statement you made, the way you stated it, was false. Since then, you've repeatedly tried to make that into something it is not.

I was just looking to fix a slight inaccuracy in a post you made. Why you want to assume that I'm making statements about same sex marriage that I am not, I'm not sure. Hell, you could have just said the current concept of SSM began in the last few decades and that would have been fine.

Maybe you really hate accepting any sort of correction to your posts, however minor.

And I clarified, but you keep harping on the same point over and over, so I have to assume you are just bringing up chickenshit to be annoying.

I'm sure someone had an idea for a computer back in antiquity, but we don't say computers go back to then. (probably involving boulders and slides)

Someone having an idea, and an idea being accepted or applied are two different things.

I agree. Never claimed otherwise.

Your clarification was fine with me, except that you seemed to both dismiss the evidence of previous same sex unions as not counting, or being just about sex, and that you seemed to indicate that I was arguing more than just that the concept of same sex marriage is older than a few decades. I've been "harping" because I don't want to seem to accept that my argument was something other than what it was.

I'm fine with accepting your clarification and dropping this little side discussion.

I understand now. As a clarification, the "current" concept of SSM is a modern construct. My point is that the comparison to inter-racial marriage and the past bans on that in this country isn't really valid, because the idea of inter-racial marriage as sanctioned marriages has been with us throughout history, in the guise of inter-tribal, inter-clan, and even inter-governmental marriages. If there is any hard evidence of even limited sanctioned same sex marriages (and not the whole concubine/harem systems seen in the past) I have yet to see it.

I brought up the African tribal example, although you are right that it appears to have been about widows not wanting to find a new husband from what I've read. Nero was also supposed to have married 2 different men when he was emperor, including once having a ceremony in which a castrated boy was dressed as a woman traditionally would have been; when the emperor gets married, it's kind of automatically sanctioned.

I believe that the evidence of those examples is somewhat speculative. I don't know that there is any definitive evidence of sanctioned same sex marriages, particularly not similar to how marriage is defined in the modern US.

There are certainly differences between same sex marriage and interracial marriages. There are some similarities as well, so I don't know if dismissing the comparison entirely is a good idea, but I'd agree that trying to make it a direct, point-by-point comparison will fail.

 

[bodecea]

They may not approve of his life, but unlike the democrats, he will not go after what is important in THEIR lives. Democrats offer nothing to Evangelicals except more attacks on their beliefs and lives.

Which kind of shows how fucked up Evangelical Christians are, doesn't it?

"He might be a creep who fucks porn stars, but he will never, ever judge my homophobia and racism! He'll encourage it!"

I can’t wait until you and all the other scum are sliced up into many tiny pieces during the civil war that is coming up in 2020.

You may think you are safe treating Christians like shit despite all the charities only existing because of Christians, but that is why people like me exist. To do what Christians are too nice to do.

Christians are too nice to sit in their mothers basement and make empty threats?

You are going to be surprised in a year when the civil war happens and Antifa is shitting their pants just because of me.

Let's get back to you in a year, ok?

 

[martybegan]

The concept as a broad mainstream reality is recent. Sorry but 1-2 maybe sort of probable cases does not make a case for precedent.

In Africa, those cases probably involved widows or women from families with no men, and it had to do with property, not sex.

There is a similar concept found in the Balkans, (Albania I think), but again that has all to do with keeping family property in the family.

If all you are going to do is nit-pick, when my statement is 98% accurate, then go play somewhere else.

Feel free to stop replying. I never claimed that SSM is or has been common, nor that any precedents were set, nor that it was a mainstream legal construct. I simply pointed out that a statement you made, the way you stated it, was false. Since then, you've repeatedly tried to make that into something it is not.

I was just looking to fix a slight inaccuracy in a post you made. Why you want to assume that I'm making statements about same sex marriage that I am not, I'm not sure. Hell, you could have just said the current concept of SSM began in the last few decades and that would have been fine.

Maybe you really hate accepting any sort of correction to your posts, however minor.

And I clarified, but you keep harping on the same point over and over, so I have to assume you are just bringing up chickenshit to be annoying.

