Thank you Supreme Court...

Might as well be a reflection of exogamic traditions, though.

Well that's where it gets tricky, did he really marry outside of his community or did he marry his twin, or did he perhaps marry one or both of the Abel triplets to avoid the twincest?
If he married outside his community to one of the mortal women who inhabited the earth before the creation of Adam and Eve was he adopting their non religious societal culture and their accepted norms?
Were Michael and Gabriel really best men at the wedding? Or if they had been among those angels shagging the humans before the creation of Adam and Eve were they there as father of the bride or brides?

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Well that's where it gets tricky

It does, and I don't claim to have answers to those questions, especially since it has been at least several years since I last studied that particular part of the Bible. I have just always been somewhat fascinated from the historiographical point of view in how these old stories may be reflecting something from the ancient past, so could hardly resist adding that.

It's not that long since I red a theory proposing the exogamy as a reason for why in the ancient folk tale traditions we so often see the hero going to some far foreign land and ending up married there. I suppose that's where it popped into my mind in the first place. So much for being original. Then there is of course the good old theory of the tales' trolls and similar monsters being reminiscent of the Neanderthals. And so on and so on.

Carry on with the thread subject, I'll tell my inner scholar to sit down and shut up.

It does, and I don't claim to have answers to those questions, especially since it has been at least several years since I last studied that particular part of the Bible. I have just always been somewhat fascinated from the historiographical point of view in how these old stories may be reflecting something from the ancient past, so could hardly resist adding that.

The beauty about that bit of the bible when it comes to study is that there are so many versions and so many contradictions both within each version and between versions.
Plus of course so many attempts over thousands of years to try and make them balance, fill in the big gaps and rework the contradictions to lend it some form of maintainable credibility.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

These two rulings are quite interesting. Prop 8 was dismissed on a standing issue because it was a state matter - not a federal one.

DOMA as written was unconstitutional - regardless of your views on gay marriage.

The SC simply punted. I find that funny.

Is this okay to point out some facts about the prop 8 and the DOMA ruling in this thread?

and by the way I also agree that the SC punted, but they used some funny punters.

I love the Jews and I even like gay girls due to the fact that we like the same things ... gay men is another subject, but this is about the laws that were just turned over by the SC.

First of all the lawsuit against DOMA (defense of the marriage act) enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Cliton was brought to the awareness of the supreme court by a Jewish couple married in Canada with the marriage recognized by the same sex law in the state of New York where they were living at the time of her partners death.

Mrs Edith Windsor (83) was charged a federal estate tax of over $300,000 upon the death of her wife and she brought the lawsuit to the SC. I wonder how much that cost her to sue?

She was the injured party and the DOMA was ruled by Justice Kennedy and four other SC justices as unconstitional, of whom three of the other four justices were Jewish, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer.

again it's just a small point and I am not against the Jews or the catholics, but yet the other case prop 8 was ruled to have no injured party and was denied a ruling sending the case back to the lower courts in California where a pro-homosexual judge had already invalidated the prop 8 ruling passed by a majority of California voters back in 2008.

Now gay marriage will be okay soon and very soon in the state of California with the options of stopping very slim.

I noticed that in the DOMA ruling however that over and over again SC justice Kennedy said that the DOMA case was over ruled, but only applied to the 12 states that had already approved of same sex marriage for the purposes of obtaining federal benefits, which in turn kept it from being approval of same sex marriage in all 50 states.

Do they then go back and make a correction that it includes California ... a fine point indeed, but isn't it the fine points of the law that have to be obeyed?

[Wolferz]

Maybe the Westboro Baptist Curch is running things now?
Christians drinking the haterade?