California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[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.

[laylo]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

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.

I'm not trying to challenge your beliefs. I just don't understand the percieved relationship between the moral/religious issue and the legal understanding of marriage. I was hoping that, Christian-to-Christian, you might shed some light on it for me. If you're tired of explaining yourself, ok.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by laylo

I'm not trying to challenge your beliefs. I just don't understand the percieved relationship between the moral/religious issue and the legal understanding of marriage.

I think it depends on how the individual views marriage. Some have expressed in this thread that they view it as purely a legal definition - thus there are no religious and/or moral connection for them. Some people see marriage strictly in a religious sense. Me? I fall somewhere in between. I see the legal and the moral/religious issues, but I tend to favor more towards the moral / religious side.

I was hoping that, Christian-to-Christian, you might shed some light on it for me. If you're tired of explaining yourself, ok.

I think it just depends on how one defines marriage with respect to their religion. You have some religious folks who do not believe in mixed marriages -Catholics and non-Catholics, Christian and Jews.

And yeah, I am getting tired of explaining the same thing I've been saying since page 10 of this thread. I think people keep trying to go at it from different angles hoping to get a different answer.

[laylo]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I think it depends on how the individual views marriage. Some have expressed in this thread that they view it as purely a legal definition - thus there are no religious and/or moral connection for them. Some people see marriage strictly in a religious sense. Me? I fall somewhere in between. I see the legal and the moral/religious issues, but I tend to favor more towards the moral / religious side.

I just mean what's being decided in court, which is the legal definition. According to my beliefs marriage is indeed a spiritual union, but no one is voting on whether or not people can go through a spiritual ceremony, have a sexual relationship, or share a life as one. All that you would be voting against is legal benefits.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by laylo

I just mean what's being decided in court, which is the legal definition. According to my beliefs marriage is indeed a spiritual union, but no one is voting on whether or not people can go through a spiritual ceremony, have a sexual relationship, or share a life as one. All that you would be voting against is legal benefits.

You're actually voting on whether gay relationships should be equated to straight relationships and whether the definition of "marriage" should be altered to include same-sex couples.

California already provided legal benefits, so gay marriage, when determined by a state court, has nothing to do with expanding that.

[laylo]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

You're actually voting on whether gay relationships should be equated to straight relationships and whether the definition of "marriage" should be altered to include same-sex couples.

California already provided legal benefits, so gay marriage, when determined by a state court, has nothing to do with expanding that.

Do you mean that the only difference between domestic partnerships and marriage is the words on the documents? Are all of the rights the same?

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by laylo

I just mean what's being decided in court, which is the legal definition. According to my beliefs marriage is indeed a spiritual union, but no one is voting on whether or not people can go through a spiritual ceremony, have a sexual relationship, or share a life as one. All that you would be voting against is legal benefits.

I'm sure that you are right. But, as I've said, people will base their votes on their beliefs. If they truly believe that gay marriage goes against their moral / religious / ethical beliefs, and yet, the issue of gay marriage on the ballot is purely a legal terminology issue, then for them to vote against gay marriage anyway still meets their objective in terms of voting against something they don't beleive in.

That is why legislators are very clever when issues come up for public vote. They will attach a "rider" - like, if you want to vote to increase the amount of money students can take out on a student loan, then you also have to vote to approve the legal definition of gay marriage. See what I mean?

Some people view mariage in a number of different ways. Some view it as you do, some view it as a means out of, or as a means into a current situation. Historically marriage was viewed simply as a business transaction, there was no idea or concept of true love being involved in a marriage. Hence, all those arranged marriages and girls with doweries (?sp).

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

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

That is why legislators are very clever when issues come up for public vote. They will attach a "rider" - like, if you want to vote to increase the amount of money students can take out on a student loan, then you also have to vote to approve the legal definition of gay marriage. See what I mean?

TOTALLY sidenote... they also attach anti-gay marriage bills to the ballot in key states like Ohio and Florida so that people remember that one candidate is for it and one is against, basically ensuring a win for the republican party. More people said they showed up in Ohio to vote for the gay marriage ban then the president!!!!!!! That really burned my cheese.

[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.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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

LOL. At least you're consistent.