California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Well, Catholics believe that you born with sin, inherited from Adam and Eve, which is why they baptize you when you are an infant. The only human ever born without sin was Jesus.

Protestants don't believe this. We believe, for the most part, that as a young child, it is your parents responsibility to teach you about church and Jesus Christ. After going to Sunday school, church, and vacation Bible school that around the age 10 - 13, the kid would make the decision to commit his / her life to Christ, and thus decide to get baptized.

Do you think you could make yourself like girls instead of boys? If you always inherently liked boys then that follows that you didn't have a choice.

Me personally? NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! I love the boys. I love being the only girl in a relationship. Not to get too personal, but there are some things only a boy can provide me.

[nate2512]

I pose a question to everyone here who seems to make choices non religiously, how do you define your morals?

This is very relevant to the subject if you'll just answer.

[shinerbock]

I don't see what the controversy is. Many people believe that God creates people and they choose to act, either according to their urges or in spite of them. I actually think this argument is pretty legitimate.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Many people believe...

Sorry for the double post.

Shiner, believe me I understand what you're saying, but the fact that it's people who believe that gives me a problem.

People are not perfect.

What a person believes does not make it so.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

Sorry for the double post.

Shiner, believe me I understand what you're saying, but the fact that it's people who believe that gives me a problem.

People are not perfect.

What a person believes does not make it so.

Of course it doesn't, so what?

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Of course it doesn't, so what?

Read your quote from 7:11 PM today. Your comment is that "people believe."

My contention is that what "people" believe isn't valid proof.

But I think you already agreed to that, didn't you?

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

My contention is that what "people" believe isn't valid proof.

But what you believe is? How do you base your beliefs? What proof do you have to believe what you believe?

I ask in a philosophical context, not as a personal attack on you.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I don't see what the controversy is. Many people believe that God creates people and they choose to act, either according to their urges or in spite of them. I actually think this argument is pretty legitimate.

For me, this is exactly what this "argument" breaks down to - I have no problem for you to feel or believe this way, just like I'm sure you don't particularly care that I think the overwhelming majority of people never have an opportunity, not to mention desire, to play an active role in their sexual orientation.

I also don't particularly care whether you feel gay marriage violates the sanctity of the institution - in fact, if you define marriage that way, then you're totally correct in feeling that way.

The only issue I have is with explicit legislation based on these feelings or beliefs, rather than a rationalization of why gay marriage is actually a net negative for society as a whole.

That might be too literalist for the thread, but we're improperly conflating "beliefs" with the actual point, in my mind.

[DeltAlum]

I think my morals are just fine, thanks.

But I could be wrong. I'm not a god, either.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by nate2512

I pose a question to everyone here who seems to make choices non religiously, how do you define your morals?

This is very relevant to the subject if you'll just answer.

My personal morals are based on my own religious belief system. Where we differ is in whether we think that we should force others to live by our religious beliefs. Judge not lest ye be judged and all that.

Morality and legality are not synonymous. There are a lot of things that I believe to be amoral but are legal. If we are going to base our laws on religious beliefs, then whose do we follow? If we pick one religion, then we are in violation of our Constitution. If we combine all of them, well, they will conflict. Do you want us to follow Catholic law and have birth control be illegal? Do you want us to follow the original Mormon law and have polygamy be legal? Who do we follow? Yours? Because you want us to? What if we force you to live by our religious beliefs? Would that be ok with you? Some could argue that since premarital sex is immoral, we are forcing them to live immorally by not allowing them to marry. Heterosexuals have the option of not having sex outside of marriage, but few exercise that option. Most choose to sin.

I happen to think that our government should only intervene to ban things that harm or infringe on others' civil rights. They have already way overstepped their bounds on several matters.

How morally I (or anybody else) choose to live is between me and Him (or them and their Higher Power).

Your entire argument seems to be based on "Well I don't like it". Nobody asked you to like it. Nobody asked you to marry someone of your own gender. It will not affect your life in any way if homosexuals choose to commit to lifelong partners in a legal (or religious, if their religion allows it) ceremony.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Let me see if I can explain - the concept stems from the fact that God would not create a sinner on purpose, one from birth. The thought is that we are all born being good and righteous in the eyes of God, free from sin. During life, God gives us the chance to decide how we want to live. Whether we want to be good or bad, right or wrong. Since for some, homosexuality is a sin, then people can not be born gay. It is something they decided to do during their lives.

Originally Posted by AGDee

Well, Catholics believe that you born with sin, inherited from Adam and Eve, which is why they baptize you when you are an infant. The only human ever born without sin was Jesus.

Do you think you could make yourself like girls instead of boys? If you always inherently liked boys then that follows that you didn't have a choice.

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Protestants don't believe this. We believe, for the most part, that as a young child, it is your parents responsibility to teach you about church and Jesus Christ. After going to Sunday school, church, and vacation Bible school that around the age 10 - 13, the kid would make the decision to commit his / her life to Christ, and thus decide to get baptized.

Protestants do believe that people are born with sin. Most Protestants don't practice infant baptism, however. The perception of western Christians (Catholics, Anglicans and Protestants) was drastically impacted by various people, ideologies and events including Augustine, Aquinas and the Reformation all of which were influenced by Roman law. Before 400 AD, this was not the case. The early church hadn't yet been introduced to the concept of original sin, the belief shared by Catholics, Anglicans and Protestants that mankind inherited the sinful nature and subsequent guilt of Adam and Eve. Prior to that time, sin was viewed as a disruption in our relationship with God. In essence, humans are born with predispositions toward things that would not be natural if we had walked freely with God. These predispositions form who we are (or rather who we think we are), right or wrong.

With that said, I absolutely believe that people are "born" with predispositions toward a great number of things - some of which our society frowns upon, some of which our society embraces - but none of which are natural in the supreme order of life. People are born with a predisposition to be fat, gay, overachievers, cynics...all sorts of things. Walking with God in a world like ours is devastating to the identities we have developed.

Still, as Christians (well, those of us who are), we should want to preserve the rights of individuals to live as they believe they should. It is God's work, not ours, that draws mankind to Him. As long as people are not committing acts that are universally rejected (murder, rape, etc.), the best way Christians can show compassion to others is to step aside and let God work.

In the case of legalizing gay marriage, what good comes from setting up camp on either side of the issue and tossing grenades at each other?

[shinerbock]

Precious, of course their (our) response to your assertion is that nobody is restricting the right of gay people to live as they want. We're simply not including them in something they've never fit the definition of.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Precious, of course their (our) response to your assertion is that nobody is restricting the right of gay people to live as they want. We're simply not including them in something they've never fit the definition of.

Never? Or never in this country where the founding fathers were Christians-when-convenient?

ETA: I'm speaking to the Christian resistance, not to non-Christians. So, my question - to Christians - is, in the case of legalizing gay marriage, what good comes from setting up camp on either side of the issue and tossing grenades at each other?

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Never? Or never in this country where the founding fathers were Christians-when-convenient?

Meaning never in the history of institutionalized American marriage. I could care less what the rest of the world does or has done.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Meaning never in the history of institutionalized American marriage. I could care less what the rest of the world does or has done.

If we didn't reconsider things that had "never in the history of institutionalized American [fill in the blank]" been done, our constitution would still read:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

(And, I'm not equating gay marriage with civil rights any more than to show a correlation in terms of the concepts.)