California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Because your beliefs restrict others' freedom and pursuit of happiness. Ours do not.

I would disagree with this statement in the context of this thread. There have been a few posters who just outright stated that religion should be removed from all decisions concerning morality and laws. In order for me to do that, then I would have to deny my religious beliefs and practices, which I have no intention of doing. So, while you (and the general you) may feel that religion should be taken out of it. There are those that feel religion should be the major part of it, and denying those people their ability to infuse their religion would be very restrictive for them.

And again, where do you draw the line? Albeit Rudey went of on this ridiculous tangent with the animal thing, what I read his point to be is at what point to say no? By your statement then, those who want to practice polygamy should be allowed, those who want to engage in sex with minors should be allowed, those who want to engage in sex with animals should be allowed. Where does it end?

As for family values, what is more valuable in a family than marriage? This would create more families.

I meant family values in the context of Dubya, you know, husband, wife, a couple of kids and they all go to a (protestant) church.

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

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

And again, where do you draw the line? Albeit Rudey went of on this ridiculous tangent with the animal thing, what I read his point to be is at what point to say no? By your statement then, those who want to practice polygamy should be allowed, those who want to engage in sex with minors should be allowed, those who want to engage in sex with animals should be allowed. Where does it end?

Simple. Adults should be able to live their lives how they want in regards to dealing with Adults. What two grown adults want to do is their business and just live happily and peacefully, and do not affect those who are on their moral high horse, then it should be ok. Plan and simple, it is called freedom. Minors are except to this "freedom" already by the constitution and state laws, so the line is already drawn their... and so are animals... but you want to deny two consenting adults to do what they want in the privacy of their home.

[sigmadiva]

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

Simple. Adults should be able to live their lives how they want in regards to dealing with Adults. What two grown adults want to do is their business and just live happily and peacefully, and do not affect those who are on their moral high horse, then it should be ok. Plan and simple, it is called freedom. Minors are except to this "freedom" already by the constitution and state laws, so the line is already drawn their... and so are animals... but you want to deny two consenting adults to do what they want in the privacy of their home.

I agree with this. My point is that where you draw the line and where I draw the line may be different. The point for us is to agree where the line should be drawn.

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

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I meant family values in the context of Dubya, you know, husband, wife, a couple of kids and they all go to a (protestant) church.

SOOOO... you believe everyone should be protestant... you said family values is apart of the american ways of life, and you added protestant in your definition... why stop their, why not just go to the 'church of christ'... and everyone think like YOU and act like YOU...

this is from wikipedia:
A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.

You preach about beliefs and how they are such a stronghold to who you are and your opinions, but you refuse to accept that other's beliefs outside your own. This sounds like a violation of the Church of Christ's beliefs... anyhow, you keep on believing what you want, and I will believe my own beliefs, and this will make us TRULY American because we are all allowed our own beliefs, and you go vote, and I will go vote, and we will just cancel each other out, ok?

[sigmadiva]

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

SOOOO... you believe everyone should be protestant... you said family values is apart of the american ways of life, and you added protestant in your definition... why stop their, why not just go to the 'church of christ'... and everyone think like YOU and act like YOU...

No, I said President Bush said we should have 'famliy values'. And did you not catch the '' in my post? I was being sarcastic.

You preach about beliefs and how they are such a stronghold to who you are and your opinions, but you refuse to accept that other's beliefs outside your own.

Mmmmm, no. I think you are reading far too deep into what I've been posting. Way back in this thread, I stated that I really have no problem with gay people on a day to day basis. I mean, being gay is not going to impact the price of gas, which is a big issue in my life now.

If someone holds religious beliefs or practices different from mine, fine. I feel that they have every right to do so.

This sounds like a violation of the Church of Christ's beliefs...

Not really. What we beleive is that everyone is free to believe as they choose, but along life's way one should find his / her way to Jesus and his teachings.

anyhow, you keep on believing what you want, and I will believe my own beliefs, and this will make us TRULY American because we are all allowed our own beliefs, and you go vote, and I will go vote, and we will just cancel each other out, ok?

I will. I think I've said this myself several times. We are at an impasse.

All I've been trying to do is to state the counter-point to the 'pro-gay' marriage stance.

Afterall, for some people, it just really boils down to that fact that God made Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve. These people don't care about civil unions, whether or not this debate should be in the courts, in the legislature, or whether each state should decide. The decision on gay marriage is just that simple for them.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I would disagree with this statement in the context of this thread. There have been a few posters who just outright stated that religion should be removed from all decisions concerning morality and laws. In order for me to do that, then I would have to deny my religious beliefs and practices, which I have no intention of doing. So, while you (and the general you) may feel that religion should be taken out of it. There are those that feel religion should be the major part of it, and denying those people their ability to infuse their religion would be very restrictive for them.