I'm sure someone had an idea for a computer back in antiquity, but we don't say computers go back to then. (probably involving boulders and slides)

Someone having an idea, and an idea being accepted or applied are two different things.

I agree. Never claimed otherwise.

Your clarification was fine with me, except that you seemed to both dismiss the evidence of previous same sex unions as not counting, or being just about sex, and that you seemed to indicate that I was arguing more than just that the concept of same sex marriage is older than a few decades. I've been "harping" because I don't want to seem to accept that my argument was something other than what it was.

I'm fine with accepting your clarification and dropping this little side discussion.

I understand now. As a clarification, the "current" concept of SSM is a modern construct. My point is that the comparison to inter-racial marriage and the past bans on that in this country isn't really valid, because the idea of inter-racial marriage as sanctioned marriages has been with us throughout history, in the guise of inter-tribal, inter-clan, and even inter-governmental marriages. If there is any hard evidence of even limited sanctioned same sex marriages (and not the whole concubine/harem systems seen in the past) I have yet to see it.

I brought up the African tribal example, although you are right that it appears to have been about widows not wanting to find a new husband from what I've read. Nero was also supposed to have married 2 different men when he was emperor, including once having a ceremony in which a castrated boy was dressed as a woman traditionally would have been; when the emperor gets married, it's kind of automatically sanctioned.

I believe that the evidence of those examples is somewhat speculative. I don't know that there is any definitive evidence of sanctioned same sex marriages, particularly not similar to how marriage is defined in the modern US.

There are certainly differences between same sex marriage and interracial marriages. There are some similarities as well, so I don't know if dismissing the comparison entirely is a good idea, but I'd agree that trying to make it a direct, point-by-point comparison will fail.

When you have to go with degenerate Roman Emperors, you are kind of stretching it a bit.

 

[bodecea]

Evangelicals never explain how anything they complain about other people doing or believing affects their own lives, and then scream "persecution!" They are free to choose whatever lifestyle they wish, but it seems that their actual goal is to control the lives and choices of other people. They essentially want to impose a theocracy on the entire country, in complete disregard of the rights of others and the Constitution itself.

Evangelicals are not immune from criticism. They certainly feel free tp criticise others; other people's beliefs, lifestyles, and personal choices.

The fact that they are willing to cause substantial damage to our nation, our security, our reputation, our rights, and our legal system is downright despicable.

That you have to demonize people for the "crime" of not thinking like you do show how much of a worthless fascist hack you are.

Please show me the ones that want to impose a "theocracy", and find a group bigger than 50 or so morons in some basement somewhere.

On the other hand progressive scum like you have no issue using government to force your own morals on others.

"Bake that fucking cake, peasant"

What do you mean by demonize? Nobody is using government to force their "morals" on others except for right-wing "Christians," who are perfectly free to live as they choose and live according to what they perceive as their "morals" as long as they meet their legal obligations and not interfere with other people's rights to make their own choices. It is the right-wingers who want to impose their particular brand of morality on the public through legislation.

Your name-calling reveals exactly what you are.

BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE PEASANT.

It's amazing that you don't see this as force, simply because you hate the people it is being applied to.

Sorry, but free exercise in this case trumps a person's wish to have a specific cake from a specific baker.

Here we go again.....if someone has a business license, are they or are they not obligated to follow the business, safety, and health laws of the state they get the license in?

Yes or No?

If the law is unconstitutional they are not required to follow it.

In fact, a free society demands that they not follow it.

Has the law been declared unConstitutional? I don't believe that is the case but you are welcome to show that it has.

 

[ptbw forever]

They may not approve of his life, but unlike the democrats, he will not go after what is important in THEIR lives. Democrats offer nothing to Evangelicals except more attacks on their beliefs and lives.

Which kind of shows how fucked up Evangelical Christians are, doesn't it?

"He might be a creep who fucks porn stars, but he will never, ever judge my homophobia and racism! He'll encourage it!"

I can’t wait until you and all the other scum are sliced up into many tiny pieces during the civil war that is coming up in 2020.

