California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

Sorry for the double post.

Shiner, believe me I understand what you're saying, but the fact that it's people who believe that gives me a problem.

People are not perfect.

What a person believes does not make it so.

Of course it doesn't, so what?

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Let me see if I can explain - the concept stems from the fact that God would not create a sinner on purpose, one from birth. The thought is that we are all born being good and righteous in the eyes of God, free from sin. During life, God gives us the chance to decide how we want to live. Whether we want to be good or bad, right or wrong. Since for some, homosexuality is a sin, then people can not be born gay. It is something they decided to do during their lives.

Originally Posted by AGDee

Well, Catholics believe that you born with sin, inherited from Adam and Eve, which is why they baptize you when you are an infant. The only human ever born without sin was Jesus.

Do you think you could make yourself like girls instead of boys? If you always inherently liked boys then that follows that you didn't have a choice.

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Protestants don't believe this. We believe, for the most part, that as a young child, it is your parents responsibility to teach you about church and Jesus Christ. After going to Sunday school, church, and vacation Bible school that around the age 10 - 13, the kid would make the decision to commit his / her life to Christ, and thus decide to get baptized.

Protestants do believe that people are born with sin. Most Protestants don't practice infant baptism, however. The perception of western Christians (Catholics, Anglicans and Protestants) was drastically impacted by various people, ideologies and events including Augustine, Aquinas and the Reformation all of which were influenced by Roman law. Before 400 AD, this was not the case. The early church hadn't yet been introduced to the concept of original sin, the belief shared by Catholics, Anglicans and Protestants that mankind inherited the sinful nature and subsequent guilt of Adam and Eve. Prior to that time, sin was viewed as a disruption in our relationship with God. In essence, humans are born with predispositions toward things that would not be natural if we had walked freely with God. These predispositions form who we are (or rather who we think we are), right or wrong.

With that said, I absolutely believe that people are "born" with predispositions toward a great number of things - some of which our society frowns upon, some of which our society embraces - but none of which are natural in the supreme order of life. People are born with a predisposition to be fat, gay, overachievers, cynics...all sorts of things. Walking with God in a world like ours is devastating to the identities we have developed.

Still, as Christians (well, those of us who are), we should want to preserve the rights of individuals to live as they believe they should. It is God's work, not ours, that draws mankind to Him. As long as people are not committing acts that are universally rejected (murder, rape, etc.), the best way Christians can show compassion to others is to step aside and let God work.

In the case of legalizing gay marriage, what good comes from setting up camp on either side of the issue and tossing grenades at each other?

[shinerbock]

Precious, of course their (our) response to your assertion is that nobody is restricting the right of gay people to live as they want. We're simply not including them in something they've never fit the definition of.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Precious, of course their (our) response to your assertion is that nobody is restricting the right of gay people to live as they want. We're simply not including them in something they've never fit the definition of.

Never? Or never in this country where the founding fathers were Christians-when-convenient?

ETA: I'm speaking to the Christian resistance, not to non-Christians. So, my question - to Christians - is, in the case of legalizing gay marriage, what good comes from setting up camp on either side of the issue and tossing grenades at each other?

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Me personally? NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! I love the boys. I love being the only girl in a relationship. Not to get too personal, but there are some things only a boy can provide me.

What is that supposed to mean?

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Never? Or never in this country where the founding fathers were Christians-when-convenient?

Meaning never in the history of institutionalized American marriage. I could care less what the rest of the world does or has done.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

It's nice that they see it that way.

But "they" may or may not be right, and just because they believe they are doesn't make it so. They're not gods themselves, just simple humans like the rest of us. A choice or accident of where they live makes no difference at all in whether they see things correctly.

Well, the way "they" see it, you may not be right either, thus, the imapsse on this issue.

Consider this which always bothered me during my early upbringing in a mondo conservative, "Hell, fire and brimstone" Church of Christ In Christian Union. If God is all knowing, all loving, all forgiving -- how can He/She condem someone to eternal damnation in Hell? Why would we have to be "tested?" Especially, if we are born without sin? Why would He/She even offer the option?