I meant family values in the context of Dubya, you know, husband, wife, a couple of kids and they all go to a (protestant) church.

The thing is, you can still follow your religion to the letter if gay marriage is legal because YOU don't have to participate in a gay marriage if you don't want to.

We have already had the animal and minor discussion. They are not adults at the age of consent who can make decisions for themselves. There's no point in going there again. I have already stated that I'm not convinced polygamy AMONG CONSENTING ADULTS should be illegal. I don't see what harm it does if everybody who decides to get involved truly has a choice in the matter. I can see how some would find great financial benefit and time benefit from sharing finances and child care responsibilities. A family could potentially have 3 or 4 breadwinners and still have a Stay At Home Mom if they wanted to go that route. I wouldn't personally engage in it, but I could see how it could be advantageous.

You do realize that the majority of households in America do not fit your definition of a family?

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by AGDee

The thing is, you can still follow your religion to the letter if gay marriage is legal because YOU don't have to participate in a gay marriage if you don't want to.

Well, I guess this is very subjective for some people. Because in my religion this can not happen. No, I don't have to particiapte in a gay marriage any more than I would have to particiapte in a heterosexual marriage.

But, from my religious teachings, I would not accept a gay marriage as being a true marriage in the eyes of God. I mean, yes, gay people can go through the ceremony and call themselves married, but I don't have to acceppt it.

We have already had the animal and minor discussion. They are not adults at the age of consent who can make decisions for themselves. There's no point in going there again. I have already stated that I'm not convinced polygamy AMONG CONSENTING ADULTS should be illegal.

I know we've been over this issue ad nauseum, but it seems to me that you keep bringing it up on a tangental basis. Maybe I'm reading your posts wrong.

I don't see what harm it does if everybody who decides to get involved truly has a choice in the matter.

Because you have some hard core Christians out there who feel that it is their God-given duty to ensure everyone gets to heaven by saving the world from all types of sin.

For me personally, I'm not going to go out and beat people over the head to convince them to my way of thinking. But, if given the chance to vote on an issue, then I will according to my beliefs, what ever they may be.

You do realize that the majority of households in America do not fit your definition of a family?

Oh, sure. Again, however these people want to live their lives is fine. But, here again, if the opportunity comes for me to vote on how I think a family unit should exist, I will.

[laylo]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Because you have some hard core Christians out there who feel that it is their God-given duty to ensure everyone gets to heaven by saving the world from all types of sin.

Do you believe that the license to marry will increase homosexuality?

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by laylo

Do you believe that the license to marry will increase homosexuality?

Nope. I just don't agree with gays being married for moral and religious reasons.

oh, and btw, I don't consider myself one of those hard core Christians.

[laylo]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Nope. I just don't agree with gays being married for moral and religious reasons.

oh, and btw, I don't consider myself one of those hard core Christians.

Do you disagree with a homosexual couple living together, having sex, and raising children? Or do you disagree with such a couple having tax, medical, and other legal benefits? The religious arguments I know of are against only the former, which only makes sense to me if one believes that homosexuality itself will be increased by the latter.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by laylo

Do you disagree with a homosexual couple living together, having sex, and raising children? Or do you disagree with such a couple having tax, medical, and other legal benefits? The religious arguments I know of are against only the former, which only makes sense to me if one believes that homosexuality itself will be increased by the latter.

Look, I don't care how people carry on in their private and daily lives. As long as they are not doing anything that one would consider extremely immoral or illegal, I really don't care.

So, if little Johnny has two mommies or two daddies, I don't care. Their lifestyle does not impact mine.

And quite frankly the whole issue of taxes and medical care does not bother me either. You know why? Because no matter the issue taxes will go up and medical insurance companies will charge more for fewer services - whether you are single, married, have kids, don't have kids....

Like I've said over and over again in this thread, if given the opportunity to cast a vote on the issue I will vote against it. Not for tax reasons, not for medical reasons, not because I feel Johnny should have a mommy and a daddy (well, I do think all kids need both a mom and a dad, but I know that does not happen). I will vote against gay marriage because for me it is a moral and religious issue.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by laylo

Do you disagree with a homosexual couple living together, having sex, and raising children? Or do you disagree with such a couple having tax, medical, and other legal benefits? The religious arguments I know of are against only the former, which only makes sense to me if one believes that homosexuality itself will be increased by the latter.

no, no, probably, no, no, no.