You may think you are safe treating Christians like shit despite all the charities only existing because of Christians, but that is why people like me exist. To do what Christians are too nice to do.

Christians are too nice to sit in their mothers basement and make empty threats?

You are going to be surprised in a year when the civil war happens and Antifa is shitting their pants just because of me.

Let's get back to you in a year, ok?

You won’t be on this forum in a year.

You will be too busy fleeing the country to some other country that is about to start up a civil war.

 

[bodecea]

Feel free to stop replying. I never claimed that SSM is or has been common, nor that any precedents were set, nor that it was a mainstream legal construct. I simply pointed out that a statement you made, the way you stated it, was false. Since then, you've repeatedly tried to make that into something it is not.

I was just looking to fix a slight inaccuracy in a post you made. Why you want to assume that I'm making statements about same sex marriage that I am not, I'm not sure. Hell, you could have just said the current concept of SSM began in the last few decades and that would have been fine.

Maybe you really hate accepting any sort of correction to your posts, however minor.

And I clarified, but you keep harping on the same point over and over, so I have to assume you are just bringing up chickenshit to be annoying.

I'm sure someone had an idea for a computer back in antiquity, but we don't say computers go back to then. (probably involving boulders and slides)

Someone having an idea, and an idea being accepted or applied are two different things.

I agree. Never claimed otherwise.

Your clarification was fine with me, except that you seemed to both dismiss the evidence of previous same sex unions as not counting, or being just about sex, and that you seemed to indicate that I was arguing more than just that the concept of same sex marriage is older than a few decades. I've been "harping" because I don't want to seem to accept that my argument was something other than what it was.

I'm fine with accepting your clarification and dropping this little side discussion.

I understand now. As a clarification, the "current" concept of SSM is a modern construct. My point is that the comparison to inter-racial marriage and the past bans on that in this country isn't really valid, because the idea of inter-racial marriage as sanctioned marriages has been with us throughout history, in the guise of inter-tribal, inter-clan, and even inter-governmental marriages. If there is any hard evidence of even limited sanctioned same sex marriages (and not the whole concubine/harem systems seen in the past) I have yet to see it.

I brought up the African tribal example, although you are right that it appears to have been about widows not wanting to find a new husband from what I've read. Nero was also supposed to have married 2 different men when he was emperor, including once having a ceremony in which a castrated boy was dressed as a woman traditionally would have been; when the emperor gets married, it's kind of automatically sanctioned.

I believe that the evidence of those examples is somewhat speculative. I don't know that there is any definitive evidence of sanctioned same sex marriages, particularly not similar to how marriage is defined in the modern US.

There are certainly differences between same sex marriage and interracial marriages. There are some similarities as well, so I don't know if dismissing the comparison entirely is a good idea, but I'd agree that trying to make it a direct, point-by-point comparison will fail.

When you have to go with degenerate Roman Emperors, you are kind of stretching it a bit.

No.....it fits donnie dennison perfectly.

 

[martybegan]

That you have to demonize people for the "crime" of not thinking like you do show how much of a worthless fascist hack you are.

Please show me the ones that want to impose a "theocracy", and find a group bigger than 50 or so morons in some basement somewhere.

On the other hand progressive scum like you have no issue using government to force your own morals on others.

"Bake that fucking cake, peasant"

What do you mean by demonize? Nobody is using government to force their "morals" on others except for right-wing "Christians," who are perfectly free to live as they choose and live according to what they perceive as their "morals" as long as they meet their legal obligations and not interfere with other people's rights to make their own choices. It is the right-wingers who want to impose their particular brand of morality on the public through legislation.

Your name-calling reveals exactly what you are.

BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE PEASANT.

It's amazing that you don't see this as force, simply because you hate the people it is being applied to.

Sorry, but free exercise in this case trumps a person's wish to have a specific cake from a specific baker.

Here we go again.....if someone has a business license, are they or are they not obligated to follow the business, safety, and health laws of the state they get the license in?

Yes or No?

If the law is unconstitutional they are not required to follow it.

In fact, a free society demands that they not follow it.

Has the law been declared unConstitutional? I don't believe that is the case but you are welcome to show that it has.

