GOP Dissenters Relied on Aztec's Marriages; Historians LOL!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2015 1:52 AM GMT
    NYT: "[Aztec] men got married between the ages of 20-22, and women generally got married at 15 to 18 years of age. Parents and relatives decided when and who their children would marry, and sometimes used marriage brokers. Nobles could only marry other nobles, and marriages were often used to form political alliances.

    “Marriage was conditional in that the parties could decide to separate or stay together after they had their first son. Marriages could also be unconditional and last for an indefinite period of time. Polygamy and concubines were permitted, though this was more common in noble households and marriage rites were only observed with the first, or principal, wife.”

    http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/on-same-sex-marriage-john-roberts-invokes-the-aztecs/?ref=opinion
  • jeepguySD

    Posts: 651

    Jun 27, 2015 12:25 PM GMT
    As part of the ruling class, perhaps the Chief Justice and Justice Scalia are alluding to the fact they want concubines?
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14360

    Jun 27, 2015 12:36 PM GMT
    jeepguySD saidAs part of the ruling class, perhaps the Chief Justice and Justice Scalia are alluding to the fact they want concubines?
    Probably we should ship both of them to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) and they can become part of the powerful Kim family's concubine.icon_idea.gif
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Jun 27, 2015 3:26 PM GMT
    Apparently Aztec marriages were not greatly different from marriages during the Middle Ages. At that time, marriages were generally arranged and used to cement political alliances. Men were not supposed to have concubines, but among nobles mistresses were common. The Roman Church sold indulgences to overlook irregularities. In fact, the sale of indulgences was used by the Roman Church to finance massive building projects.

    I wonder how many people are aware of that period of history.
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1981

    Jun 27, 2015 6:38 PM GMT
    Maybe the first time Republicans have said anything positive about Mexicans?
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Jun 27, 2015 6:53 PM GMT
    The Aztecs also practiced human sacrifice. Dare we hope Justice Roberts and the GOP also embrace it? It would look so good on Fox!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2015 8:47 PM GMT
    Can you even read? I know 100 pages might be too much for people with tiny brains, but the majority and minority opinions all refer to historical peoples of some kind, and none "rely" on any of it.

    Go back to 5th grade.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2015 9:56 PM GMT
    NYT: John Roberts’s dissent in today’s same-sex marriage ruling includes an odd paragraph accusing the majority of blindness to truths as old as humanity. The misguided majority, he says, “orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?”

    http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/on-same-sex-marriage-john-roberts-invokes-the-aztecs/?ref=opinion
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2015 10:08 PM GMT
    Go read the 100 page decision. Don't you want to be more than a monkey carrying around some cymbals?


    woodsmen saidNYT: John Roberts’s dissent in today’s same-sex marriage ruling includes an odd paragraph accusing the majority of blindness to truths as old as humanity. The misguided majority, he says, “orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?”

    http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/on-same-sex-marriage-john-roberts-invokes-the-aztecs/?ref=opinion
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1981

    Jun 28, 2015 4:25 AM GMT
    Republicans like to pretend that couples were living in "Leave It To Beaver" marriages since the beginning of time, conveniently ignoring that polygamy was the norm for centuries...far longer than modern 2-person marriages.
    One place they could look for many examples of polygamy is THE BIBLE, which they claim to read but seem to miss many parts. icon_lol.gif
  • peterstrong

    Posts: 989

    Jun 28, 2015 6:57 AM GMT
    very hopeful article here

    http://news.yahoo.com/us-same-sex-marriage-ruling-likely-impact-other-161856665.html

    Jon Stewart's take on the Aztec mention in Robert's dissent was hilarious : )


  • Antarktis

    Posts: 213

    Jun 28, 2015 11:37 AM GMT
    I think you're reading to much into it. To me it sounded like they want to bed 15 year old girls.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2015 12:56 PM GMT
    woodsmen said
    NYT: John Roberts’s dissent in today’s same-sex marriage ruling includes an odd paragraph accusing the majority of blindness to truths as old as humanity. The misguided majority, he says, “orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?

    http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/on-same-sex-marriage-john-roberts-invokes-the-aztecs/?ref=opinion

    Well, Justice Roberts, maybe we think we're Americans. Among the first people in history to break the mold and create a representational democracy, without a monarch or hereditary aristocracy.

    If we followed the patterns of ancient peoples we'd still have their antiquated institutions. And not a government "of the people, by the people, for the people", as evidently the Chief Justice opposes.

    Everything we've done successfully as Americans has been new & revolutionary. All our failures have been when clinging to outdated models. We were late to abolish slavery, late to women's suffrage, late to Black civil rights, and now late to gay rights.

    They eventually happened, but no thanks to men in power who think like Chief Justice Roberts. The "truths as old as humanity" include many evils and injustices. I was always taught that we as a people we're better than what had preceded us, not slaves to it, innovators, not imitators.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2015 5:50 PM GMT
    You, too, are incapable of reading. John Roberts discusses polygamy in his dissent. See page 59 of the PDF, or p. 19 of his dissent.


