California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by nate2512

Not all this again. Read all the posts in their entirety before you post.

Yeah, I don't know why she keeps bringing this up.

Actually she and I hashed it out via pm where we, I thought, finally agreed that we disagree.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I thought, finally agreed that we disagree.

don't try that with dstchaos, she doesn't like that too much

ETA: Kstar didn't see any of my posts so yours and his don't make a lot of sense without mine. She has me on ignore.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by doogur

The institution today isn't even what it was 50 years ago, much less 100 years ago or 1,000 years ago. It certainly isn't a stagnant thing.

Your argument about procreation holds no water. If the ability to procreate plays a substantial role in the state interest, then why doesn't the state REQUIRE a man and a woman to bear children in order to get married?

Furthermore, allowing gays and lesbians to get married with have absolutely NO bearing on the procreation equation anyway.

If people - gay or straight - want to have children, they will find a way regardless of marriage. You are using the procreation argument where there is NO BASIS FOR THE ARGUMENT.

The state doesn't REQUIRE men and women to have children because it is without a doubt unconstitutional. Your assertion is nonsensical, and you're well aware of it. We don't force people to give to charity (other than our ridiculous system of taxation), we give them benefits should they choose to do so. That is because the federal and state governments have a vested interest in helping the poor, the sick, etc. The government believes it has an interest in encouraging family-creation, and thus marriage incentives are provided.

I'm not using the procreation argument. I'm telling you that there will be resistance to gay marriage considering many of the incentives for marriage benefits are not present with gay relationships. This isn't me trying to argue the point, this is me telling you absolutely where the resistance will come from and why.

Marriage doesn't have anything to do with procreation, but natural procreation has a lot to do with the government's interest in marriage. There are exceptions to the ability to bear children in straight relationships, but the RULE with gay relationships is that natural procreation ISN'T POSSIBLE inside that relationship.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by nate2512

don't try that with dstchaos, she doesn't like that too much

I already know - she and I have a loooooooooonnnnggggg history here on GC. VERY LONG.

ETA: Kstar didn't see any of my posts so yours and his don't make a lot of sense without mine.

Ah! As much as some people on here rub me the wrong way, I've never put anyone on 'ignore'. It does interrupt the flow of the thread.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by kstar

So you don't eat shrimp, or wear polyester blends, or bathe on your period? Because all of that is an abomination too. You can't pick and choose if you're going to use one. And if you say the reasons for the rest are outdated, then that one is outdated too.

I've never heard anyone, except some Reform Jews, make a claim that any of the laws are "outdated." For 2000 years though, plenty of people have claimed that the ritual or purity laws -- dietary laws, clothing laws, laws regarding menstruation, and others that applied only to Jews and that separated Jew from Gentile -- are not binding on Christians. The beginnings of the discussion are actually documented in the Bible, you know -- Acts, chapters 10 and 15.

As for the ethical or moral laws -- such as laws prohibiting murder or stealing or regulating sexual beavior -- they have always been deemed to be universally binding, not just binding on Jews.

What you seem to be forgetting is that the Bible was written by man, not G*d, and personal beliefs and prejudices were added.

And what you seem to be forgetting is that a large chunk of the Jewish and Christian communities, if not the majority of them, would not agree with your statement. While they would agree that men wrote the Scriptures, they would claim that those men were divinely inspired and did not insert personal prejudices.

Originally Posted by kstar

Actually no, it grants freedom OF AND FROM religion. You can practice any religion you want and you cannot have religion forced upon you.

Again, you ignore the parts of history that disagree with your worldview. The First Amendment only kept the federal government from making laws establishing a national religion. It was almost 100 years before the states were similarly prohibited by the Constitution. So whatever the First Amendment was intended to accomplish, it simply cannot be argued with any credibility at all that it was intended to protect people from religion. That's a late 20th Century spin on it.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Ah! As much as some people on here rub me the wrong way, I've never put anyone on 'ignore'. It does interrupt the flow of the thread.

Yeah, she said she had me on ignore since I joined, no I'm not always nice to people, I don't always agree, but I thought I've always been fair enough to not have anyone ignore. Especially when I first joined and people weren't familiar with my style.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by nate2512

don't try that with dstchaos, she doesn't like that too much

Yeah...why overstate the obvious? I'd rather someone say "this bores me, move on" if they want to be dismissive and have the power to begin and end discussions.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Yeah...why overstate the obvious? I'd rather someone say "this bores me, move on" if they want to be dismissive and have the power to begin and end discussions.

Duly noted. I'll remember that.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I already know - she and I have a loooooooooonnnnggggg history here on GC. VERY LONG.

I'll have to take your word on that. I beeez forge'in' 'n stuh.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I know church people love to say that, but the historical record really shows it's to protect each from the intrusion of the other.

Note the "" in my post.

[DSTCHAOS]

Are preciousjeni and nate having a signature war right now?

I hate those.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Are preciousjeni and nate having a signature war right now?

I hate those.

I came in just to see what you were talking about. I can't be held responsible for what nate does (or says).

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

I came in just to see what you were talking about. I can't be held responsible for what nate does (or says).

Um, no, my signature has nothing to do with her. I merely thought the lyrics of better than ezra were appropriately fitting given recent discussions.

And just thought I would give any newcomer liberals fair warning when they quote my text.

[doogur]

I've not had time to read the posts since last night and I'm heading off to class. I want to continue my debate with Nate (and Sigma for that matter)...tomorrow I shall return and discuss the New Testament and homosexuality.

[doogur]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Not really -- we've had that discussion on the ritual law and the ethical law before, not too long ago, in fact. The only fun is in seeing how some people attempt to make what they think are slam dunk arguments, like "do you observe every prohibition in Leviticus?" as though they discovered the Achilles Heel, when in fact they're just showing that they can proof-text without any reference to how one or two verses fit into the witness of the entire Bible.

It is an Achilles Heel because I'm not the one cherry picking. I'm reading the context of Leviticus as a whole, not pulling out a verse here or there.

Leviticus was ritual law of the Jews. So why pull *one* gay verse out and ignore the others? Why is one ritual worth a thousand anti gay words and dozens of other rituals totally ignored?

The primary reason is because it's really convenient and pretty much ignores the witness of the entire Bible.

So, in fact, my argument is a slam dunk.