California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

If I'm correct (and if I'm not, someone please interject), the act of marriage has a religious base--it is two people of the opposite sex coming together in the eyes of God.

Nope. Marriage was (is?) a contractual agreement within a community that solidified familial relationships, determined lineage and royalty, and perhaps most important to westerners, significantly impacted power and landownership. If you recall, women were traded for property, alliances and even peace.

Marriage cannot historically be separated from "religion" but you also have to remember that "religion" permeated every aspect of a community and drew it together. While the United States is affected by hints of Christianity, we are not directly governed by its precepts today as it was in the near past.

Denying gays their right to legal marriage undermines their value within our society. And, that's ultimately why they continue to be denied by the majority.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Denying gays their right to legal marriage undermines their value within our society. And, that's ultimately why they continue to be denied by the majority.

Because their value represents the moral decline of nation.

Also, your signature is quite surprising, considering you a Christian supporting something the Bible most certainly denouncing and calls a sin. So I guess you disagree with the entire Bible, or just the parts that don't fit into your way of liberal thinking?

[jon1856]

Here is something I do not believe has been brought up in this conversation.
As part of a radio commentary, I heard the phrase "G*D created the earth and mankind in his image.
Now if I am correct in following that, G*D created all creatures, great and little, small and large on this planet.
Now since more than one creature on this planet exhibits gay tendencies (look it up), and since G*D created this planet and all on it, does it not follow that G*D creatures include gays.

And unless you happen to be a Profit with the Fundamentalists, no one I know has spoken to her in awhile to ask.

And all the writings we have are not from her, but from men.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by jon1856

Here is something I do not believe has been brought up in this conversation.
As part of a radio commentary, I heard the phrase "G*D created the earth and mankind in his image.
Now if I am correct in following that, G*D created all creatures, great and little, small and large on this planet.
Now since more than one creature on this planet exhibits gay tendencies (look it up), and since G*D created this planet and all on it, does it not follow that G*D creatures include gays.

And unless you happen to be a Profit with the Fundamentalists, no one I know has spoken to her in awhile to ask.

And all the writings we have are not from her, but from men.

What religion thinks God is a her?

So should we accept people's murderous ways? Or pedophiles? Or rapist? Because God created them as such? Nope, I'm not buying this.

SECdomination has already posted the Bible scriptures speaking out about this.

And the word was given to the prophets by God, and the word is God. If you really want them, I'll look up those Scriptures too.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by nate2512

Also, your signature is quite surprising, considering you a Christian supporting something the Bible most certainly denouncing and calls a sin. So I guess you disagree with the entire Bible, or just the parts that don't fit into your way of liberal thinking?

I think God can handle his relationship with mankind outside of my personal control. As long as someone isn't maliciously hurting me or others, I'm pretty confident that I can leave people to their own decisions. Supporting the right of a person to choose his/her own way is not equivalent to me personally condoning or engaging in the "sins" to which you are referring.

Originally Posted by nate2512

So should we accept people's murderous ways? Or pedophiles? Or rapist?

Nope.

and the word is God

If you got this from John 1:1, that "Word" is Jesus, not words on a page.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

I think God can handle his relationship with mankind outside of my personal control. As long as someone isn't maliciously hurting me or others, I'm pretty confident that I can leave people to their own decisions. Supporting the right of a person to choose his/her own way is not equivalent to me personally condoning or engaging in the "sins" to which you are referring.


Nope.


If you got this from John 1:1, that "Word" is Jesus, not words on a page.

Hm...well supporting would be condoning.

And the Word he was talking about was the Law, which would the Bible. You can't take that out of context.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by nate2512

What religion thinks God is a her?

So should we accept people's murderous ways? Or pedophiles? Or rapist? Because God created them as such? Nope, I'm not buying this.

SECdomination has already posted the Bible scriptures speaking out about this.

And the word was given to the prophets by God, and the word is God. If you really want them, I'll look up those Scriptures too.

Religions and societies that aren't male-centric and sexist so their stories are not written from a male perspective.

I'm a Christian and I sometimes refer to God as a He (our Father, etc.) but in my heart of hearts I do not believe that God has a gender (or needs a gender). When I say "He" I am usually referring to Jesus.


Most importantly, the stories in the Bible are written from a societal perspective and many are not to be taken as historical accounts or literal how-tos. Was homosexuality in the Ten Commandments?

