California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[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.

[nittanyalum]

WOW that this thread is still going!

Ok, this made me laugh:

Originally Posted by GooniePDT49

I dont have a problem with it. they can be as miserable as the rest of us.

But yeah, this doesn't help:

Originally Posted by GooniePDT49

ignorance is a southern thing!

[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.

[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.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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

LOL. At least you're consistent.

[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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Churches differentiate between christening/dedication and infant baptism for this reason.

Okay, I'm veering even further off topic here, but huh? Not sure I follow you.

Christening (meaning at its root "to make Christian") and baptism are the same thing. Christening is just the traditional term used in England; I mainy hear it used by Episcopalians in the US, and I hear fewer and fewer of them use it. (Although I have had Baptist friends who insist on calling the baptism of an infant "christening" because they refuse to even suggest that an infant could be baptized.)

Dedication is, of course, different from baptism/christining. But I don't see how the lack of belief that baptism remits original sin (at least formulated in the same way as Catholics would typically formulate it) gives rise to that distinction. Seems to me the distinction comes from the disagreement as to whether baptism must be preceded by a decision of faith.

[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.

[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

I agree with this. The law in and of itself should not be religios. But, you have to realize that people are more than likely going to vote and campaign on issuses based on their religious beliefs - like it or not.

I know, that is the beauty of the law and the supreme court. It is not to uphold the majority, but to protect the minority

Yeah, and is this the same court that legalized marijuana ?

Yes, and at the risk of losing my credibility, I think it should be legalized. You speak of drawing lines and we draw lines at alcohol and cigarettes. Which is funny, because it must be a jagged messed up line to then cancel out marijuana, but this is totally another discussion.

I'm sorry that you had to experience this in your life. Really I am. But for me, I personally have no issue as to whether people are gay or not. But, do I think gay people should get married, no, I don't. End of story.

So, you will let them live like they are married and do everything like they are married, but you will not let them have a word? Wouldn't, in the eyes of God, the actions of a gay couple living their life together be considered a union? Like, a couple that lives together for the rest of their lifetime, whether is listed on their good or sin list, that would be a married couple in the eyes of God. God does not get semantic over a word. I mean, seriously, allowing someone to live their life with someone else is basically allowing them to marriage. The only thing you are denying is them term, married. Secondly, the issue is not whether the church recognizes the marriage. Sigmadiva, it really is not that hard to get a preacher who will marry a gay couple. Whether that marriage is recognized in heaven is a different discussion, but spiritually, gays get married all the time. What is being stopped is the legal part, not the spiritual part.

Oh, side note, and a lot of people do not think of this, BUT... If Gay marriage is legalized, this does not mean that a church has to marry them. All churches have the right to deny partitioners for various discriminating reasons, and are protected to do so by the constitution.

[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.