I'm an ordained Elder in the Presbyterian Church and believe in God, but still have a lot of questions.

Because you are to come to God willingly, knowing it was your choice to do so.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Meaning never in the history of institutionalized American marriage. I could care less what the rest of the world does or has done.

If we didn't reconsider things that had "never in the history of institutionalized American [fill in the blank]" been done, our constitution would still read:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

(And, I'm not equating gay marriage with civil rights any more than to show a correlation in terms of the concepts.)

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

If we didn't reconsider things that had "never in the history of institutionalized American [fill in the blank]" been done, our constitution would still read:



(And, I'm not equating gay marriage with civil rights any more than to show a correlation in terms of the concepts.)

This argument could be used to reconsider anything. Like capitalism. Like freedom of religion. As you well know, this country has been "considering" gay marriage for quite some time now.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Protestants do believe that people are born with sin.......that mankind inherited the sinful nature and subsequent guilt of Adam and Eve.

Well, let me say that not all protestants see it this way.

With that said, I absolutely believe that people are "born" with predispositions toward a great number of things - some of which our society frowns upon, some of which our society embraces - but none of which are natural in the supreme order of life. People are born with a predisposition to be fat, gay, overachievers, cynics...all sorts of things. Walking with God in a world like ours is devastating to the identities we have developed.

For geneticists, this opens up a whole new issue - since we've discovered a fat gene, is there a 'gay' gene? We just don't know.

Still, as Christians (well, those of us who are), we should want to preserve the rights of individuals to live as they believe they should. It is God's work, not ours, that draws mankind to Him. As long as people are not committing acts that are universally rejected (murder, rape, etc.), the best way Christians can show compassion to others is to step aside and let God work.

In the case of legalizing gay marriage, what good comes from setting up camp on either side of the issue and tossing grenades at each other?

Again, where do we draw the line and who decides? Because as we've discussed, some people would lump homosexuality into the same category as murder, rape, etc. And, that it is our responsibility as Christians to go out a teach the world the Word of God.

And in the case of legalizing gay marriage - why should I give in to the opposing beliefs? They should give into mine - hence, the impasse on this issue.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

This argument could be used to reconsider anything. Like capitalism. Like freedom of religion. As you well know, this country has been "considering" gay marriage for quite some time now.

Capitalism and freedom of religion are core components of the American way of life that cannot be changed by individual states. Would you honestly consider marriage, gay or otherwise, to be among those core components?

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

What is that supposed to mean?

I've heard some of the more "masculine" lesbians claim that they can make their female lover feel just as "good" with them as compared to a man.

And if you want more detail, I'll have to pm you.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Capitalism and freedom of religion are core components of the American way of life that cannot be changed by individual states. Would you honestly consider marriage, gay or otherwise, to be among those core components?

Fine, use narrower examples. Use anything you like. Also, I'm not in favor of a national gay marriage ban. I think the states should be allowed to do what they want, so long as the FFCC doesn't force them to bow to more "progressive" states.

However, the argument you used, which basically equates to "well, in the past we've changed some things, and that worked," simply doesn't mean gay marriage is something this country should adopt. Perhaps it means we should be willing to consider change, but I think it would be very difficult to argue that Americans have yet to consider the prospect of gay marriage.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Capitalism and freedom of religion are core components of the American way of life that cannot be changed by individual states. Would you honestly consider marriage, gay or otherwise, to be among those core components?

Yes, if you add 'family values' to the American way of life.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Well, let me say that not all protestants see it this way.

For clarity's sake, original sin is one of the major theological beliefs that came out of the Protestant Reformation in full force. If your church considers itself Protestant, by definition, it must espouse a belief in original sin. Different churches handle original sin differently, of course. From everything you've posted in this thread, it sounds like your church is coming from an Arminian perspective. If you don't mind my asking, what church is this? I completely understand if you don't want to put it out in public.