California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[a.e.B.O.T.]

OH MY, IT IS A BOOK... just a book. Let's not argue about what it says! I don't care what it says! If you believe in what the book believes in great... but if you believe it, then just speak for yourself and not from a book! do YOU believe gays should have civil unions? do YOU believe that these civil unions should bare the name of "marriage"? If you have to look up in a book to know what exactly you believe, well then, I don't think you truly believe it, but merely fear of disobeying God or the Bible. AND if your stance is fear of disobeying, that is valid, because it is a truth from you. But "I believe this because the Bible or God says..." crap... thats not a belief, and so don't piss in my ear and tell me its raining.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

If you believe in what the book believes in great... but if you believe it, then just speak for yourself and not from a book! do YOU believe gays should have civil unions? do YOU believe that these civil unions should bare the name of "marriage"? If you have to look up in a book to know what exactly you believe, well then, . . . But "I believe this because the Bible or God says..." crap... thats not a belief, and so don't piss in my ear and tell me its raining.

Wow. That's a rather simplistic and naive approach that ignores the fundamental question -- why do you believe what you believe.

It's simple enough to say "do YOU believe gays should have civil unions" or "do YOU believe these civil unions should bear the name of 'marriage,'" but whether the answer is "yes" or "no," the next question is "why?"

Why is it crap to answer the "why" with "because the Bible/Scripture/my religion teach me so and I accept that teaching"? Why is it not a belief if there's reliance on the Bible?

Sure, there are plenty of people out there who take the Bible -- or any other "source" -- at face value and merely parrot it when stating their own views. There are people who reject any religious teaching as superstition. But there are also plenty of people who ask the tough questions, who doubt and who {gasp} think who come to the reasoned conclusion that they, in your words, "believe in what the book believes in" because they believe the book. For those people, making a distinction between speaking for yourself and speaking from the book is nonsense.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Wow. That's a rather simplistic and naive approach that ignores the fundamental question -- why do you believe what you believe.

It's simple enough to say "do YOU believe gays should have civil unions" or "do YOU believe these civil unions should bear the name of 'marriage,'" but whether the answer is "yes" or "no," the next question is "why?"

Why is it crap to answer the "why" with "because the Bible/Scripture/my religion teach me so and I accept that teaching"? Why is it not a belief if there's reliance on the Bible?

Sure, there are plenty of people out there who take the Bible -- or any other "source" -- at face value and merely parrot it when stating their own views. There are people who reject any religious teaching as superstition. But there are also plenty of people who ask the tough questions, who doubt and who {gasp} think who come to the reasoned conclusion that they, in your words, "believe in what the book believes in" because they believe the book. For those people, making a distinction between speaking for yourself and speaking from the book is nonsense.

yes, but if you believe in the book, you should be aware of it, and therefor state your beliefs based on that. Not rely on what the book says, but your own beliefs. For example, if you believe in the bible, you believe that gay marriage is immoral and not right. THAT IS A BELIEF, one based on the bible. You would not say you do not believe in gay marriage because of this quote here in the bible that tells me to not believe in it.

This discussion is based on individual beliefs, and if christianity plays into it, great! but quoting the bible and building a defense on a quote from a book is irrelevant. This tatic is an overused defense for people who are a) not sure what they believe in, b) merely fear the bible or God, or c) do not know how to articulate why they believe it.

I think religious beliefs are great, and shape who we are, but if you truly believe in the Bible or God, you should be able to explain your beliefs on something such as on gay marriage without quoting the bible.

[MysticCat]

^^^ Thanks for responding; I think I understand better now what you're trying to say. And I think I'd agree if quoting the verse is all that the quoter could do; that is, if he can quote the verse but has no real understanding (and ownership, perhaps) of it.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

yes, but if you believe in the book, you should be aware of it, and therefor state your beliefs based on that. Not rely on what the book says, but your own beliefs. For example, if you believe in the bible, you believe that gay marriage is immoral and not right. THAT IS A BELIEF, one based on the bible. You would not say you do not believe in gay marriage because of this quote here in the bible that tells me to not believe in it.