Just because something hasn't been declared unconstitutional yet doesn't make it constitutional.

Was Separate but Equal Constitutional after Plessey?

 

[bodecea]

Which kind of shows how fucked up Evangelical Christians are, doesn't it?

"He might be a creep who fucks porn stars, but he will never, ever judge my homophobia and racism! He'll encourage it!"

I can’t wait until you and all the other scum are sliced up into many tiny pieces during the civil war that is coming up in 2020.

You may think you are safe treating Christians like shit despite all the charities only existing because of Christians, but that is why people like me exist. To do what Christians are too nice to do.

Christians are too nice to sit in their mothers basement and make empty threats?

You are going to be surprised in a year when the civil war happens and Antifa is shitting their pants just because of me.

Let's get back to you in a year, ok?

You won’t be on this forum in a year.

You will be too busy fleeing the country to some other country that is about to start up a civil war.

My goodness....our little white boy is making threats on line. How cute is that?

 

[martybegan]

And I clarified, but you keep harping on the same point over and over, so I have to assume you are just bringing up chickenshit to be annoying.

I'm sure someone had an idea for a computer back in antiquity, but we don't say computers go back to then. (probably involving boulders and slides)

Someone having an idea, and an idea being accepted or applied are two different things.

I agree. Never claimed otherwise.

Your clarification was fine with me, except that you seemed to both dismiss the evidence of previous same sex unions as not counting, or being just about sex, and that you seemed to indicate that I was arguing more than just that the concept of same sex marriage is older than a few decades. I've been "harping" because I don't want to seem to accept that my argument was something other than what it was.

I'm fine with accepting your clarification and dropping this little side discussion.

I understand now. As a clarification, the "current" concept of SSM is a modern construct. My point is that the comparison to inter-racial marriage and the past bans on that in this country isn't really valid, because the idea of inter-racial marriage as sanctioned marriages has been with us throughout history, in the guise of inter-tribal, inter-clan, and even inter-governmental marriages. If there is any hard evidence of even limited sanctioned same sex marriages (and not the whole concubine/harem systems seen in the past) I have yet to see it.

I brought up the African tribal example, although you are right that it appears to have been about widows not wanting to find a new husband from what I've read. Nero was also supposed to have married 2 different men when he was emperor, including once having a ceremony in which a castrated boy was dressed as a woman traditionally would have been; when the emperor gets married, it's kind of automatically sanctioned.

I believe that the evidence of those examples is somewhat speculative. I don't know that there is any definitive evidence of sanctioned same sex marriages, particularly not similar to how marriage is defined in the modern US.

There are certainly differences between same sex marriage and interracial marriages. There are some similarities as well, so I don't know if dismissing the comparison entirely is a good idea, but I'd agree that trying to make it a direct, point-by-point comparison will fail.

When you have to go with degenerate Roman Emperors, you are kind of stretching it a bit.

No.....it fits donnie dennison perfectly.

Shoo, adults are discussing.

 

[bodecea]

What do you mean by demonize? Nobody is using government to force their "morals" on others except for right-wing "Christians," who are perfectly free to live as they choose and live according to what they perceive as their "morals" as long as they meet their legal obligations and not interfere with other people's rights to make their own choices. It is the right-wingers who want to impose their particular brand of morality on the public through legislation.

Your name-calling reveals exactly what you are.

BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE PEASANT.

It's amazing that you don't see this as force, simply because you hate the people it is being applied to.

Sorry, but free exercise in this case trumps a person's wish to have a specific cake from a specific baker.

Here we go again.....if someone has a business license, are they or are they not obligated to follow the business, safety, and health laws of the state they get the license in?

Yes or No?

If the law is unconstitutional they are not required to follow it.

In fact, a free society demands that they not follow it.

Has the law been declared unConstitutional? I don't believe that is the case but you are welcome to show that it has.

Just because something hasn't been declared unconstitutional yet doesn't make it constitutional.

Was Separate but Equal Constitutional after Plessey?

Actually, that's exactly what it means until someone makes the time and effort to have it declared unConstitutional....

