Alaska Gay marriage ban overturned

[Riverwolf]

Besides the U.S. code, nature itself, and the ultimate source for the U.S. Constitution?

You cited natural law, not US law. US law is irrelevant to natural law. The US Constitution is sourced primarily from the minds of the Founding Fathers. If you cite nature as its ultimate source, than nature is also the ultimate source for ALL law codes throughout history.

Show the evidence of that.

In my studies, the apparent condemnation of homosexuality in ancient cultures is talking about "unmanliness". Consider the Old Norse word "ergi". This word meant "unmanly" and was basically the single worst thing you could have called someone.

However, there is actually no evidence that I could find that this was in reference to homosexuality. Instead, it referred to actions that are generally associated with women being partaken in by men (a common example cited is the Shamanic practice of seithr, which would be regarded as ergi if a man practiced it, since it's primarily associated with women).

Meanwhile, consider that in ancient Greece, there was at least one army that based its system of troop morale around homosexual pairings between its members.

You really don't carry a consistent point there. Generally had, besides if they were, so what? Then a segway into something totally off the topic.

It's not off topic.

I'm saying that even if ancient cultures have generally been against homosexuality, that does not mean it's actually a bad thing in itself, or "unnatural."

And they all stem from one man and one woman.

A village is descended from many individuals, not from a single man/woman pairing. If you're talking about Adam and Eve, there's no evidence that they ever existed.

Not unto their own devices they can't.
Straights can reproduce with surrogates if they're infertile. But if they were healthy and fertile as a couple they could reproduce naturally.

That's the point. Homosexuals can't reproduce as a couple to themselves. That's also a part of natural law.

You've still not shown that law.

 

[Apple Sugar]

There are other reasons besides reproduction that insure the male female role model of family is superior. That's been done to death in threads like this.
The point is this Alaskan ruling can be overcome. If politicians get their heads out of the crack of PC and act right.

 

[Riverwolf]

There are other reasons besides reproduction that insure the male female role model of family is superior. That's been done to death in threads like this.

And not in a single one of those threads did I see credible support for that argument.

 

[Jainarayan]

Same sex marriage is going to be legal in all 50 states of the union in the not far future. In the not far future, this whole discussion will be rendered academic and moot. The federal government will fully recognize it. Even the IRS recognizes it now in states that have it. So I invite anyone who objects to same sex marriage being law in the US, to get their passports out and file their emigration papers to some theocratic country. That's where "God's laws" and imaginary "natural laws" can reign supreme. Not in a country founded on personal liberties and equality of the law.

 

[Jainarayan]

The point is this Alaskan ruling can be overcome.

Nay, it's supported by Amendment XIV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution. All the law we need, it just needs to be enforced. Which I am happy to say, it happening.

 

[Jainarayan]

And not in a single one of those threads did I see credible support for that argument.

Nor will you. I hear and read that a man-woman family is ideal for raising children when the discussion is about homosexuality, but I never see anything about a man-woman family being ideal as an argument against single parents. I wonder why that is! Oh yes, two words: double standard.

 

[Riverwolf]

Nor will you. I hear and read that a man-woman family is ideal for raising children when the discussion is about homosexuality, but I never see anything about a man-woman family being ideal as an argument against single parents. I wonder why that is! Oh yes, two words: double standard.

Heck, all the "support" I've ever seen is always using single-parent homes as the standard for comparison. Single-parent homes can cause problems in child development, therefore homosexual parentage is flawed!

Nonsense on so many levels.

 

[Jainarayan]

Yeah, I guess one parent is better than two parents of the same sex. Who makes this stuff up?

 

[Sees]

Very happy for Alaskans today

One of my big hopes is that it could be like this everywhere.

:clap
:highfive:
:drunk:

 

[metis]

There are other reasons besides reproduction that insure the male female role model of family is superior. That's been done to death in threads like this.
The point is this Alaskan ruling can be overcome. If politicians get their heads out of the crack of PC and act right.

Let's face reality in that the main reason you oppose it has nothing to do with culture or the well-being of children but, instead, it's your religious persuasion. Studies have shown that children who grow up in gay households don't have any more problems than heterosexual marriages on the average.

The issue of "marriage" in the U.S. is not supposed to be a religious entity but a legal one as the 1st Amendment directs. If a gay couple want to get married, how does this affect you? me? anyone else?

If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone of your own sex. If Adam and Steve want to get married, what's the problem? For them it does matter since marriage deals with legal rights.

 

[Ingledsva]

Religions don't need to dictate such things for such things to be disallowed because they are a violation of natural law and the traditional family model.

All Alaska needs to do, besides it's legislators uphold the USC definition of marriage, which SCOTUS did not redefine, is enter an amendment into the state constitution that says marriage is between one man and one woman.
That's it.

No violation, - and who cares about past tradition, - slavery is a past tradition!

As for the rest - it is not going to happen!


*

 

[Jainarayan]

If Adam and Steve want to get married

Actually I think it was originally Adam and Steve. But the st in Steve got smudged, and the scribe copying it said "meh, whatever" and made it Eve.

No? I'm not helping am I?

:run:

 

[Ingledsva]

You cited natural law, not US law. US law is irrelevant to natural law. The US Constitution is sourced primarily from the minds of the Founding Fathers. If you cite nature as its ultimate source, than nature is also the ultimate source for ALL law codes throughout history.

...

Apparently you haven't read about our founding fathers, - nor read the Constitution.


"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. ..."



*

 

[Ingledsva]

There are other reasons besides reproduction that insure the male female role model of family is superior. That's been done to death in threads like this.
The point is this Alaskan ruling can be overcome. If politicians get their heads out of the crack of PC and act right.

Apparently you didn't read the whole article - which says why this isn't going to happen.




*

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Religions don't need to dictate such things for such things to be disallowed because they are a violation of natural law and the traditional family model.

All Alaska needs to do, besides it's legislators uphold the USC definition of marriage, which SCOTUS did not redefine, is enter an amendment into the state constitution that says marriage is between one man and one woman.
That's it.

Yeah! I agree! Let's revert back to the "traditional" idea of marriage. I believe every man should be entitled to brothels, concubines, and the ability to trade his wife for livestock! :sarcastic

 

[Ingledsva]

Yeah! I agree! Let's revert back to the "traditional" idea of marriage. I believe every man should be entitled to brothels, concubines, and the ability to trade his wife for livestock! :sarcastic

Yep.

[youtube]OFkeKKszXTw[/youtube]
Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else - YouTube

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

As for "traditional family model", a more accurate term for that is "postwar family model"; that is to say, it's a family model that's only been a "tradition" for less than a century.

Just because something is "tradition" does not make it obligatory. It was "tradition" for the Aztecs to rip out people's hearts and throw them down the steps of the temple. When do you plan on incorporating that into our system of morality?

Homosexuality has been condemned in most cultures around the world since civilization began. The family model is self-explanatory.

Umm... Ancient Rome? Sparta? Greece? Melanesia? Ever heard of em'?

Homosexuals can't reproduce. Ergo, no family save for two men or two women in a relationship.

Infertile couples cannot reproduce either. Should we forbid them the right to marry as well?

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Yep.

[youtube]OFkeKKszXTw[/youtube]
Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else - YouTube

"And a pack of raped wh*res" lol
I love Miss Betty Bowers'!

 

[Ingledsva]

"And a pack of raped wh*res" lol
I love Miss Betty Bowers'!

Have you seen her one on God and Abortions?


You should watch that one too.



*

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Have you seen her one on God and Abortions?


You should watch that one too.



*

I've literally seen every Betty Bowers video ever.