This discussion is based on individual beliefs, and if christianity plays into it, great! but quoting the bible and building a defense on a quote from a book is irrelevant. This tatic is an overused defense for people who are a) not sure what they believe in, b) merely fear the bible or God, or c) do not know how to articulate why they believe it.

I think religious beliefs are great, and shape who we are, but if you truly believe in the Bible or God, you should be able to explain your beliefs on something such as on gay marriage without quoting the bible.

But also, if you say I believe this because the bible says this, people want to know where in the Bible you got it from. While my beliefs are based off of the Bible and my Christianity, there are many various other factors as to why I oppose gay marriage.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by nate2512

But also, if you say I believe this because the bible says this, people want to know where in the Bible you got it from. While my beliefs are based off of the Bible and my Christianity, there are many various other factors as to why I oppose gay marriage.

GREAT, I AM SOOO GLAD, literally, not sarcastic. What are they? Let's discuss this WITHOUT the bible, for once! I will be more than glad to hear them, and I respect your right to have an opinion, when it is YOUR opinion.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

Let's discuss this WITHOUT the bible, for once! I will be more than glad to hear them,....

Just as you feel that the Bible should be removed from this discussion, there are those who feel that it should be the sole basis for this discussion. And at that point, we have an impasse. I think we should understand that and move on.

For me, gay relationships period are not natural. You would you accept that non-Biblical answer?

I know we were on this merry-go-round like 15 pages back, but there is no benefit in nature to have a same sex relationship. No, I'm not talking about marriage or civil unions. I'm just talking about the fact that the female of the species mates with the male of the species to produce offspring.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Just as you feel that the Bible should be removed from this discussion, there are those who feel that it should be the sole basis for this discussion. And at that point, we have an impasse. I think we should understand that and move on.

For me, gay relationships period are not natural. You would you accept that non-Biblical answer?

I know we were on this merry-go-round like 15 pages back, but there is no benefit in nature to have a same sex relationship. No, I'm not talking about marriage or civil unions. I'm just talking about the fact that the female of the species mates with the male of the species to produce offspring.

I TOTALLY accept that as a non-Biblical answer because you did not cite the bible to make that answer or reference it, although there are biblical influences... so, thank you

So, on that basis, do you think that people who can not have children, should they be able to get married, i.e. people with medical conditions or women post-menopause? I am not trying to be a prick, but the basis of marriage for the purpose of having children denotes a lot of valid loving marriages out there that are man-and-woman.

Secondly, and at a less substantial point and more controversial point, a Gay marriage can provide a loving home and family for children who need it, no?

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

GREAT, I AM SOOO GLAD, literally, not sarcastic. What are they? Let's discuss this WITHOUT the bible, for once! I will be more than glad to hear them, and I respect your right to have an opinion, when it is YOUR opinion.

Personally, I think it is unnatural. In such a way, that it serves no purpose. Where as male/female relationships serves purposes, it allows procreation, it allows prosperity, and even in relationships where the female cannot have a baby, adoption is acceptable because there is once again, a natural home that the child can grow up into. I believe a child that grows up in a home and has two mothers, or two fathers, is going to have a very distorted perception on life. I don't think it is fair for the child to be forced to grow up in that situation that is quite unnatural. So in closing, once again, I believe there is no purpose, and therefore unnatural. I feel cheapens and diminished natural heterosexuality, marriage, and true love.


Disagree if you will, but this is how I see it, not from a biblical view, but from a real view.

ETA: I promise I didn't read sigmadivas post before this.