But I'll save you the time and effort (even tho I know for a fact you wouldn't make the effort, you've already shown you won't make the effort to convince your state legislators to repeal PA laws)

Text of High Court Ruling Upholding Public Accommodations Title of Rights Act; The Opinion of the Court Heart of Atlanta Motel Case

 

[bodecea]

I agree. Never claimed otherwise.

Your clarification was fine with me, except that you seemed to both dismiss the evidence of previous same sex unions as not counting, or being just about sex, and that you seemed to indicate that I was arguing more than just that the concept of same sex marriage is older than a few decades. I've been "harping" because I don't want to seem to accept that my argument was something other than what it was.

I'm fine with accepting your clarification and dropping this little side discussion.

I understand now. As a clarification, the "current" concept of SSM is a modern construct. My point is that the comparison to inter-racial marriage and the past bans on that in this country isn't really valid, because the idea of inter-racial marriage as sanctioned marriages has been with us throughout history, in the guise of inter-tribal, inter-clan, and even inter-governmental marriages. If there is any hard evidence of even limited sanctioned same sex marriages (and not the whole concubine/harem systems seen in the past) I have yet to see it.

I brought up the African tribal example, although you are right that it appears to have been about widows not wanting to find a new husband from what I've read. Nero was also supposed to have married 2 different men when he was emperor, including once having a ceremony in which a castrated boy was dressed as a woman traditionally would have been; when the emperor gets married, it's kind of automatically sanctioned.

I believe that the evidence of those examples is somewhat speculative. I don't know that there is any definitive evidence of sanctioned same sex marriages, particularly not similar to how marriage is defined in the modern US.

There are certainly differences between same sex marriage and interracial marriages. There are some similarities as well, so I don't know if dismissing the comparison entirely is a good idea, but I'd agree that trying to make it a direct, point-by-point comparison will fail.

When you have to go with degenerate Roman Emperors, you are kind of stretching it a bit.

No.....it fits donnie dennison perfectly.

Shoo, adults are discussing.

Oh dear....you are starting on your "I can't win this argument so I'll start flinging insults" path again, aren't you?

 

[ptbw forever]

I can’t wait until you and all the other scum are sliced up into many tiny pieces during the civil war that is coming up in 2020.

You may think you are safe treating Christians like shit despite all the charities only existing because of Christians, but that is why people like me exist. To do what Christians are too nice to do.

Christians are too nice to sit in their mothers basement and make empty threats?

You are going to be surprised in a year when the civil war happens and Antifa is shitting their pants just because of me.

Let's get back to you in a year, ok?

You won’t be on this forum in a year.

You will be too busy fleeing the country to some other country that is about to start up a civil war.

My goodness....our little white boy is making threats on line. How cute is that?

If you idiots would have just stopped the racism against white people for a while you could have possibly won, but now only the dumbest and weakest white people are on your side.

You are going to get massacred.

 

[bodecea]

Christians are too nice to sit in their mothers basement and make empty threats?

You are going to be surprised in a year when the civil war happens and Antifa is shitting their pants just because of me.

Let's get back to you in a year, ok?

You won’t be on this forum in a year.

You will be too busy fleeing the country to some other country that is about to start up a civil war.

My goodness....our little white boy is making threats on line. How cute is that?

If you idiots would have just stopped the racism against white people for a while you could have possibly won, but now only the dumbest and weakest white people are on your side.

You are going to get massacred.

White people are SO OPPRESSED! How ever do we manage when the "Man" keeps us down so much.

 

[martybegan]

BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE PEASANT.

It's amazing that you don't see this as force, simply because you hate the people it is being applied to.

Sorry, but free exercise in this case trumps a person's wish to have a specific cake from a specific baker.

Here we go again.....if someone has a business license, are they or are they not obligated to follow the business, safety, and health laws of the state they get the license in?

Yes or No?

If the law is unconstitutional they are not required to follow it.

In fact, a free society demands that they not follow it.

Has the law been declared unConstitutional? I don't believe that is the case but you are welcome to show that it has.

Just because something hasn't been declared unconstitutional yet doesn't make it constitutional.

