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.

[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.

[KSig RC]

Why would gay marriage be "not natural" when we have evidence of same-sex husbandry in other mammals?

Or do you mean "not natural" in the sense of "not what I'm used to" or even "not natural for humans"?

If it is either of the latter two, not only is that a vaguely religious sentiment, it is also exactly zero reason for enacting law. Laws or standards that are improper should not be kept simply because of longevity.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Why would gay marriage be "not natural" when we have evidence of same-sex husbandry in other mammals?

Or do you mean "not natural" in the sense of "not what I'm used to" or even "not natural for humans"?

If it is either of the latter two, not only is that a vaguely religious sentiment, it is also exactly zero reason for enacting law. Laws or standards that are improper should not be kept simply because of longevity.

Well said-agree.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Why would gay marriage be "not natural" when we have evidence of same-sex husbandry in other mammals?

While that does happen, its never normal behavior.


unnatural

1. In violation of a natural law.
2. Inconsistent with an individual pattern or custom.
3. Deviating from a behavioral or social norm
4. Contrived or constrained; artificial
5. In violation of natural feelings

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Why would gay marriage be "not natural" when we have evidence of same-sex husbandry in other mammals?

Or do you mean "not natural" in the sense of "not what I'm used to" or even "not natural for humans"?

If it is either of the latter two, not only is that a vaguely religious sentiment, it is also exactly zero reason for enacting law. Laws or standards that are improper should not be kept simply because of longevity.

Becasue what I consider natural for me, may not be for you and vice versa.......

I am but one person with one voice and one vote. But, I thank you for taking what I say and treating it as the absolute truth.

[Rudey]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Why would gay marriage be "not natural" when we have evidence of same-sex husbandry in other mammals?

Or do you mean "not natural" in the sense of "not what I'm used to" or even "not natural for humans"?

If it is either of the latter two, not only is that a vaguely religious sentiment, it is also exactly zero reason for enacting law. Laws or standards that are improper should not be kept simply because of longevity.

Sort of like incest in nature? Or like eating your young? Or like being born with two heads?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Rudey

Sort of like incest in nature? Or like eating your young? Or like being born with two heads?

Definitely eating the young is quite similar to husbandry.

I've given you a (limited) concession on incest, why keep bringing up stupid strawmen when you could simply fight the battle on, y'know, logical terms?