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by nate2512

Personally, I think it is unnatural. In such a way, that it serves no purpose. Where as male/female relationships serves purposes, it allows procreation, it allows prosperity, and even in relationships where the female cannot have a baby, adoption is acceptable because there is once again, a natural home that the child can grow up into. I believe a child that grows up in a home and has two mothers, or two fathers, is going to have a very distorted perception on life. I don't think it is fair for the child to be forced to grow up in that situation that is quite unnatural. So in closing, once again, I believe there is no purpose, and therefore unnatural. I feel cheapens and diminished natural heterosexuality, marriage, and true love.


Disagree if you will, but this is how I see it, not from a biblical view, but from a real view.

ETA: I promise I didn't read sigmadivas post before this.

This is a good analysis from a non-religious point of view, so you are far ahead of most anti-gay marriage people in your degree of thought. In a thread on this site, and in a discussion that is generally irrational, let me please applaud you rational approach.

But here is the rebuttal- this is your point of view in a free society that purports to, within reason, respect the views of others.

I have my own personal strong feelings on gay marriage- including views on both the act in terms of the legal protections it offers and using the terminology "marriage". And how I look at either aspect of the argument does not necessarily lead to the same conclusion on the issue at large.

Ultimately, I consider what is truly an American viewpoint- and in that it is essential to consider Judeo-Christian morality since the two are inseparable.

And in doing so, I have to say I have no problem with same-sex "unions" (let's leave the word marriage out of it.)

As I get older and wiser and meet more people, I know and feel just as I know and believe Jesus is my Savior that homosexuals have just as deep and unavoidable a passion for sexual fulfillment and love as heterosexuals. It may not be a topic I want to discuss over dinner, but it is there. My life experience dictates it must be so- and ultimately we are all relying on life experience to inform our beliefs at any given point.

I appreciate your views on natural order- but that does not change how certain individuals feel and function.

And being part of a truly free and progressive society is accepting how individuals might feel.

I have little regard for bisexuality, transgender and other various practices down that road which are driven by polyamorous appetites or a desire to change one's self out of what I see as a lack of self esteem. Maybe that is me being limited.

But I absolutely believe that in monogamous relationships that healthy and stable people can be heterosexual or homosexual- and have no control over which side they fall on.

And such feelings so innate to our own sense of self-worth and happiness must be respected in a truly free society where legal protections are offered to those who chose to legally bind themselves to each other.

This I think is the core matter at hand- the legal protections offered by marriage.

And those protections can be separated from the act of marriage in a religious sense. After all, one can be married by a government official instead of a clergyman. And in some faiths, notably the Catholic Church, a legally annulled marriage is a completely separate matter from an annullment endorsed by the church.

There is absolutely no reason why, in the spirit of what America is all about, that homosexuals should not be able to form legal bonds and enjoy the same legal protections that heterosexuals do.

That is the real debate.

Bring religion into it- and we are no better than Nazis, the Taliban or any other fanatically religious group that seeks to abuse religious belief to enforce personal and political beliefs. And I would argue that "natural order", Darwinistic beliefs (the importance of reproduction of species) effectively constitute religion in these situations since they are an attempt to force a set of personal beliefs- no matter how intelligently or emotionally powerful- on people who might not share those beliefs.

And when "religion" is taken out of the equation- I really do not see where there is any debate.

Sure there are those who argue that society should not be burdened with the court costs of gay divorces- but if that is true then gays should not have to pay property taxes for schools since they will not have natural children of their own- nor should any of their tax dollars go to support societal expenses associated with marriage-related issues in general.

In the end, I think all roads- moral and mundane- point to allowing same sex unions, regardless of what any of us individually think about the issue.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

so don't piss in my ear and tell me its raining.

do YOU believe it's not raining or is it really not raining?

hehe

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

do YOU believe it's not raining or is it really not raining?

hehe

Oh, now we are getting philosophical, I can go there, but I feel, again, we will be getting off topic.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

Oh, now we are getting philosophical, I can go there, but I feel, again, we will be getting off topic.

No, piss is the topic.