Was Separate but Equal Constitutional after Plessey?

Actually, that's exactly what it means until someone makes the time and effort to have it declared unConstitutional....

But I'll save you the time and effort (even tho I know for a fact you wouldn't make the effort, you've already shown you won't make the effort to convince your state legislators to repeal PA laws)

Text of High Court Ruling Upholding Public Accommodations Title of Rights Act; The Opinion of the Court Heart of Atlanta Motel Case

I don't want them repealed, just applied to actual PA's, not "every time money changes hands"

I have been clear on this repeatedly, you just choose to ignore it.

People have the right to free exercise of their religion, and business law or PA law cannot trump that without a compelling government reason.

Making sure people get something over the counter is compelling, not getting the custom cake you want is not compelling.

 

[Montrovant]

Feel free to stop replying. I never claimed that SSM is or has been common, nor that any precedents were set, nor that it was a mainstream legal construct. I simply pointed out that a statement you made, the way you stated it, was false. Since then, you've repeatedly tried to make that into something it is not.

I was just looking to fix a slight inaccuracy in a post you made. Why you want to assume that I'm making statements about same sex marriage that I am not, I'm not sure. Hell, you could have just said the current concept of SSM began in the last few decades and that would have been fine.

Maybe you really hate accepting any sort of correction to your posts, however minor.

And I clarified, but you keep harping on the same point over and over, so I have to assume you are just bringing up chickenshit to be annoying.

I'm sure someone had an idea for a computer back in antiquity, but we don't say computers go back to then. (probably involving boulders and slides)

Someone having an idea, and an idea being accepted or applied are two different things.

I agree. Never claimed otherwise.

Your clarification was fine with me, except that you seemed to both dismiss the evidence of previous same sex unions as not counting, or being just about sex, and that you seemed to indicate that I was arguing more than just that the concept of same sex marriage is older than a few decades. I've been "harping" because I don't want to seem to accept that my argument was something other than what it was.

I'm fine with accepting your clarification and dropping this little side discussion.

I understand now. As a clarification, the "current" concept of SSM is a modern construct. My point is that the comparison to inter-racial marriage and the past bans on that in this country isn't really valid, because the idea of inter-racial marriage as sanctioned marriages has been with us throughout history, in the guise of inter-tribal, inter-clan, and even inter-governmental marriages. If there is any hard evidence of even limited sanctioned same sex marriages (and not the whole concubine/harem systems seen in the past) I have yet to see it.

I brought up the African tribal example, although you are right that it appears to have been about widows not wanting to find a new husband from what I've read. Nero was also supposed to have married 2 different men when he was emperor, including once having a ceremony in which a castrated boy was dressed as a woman traditionally would have been; when the emperor gets married, it's kind of automatically sanctioned.

I believe that the evidence of those examples is somewhat speculative. I don't know that there is any definitive evidence of sanctioned same sex marriages, particularly not similar to how marriage is defined in the modern US.

There are certainly differences between same sex marriage and interracial marriages. There are some similarities as well, so I don't know if dismissing the comparison entirely is a good idea, but I'd agree that trying to make it a direct, point-by-point comparison will fail.

When you have to go with degenerate Roman Emperors, you are kind of stretching it a bit.

Oh, the same sex marriage examples are definitely few and far between.

There is evidence that some Native American tribes have recognized same sex unions for many years, for example the Navajo. Some of that has to do with the "two spirit" belief, in which case it may not work as a direct parallel, but it does seem to be at least one example of a sanctioned same sex marriage: https://splinternews.com/the-surprising-history-of-gay-marriage-in-the-navajo-na-1793845543

Looking at the history of same sex marriage is really more interesting/educational than something which provides any sort of precedent for US legal marriage, IMO.

 

[martybegan]

I understand now. As a clarification, the "current" concept of SSM is a modern construct. My point is that the comparison to inter-racial marriage and the past bans on that in this country isn't really valid, because the idea of inter-racial marriage as sanctioned marriages has been with us throughout history, in the guise of inter-tribal, inter-clan, and even inter-governmental marriages. If there is any hard evidence of even limited sanctioned same sex marriages (and not the whole concubine/harem systems seen in the past) I have yet to see it.

