Itâs neither legal nor illegal but nobodyâs business in a FREE society. But if we want to start legislating from archaic and irrelevant religious books such as the Bible and the Koran. Then we can kiss the American experiment goodbye.
You are actually wrong.
Even heterosexual sex outside of marriage is provably not among the Privileges and Immunities as might be applied under A4:S2:C1 simply because it was unlawful in some of the States that Ratified.
And homosexual acts were way, way outside the bounds of lawful behavior!
Your free society, that of the sexual revolution, has little to do with the Constitution.
Indeed, those who often lust for government to manage every nuance of life completely in defiance of the Constitution and the 10th Amendment often have as their only âdonât touchâ sex and whatever helps their be more sex without consequences, like abortion on demand.
Just because modern society has functionally confused what people do with their genitals with the whole of the pursuit of happiness that doesnât mean the culture is correct (when it is actually descending into perversions and madness, which is about as far from being correct as you can get).
If you mean my comment that homosexual acts are neither legal or illegal, I mean that in the sense that itâs not for one man/woman to decide about another, which would make any statue moot and irrelevant. And btw, prior to the very modern institution of marriage, all sex between humans was outside of marriage obviously and that too is a moot point.
Again, you are wrong.
The institution of marriage is actually recognizably ancient. It is rather an historical deviancy to require a State issued license to marry rather than to restrict sex to marriage as Common Law did.
But marriage certainly existed long before the issuance of State licenses. Marriage that is recognizable as marriage had existed in times and in places so ancient among human cultures that to assert that to assert it is somehow an innovation not more ancient still is mere speculation without evidence ⌠and is just a sample of the form of chauvinism that demands that the ancient is primitive in ideals as well as technical skills.
If not for those archaic beliefs there would have never been a USA.
Marriage is as old as the most primitive clan and tribal societies dating back as far as we have records of any kind.
Remember when Obama asserted that Islam bore some of the credit for America?
Yeah, we should all do things like thank Islam for not burning the tiny fraction of libraries that they did burn in their naked unprovoked wars of aggression. Such a golden age to reap everyone with learning from elsewhere and make them serve you in your capital ⌠and then take credit for what they did.
1 Like
Not as ancient as humanity. 
Fair point, guess Iâll go watch it. 
That too is an assumption without evidence.
For all you know, even from a materialist pov that you seem to profess, the beginnings of marriage like estate could have represented what really started man down the road of having a human culture at all.
For all I know there COULD be little green martians. Anyway, the most ancient records go back a fraction of human history.
No. By definition, history is recorded existence.
You would be correct had you said, âAnyway, the most ancient records go back a fraction of human existence.â
The most ancient records came at the beginning of our history.
history
n.
A chronological record of events, as of the life or development of a people or institution, often including an explanation of or commentary on those events.
n.
A formal written account of related natural phenomena.Considering 1) most of the biggest cities within a few dozens of miles of the coastline and 2) how much the oceans rose at the end on the last big ice age (darn those ancient SUVs!) / didnât go down after the Flood your tiny fraction is probably to be expected. Southeast and Northeast coastal Asia as we know it would have been much larger because of what would have once been vast coastal plains ⌠all now under water, even connecting Japan to the mainland. Even what we think of a England and Western Europe are just the old highlands of who knows what.
No offense but history means less than nothing in this country. What matters is freedom and I donât see how the hell we tolerate government telling us who can and canât marry each other. 
1 Like
And all of this does what for the criminals or mentally ill who donât give a ratâs ass about measures that make you âfeel goodâ. 
Geeze, not only a FREE society but protected by the 2nd Amendment. And yet?
Which is itâŚcanât have it both ways. Well, unless it it is the way according to âMontecrestoâ
Changed it to another video / thumbnail. Enjoy.
Well maybe you can find some 30,000 year old records to prove your point. Or perhaps youâre a believer in the 7,000 year old earth theory.
The paramount point right thereâŚ
I take no offenseâŚand meant none. I merely pointed out the misuse of the word history. Whether history books record actual events or falsified events is another issue.
My interjection should not be construed as disagreement with any argument made. I do agree that human sexual activities, whether heterosexual, homosexual or of any other description took place long before the institution of marriage.
Not only that, there are species of other animals that exhibit homosexual behaviorâŚand I would posit that they have done so since before we came along.
Sex drive is a natural thing, designed to guarantee procreation, but driven by the physical pleasure that comes with completionâŚno matter how such completion is reached.
1 Like