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Religions and societies that aren't male-centric and sexist so their stories are not written from a male perspective.

I'm a Christian and I sometimes refer to God as a He (our Father, etc.) but in my heart of hearts I do not believe that God has a gender (or needs a gender). When I say "He" I am usually referring to Jesus.


Most importantly, the stories in the Bible are written from a societal perspective and many are not to be taken as historical accounts or literal how-tos. Was homosexuality in the Ten Commandments?

It was not, but are the ten commandments the only true part of the Bible?

And yes the stories are societal perspectives inspired by God, meaning I personally take them to truth.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by nate2512

It was not, but are the ten commandments the only true part of the Bible?

The Ten Commandments exist because of what?

Originally Posted by nate2512

And yes the stories are societal perspectives inspired by God, meaning I personally take them to truth.

They were "divinely inspired men and women" but there are stories and scriptures left out of the Bible. I wonder why.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Religions and societies that aren't male-centric and sexist so their stories are not written from a male perspective.

I'm a Christian and I sometimes refer to God as a He (our Father, etc.) but in my heart of hearts I do not believe that God has a gender (or needs a gender). When I say "He" I am usually referring to Jesus.


Most importantly, the stories in the Bible are written from a societal perspective and many are not to be taken as historical accounts or literal how-tos. Was homosexuality in the Ten Commandments?

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ass?

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by Nate

What religion thinks God is a her?

So should we accept people's murderous ways? Or pedophiles? Or rapist? Because God created them as such? Nope, I'm not buying this.

SEC domination has already posted the Bible scriptures speaking out about this.

And the word was given to the prophets by God, and the word is God. If you really want them, I'll look up those Scriptures too.

Nate-A very close friend of mine is a Priest. And he says that G*D is a woman. When I asked a Rabbi about it, her reply was "could be".
In truth, do we really know if G*D is a man or woman? Both? Neither?
And that alone could explain things right there. After all, just were did Eve come from? From where did the image of woman come from?
As for the Prophets, could be. Still only the written record and words of men.
But after reading Under the Banner of Heaven, I really started to wonder.
And the author wrote about it as well. Was rather interesting and on its own rather thought provoking beyond what the book itself was about.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by nate2512

Hm...well supporting would be condoning.

Nope.

And the Word he was talking about was the Law, which would the Bible. You can't take that out of context.

To clarify, in the Christian Bible, when you see the word "scripture," it's referring to the Hebrew Bible. If the "Word" you're referring to is the Law, then that is Hebrew Scripture. That "Word" is not God itself.

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Most importantly, the stories in the Bible are written from a societal perspective and many are not to be taken as historical accounts or literal how-tos.

Yep - when we read the Bible today, we have to contexualize the messages in order for them to work within our modern worldview.

[doogur]

Originally Posted by nate2512

What religion thinks God is a her?

So should we accept people's murderous ways? Or pedophiles? Or rapist? Because God created them as such? Nope, I'm not buying this.

SECdomination has already posted the Bible scriptures speaking out about this.

And the word was given to the prophets by God, and the word is God. If you really want them, I'll look up those Scriptures too.

You are comparing love between two adult humans as the same as pedophilia? As murder? As rape?

I'm sure most here can see nate's attempt to compare defies all logic.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by doogur

You are comparing love between two adult humans as the same as pedophelia? As murder? As rape?

I'm sure most here can see nate's attempt to compare defies all logic.

Actually, Nate's use of this is PRECISELY why the gay community rarely makes such assertions anymore. Plenty of things are natural but are not socially acceptable. Whether this fits into the latter category is another matter, but the "it's natural so it must be ok" argument is pretty ineffective.

[doogur]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Actually, Nate's use of this is PRECISELY why the gay community rarely makes such assertions anymore. Plenty of things are natural but are not socially acceptable. Whether this fits into the latter category is another matter, but the "it's natural so it must be ok" argument is pretty ineffective.

So you believe that gay relationships are socially unacceptable because they are comparable to murder, rape, and pedophilia? That's the comparison Nate was making.

I think anyone in the gay community would counter that assertion rather forcefully and without hesitation.

Plenty of things are socially unacceptable because of analogies that become commonplace in society. Analogies such as those are socially unacceptable.