I brought up the African tribal example, although you are right that it appears to have been about widows not wanting to find a new husband from what I've read. Nero was also supposed to have married 2 different men when he was emperor, including once having a ceremony in which a castrated boy was dressed as a woman traditionally would have been; when the emperor gets married, it's kind of automatically sanctioned.

I believe that the evidence of those examples is somewhat speculative. I don't know that there is any definitive evidence of sanctioned same sex marriages, particularly not similar to how marriage is defined in the modern US.

There are certainly differences between same sex marriage and interracial marriages. There are some similarities as well, so I don't know if dismissing the comparison entirely is a good idea, but I'd agree that trying to make it a direct, point-by-point comparison will fail.

When you have to go with degenerate Roman Emperors, you are kind of stretching it a bit.

No.....it fits donnie dennison perfectly.

Shoo, adults are discussing.

Oh dear....you are starting on your "I can't win this argument so I'll start flinging insults" path again, aren't you?

You didn't add anything to the conversation except an "Orange Man Bad" drive by, so you get the response you deserve.

Now go make me a fucking sandwich.

 

[martybegan]

And I clarified, but you keep harping on the same point over and over, so I have to assume you are just bringing up chickenshit to be annoying.

I'm sure someone had an idea for a computer back in antiquity, but we don't say computers go back to then. (probably involving boulders and slides)

Someone having an idea, and an idea being accepted or applied are two different things.

I agree. Never claimed otherwise.

Your clarification was fine with me, except that you seemed to both dismiss the evidence of previous same sex unions as not counting, or being just about sex, and that you seemed to indicate that I was arguing more than just that the concept of same sex marriage is older than a few decades. I've been "harping" because I don't want to seem to accept that my argument was something other than what it was.

I'm fine with accepting your clarification and dropping this little side discussion.

I understand now. As a clarification, the "current" concept of SSM is a modern construct. My point is that the comparison to inter-racial marriage and the past bans on that in this country isn't really valid, because the idea of inter-racial marriage as sanctioned marriages has been with us throughout history, in the guise of inter-tribal, inter-clan, and even inter-governmental marriages. If there is any hard evidence of even limited sanctioned same sex marriages (and not the whole concubine/harem systems seen in the past) I have yet to see it.

I brought up the African tribal example, although you are right that it appears to have been about widows not wanting to find a new husband from what I've read. Nero was also supposed to have married 2 different men when he was emperor, including once having a ceremony in which a castrated boy was dressed as a woman traditionally would have been; when the emperor gets married, it's kind of automatically sanctioned.

I believe that the evidence of those examples is somewhat speculative. I don't know that there is any definitive evidence of sanctioned same sex marriages, particularly not similar to how marriage is defined in the modern US.

There are certainly differences between same sex marriage and interracial marriages. There are some similarities as well, so I don't know if dismissing the comparison entirely is a good idea, but I'd agree that trying to make it a direct, point-by-point comparison will fail.

When you have to go with degenerate Roman Emperors, you are kind of stretching it a bit.

Oh, the same sex marriage examples are definitely few and far between.

There is evidence that some Native American tribes have recognized same sex unions for many years, for example the Navajo. Some of that has to do with the "two spirit" belief, in which case it may not work as a direct parallel, but it does seem to be at least one example of a sanctioned same sex marriage: https://splinternews.com/the-surprising-history-of-gay-marriage-in-the-navajo-na-1793845543

Looking at the history of same sex marriage is really more interesting/educational than something which provides any sort of precedent for US legal marriage, IMO.

Yeah, but the thing is don't the Navajo only have really an oral tradition?

Makes it kind of easier to skew your views onto the past when it comes to not having anything contemporary in writing.

And as you are a persnickety literalist, I know the Navajo NOW have written history, I am talking about prior to their introduction to Europeans.

 

[ptbw forever]

You are going to be surprised in a year when the civil war happens and Antifa is shitting their pants just because of me.

Let's get back to you in a year, ok?