    KissTheSky saidRepublicans like to pretend that couples were living in "Leave It To Beaver" marriages since the beginning of time, conveniently ignoring that polygamy was the norm for centuries...far longer than modern 2-person marriages.
    One place they could look for many examples of polygamy is THE BIBLE, which they claim to read but seem to miss many parts. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2015 6:17 PM GMT
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4072450

    A link to the full 103 page document is here. As gay men it would behoove y'all to at least attempt to read it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2015 6:39 PM GMT
    KJSharp saidhttp://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4072450

    A link to the full 103 page document is here. As gay men it would behoove y'all to at least attempt to read it.


    ^+1, for all your above posts. There's nothing better than reading the original source material, instead of relying on some rag to report its own version of it. One might even learn something!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2015 4:25 AM GMT
    KJSharp saidGo read the 100 page decision. Don't you want to be more than a monkey carrying around some cymbals?


    OMG
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1981

    Jun 29, 2015 4:37 AM GMT
    What a surprise, RJ's conservatives defending the anti-gay conservative Justices who think we should not be treated equally under the law.

    Newsflash: Your side lost. Get over it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2015 6:34 AM GMT
    KissTheSky saidWhat a surprise, RJ's conservatives defending the anti-gay conservative Justices who think we should not be treated equally under the law.

    Newsflash: Your side lost. Get over it.


    No one is defending anybody. It is just really disappointing that one of the biggest court decisions in our lives that affect all of us has just been handed down and you don't care enough to read it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2015 6:43 AM GMT
    KJSharp said
    KissTheSky saidWhat a surprise, RJ's conservatives defending the anti-gay conservative Justices who think we should not be treated equally under the law.

    Newsflash: Your side lost. Get over it.

    No one is defending anybody. It is just really disappointing that one of the biggest court decisions in our lives that affect all of us has just been handed down and you don't care enough to read it.

    I care enough to be offended by someone claiming to be gay who's not happy and not in agreement with this wonderful decision, and who's insulting the guys on this site in your several posts on this thread.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2015 4:59 PM GMT
    Another "someone claiming to be gay," Artless? You sure are big on presumptuous exclusion, especially when your own posts have so many times shown that, as here, you simply don't know what you're talking about.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jun 29, 2015 5:23 PM GMT
    KissTheSky saidWhat a surprise, RJ's conservatives defending the anti-gay conservative Justices who think we should not be treated equally under the law.

    Newsflash: Your side lost. Get over it.

    They're not defending them. They're just trying to make sure that imbecilic hate speech gets just as much attention as the truth.

    They're the self flagellaters of RJ. I pity them but I also find their pessimism to be overindulgent.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2015 5:42 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    KissTheSky saidWhat a surprise, RJ's conservatives defending the anti-gay conservative Justices who think we should not be treated equally under the law.

    Newsflash: Your side lost. Get over it.

    They're not defending them. They're just trying to make sure that imbecilic hate speech gets just as much attention as the truth.

    They're the self flagellaters of RJ. I pity them but I also find their pessimism to be overindulgent.


    You got the first part right, HJ, but should have stopped after "them." I can't and won't presume to speak for others, but my posts have consistently focused on the paucity of cogent constitutional arguments in Justice Kennedy's majority opinion, and the merits of the tight constitutional argument advanced by CJ Roberts. The rest of your post devolves into nothing more than another presumptuous, speculative, and traditional rehash of socio/psychobabble for which the left is renown.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2015 5:53 PM GMT
    Art_Deco: sometimes we can't just blindly pick sides and then defend everything that our side says and belittle everything "their" side says. I know you usually do that, but at issue in this thread are 2 claims.

    Claim #1 made by Woodsmen: Roberts based his opinion on Aztec marriages

    Claim #2 made by KissTheSky: The dissenters ignore the fact that polygamy has ever existed.

    Both of those claims are farcical and reveal that neither poster cares enough about this decision to read it. Go ahead and take offense, although there is nothing to offend therein.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Jun 29, 2015 7:52 PM GMT
    KissTheSky saidRepublicans like to pretend that couples were living in "Leave It To Beaver" marriages since the beginning of time, conveniently ignoring that polygamy was the norm for centuries...far longer than modern 2-person marriages.
    One place they could look for many examples of polygamy is THE BIBLE, which they claim to read but seem to miss many parts. icon_lol.gif


    That is one of the problems. The Bible is commonly used as a source of quotations to support foregone conclusions while portions of it which oppose what people already believe are somehow ignored.

    According to the OT of the Bible, a woman is the property of her father until a man buys her from her father to be his wife. While that is not stated explicitly, that doctrine is inescapably clear. Of course we do not accept that since it would be contrary to social justice. Instead, we correctly treat it as an aspect of ancient Hebrew culture which modern civilized people would reject.