You won’t be on this forum in a year.

You will be too busy fleeing the country to some other country that is about to start up a civil war.

My goodness....our little white boy is making threats on line. How cute is that?

If you idiots would have just stopped the racism against white people for a while you could have possibly won, but now only the dumbest and weakest white people are on your side.

You are going to get massacred.

White people are SO OPPRESSED! How ever do we manage when the "Man" keeps us down so much.

You are absolutely clueless.

 

[Montrovant]

I agree. Never claimed otherwise.

Your clarification was fine with me, except that you seemed to both dismiss the evidence of previous same sex unions as not counting, or being just about sex, and that you seemed to indicate that I was arguing more than just that the concept of same sex marriage is older than a few decades. I've been "harping" because I don't want to seem to accept that my argument was something other than what it was.

I'm fine with accepting your clarification and dropping this little side discussion.

I understand now. As a clarification, the "current" concept of SSM is a modern construct. My point is that the comparison to inter-racial marriage and the past bans on that in this country isn't really valid, because the idea of inter-racial marriage as sanctioned marriages has been with us throughout history, in the guise of inter-tribal, inter-clan, and even inter-governmental marriages. If there is any hard evidence of even limited sanctioned same sex marriages (and not the whole concubine/harem systems seen in the past) I have yet to see it.

I brought up the African tribal example, although you are right that it appears to have been about widows not wanting to find a new husband from what I've read. Nero was also supposed to have married 2 different men when he was emperor, including once having a ceremony in which a castrated boy was dressed as a woman traditionally would have been; when the emperor gets married, it's kind of automatically sanctioned.

I believe that the evidence of those examples is somewhat speculative. I don't know that there is any definitive evidence of sanctioned same sex marriages, particularly not similar to how marriage is defined in the modern US.

There are certainly differences between same sex marriage and interracial marriages. There are some similarities as well, so I don't know if dismissing the comparison entirely is a good idea, but I'd agree that trying to make it a direct, point-by-point comparison will fail.

When you have to go with degenerate Roman Emperors, you are kind of stretching it a bit.

Oh, the same sex marriage examples are definitely few and far between.

There is evidence that some Native American tribes have recognized same sex unions for many years, for example the Navajo. Some of that has to do with the "two spirit" belief, in which case it may not work as a direct parallel, but it does seem to be at least one example of a sanctioned same sex marriage: https://splinternews.com/the-surprising-history-of-gay-marriage-in-the-navajo-na-1793845543

Looking at the history of same sex marriage is really more interesting/educational than something which provides any sort of precedent for US legal marriage, IMO.

Yeah, but the thing is don't the Navajo only have really an oral tradition?

Makes it kind of easier to skew your views onto the past when it comes to not having anything contemporary in writing.

And as you are a persnickety literalist, I know the Navajo NOW have written history, I am talking about prior to their introduction to Europeans.

I couldn't say, I don't know nearly enough about it. The article I linked said the Navajo have "a rich, documented history" regarding same sex unions, but that could be documentation based on oral history.

There's evidence of sanctioned same sex marriages in some places in the past, but from the little I've seen, the evidence is far from iron-clad. As I said, it's more interesting than any sort of legal precedent.

 

[Seawytch]

Describe, in detail, how the Democratic primary was “rigged”.

Superdelegates.

Superdelegates don't "rig" the system. Those are the primary rules all candidates agree to. All voters that wanted to were allowed to vote for Bernie. 3 MILLION fewer did than voted for Hillary. A far greater margin than between Clinton and Obama.

The delegate system is set up similar to the EV system, so you do have a "dead vote" component.

It's still not a rigged system. Every voter that wanted to vote for Sanders could. 3 MILLION fewer did so.

Who voted for the superdelegates?

Who the fuck cares? They didn’t decide the election and even if they did, it’s THEIR fucking primary. Their pool, their rules. Are you that ignorant of our election system? The purpose of a primary is for the PARTY to choose their candidate. Bernie got THREE MILLION fewer votes than Hillary. Hillary and Obama were much closer than Hillary and Bernie but nobody, especially not Hillary complained about it in 2008.