California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

I know this is a few pages back, but I have not been on since and this was too good of a response to let go. Bravo sigma, you made my night, I have not laughed harder in a while.

Why thank you. I do that and sometimes I don't even try.

however there is proof that in a way, an evolution of some sort at least exists.

I agree with this.

The law can not be religious, at least not in America.

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.

That is kind of the point of America, and therefor your argument is not valid in regards to if the Supreme Court of Cali should of legalized gay marriage.

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

Oh, but of course, I went through years of depression and suicide attempts and being hospitalized because I CHOSE to be gay. Yes, that is it, because I want to be labeled a sinner and be an outcast, and be raped, and put myself in a minority, and I wanted to make high school oh so much harder, and I actively CHOSE to have to deal with bigots and bible thumpers who think I am an abomination.

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.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

Simple. Adults should be able to live their lives how they want in regards to dealing with Adults. What two grown adults want to do is their business and just live happily and peacefully, and do not affect those who are on their moral high horse, then it should be ok. Plan and simple, it is called freedom. Minors are except to this "freedom" already by the constitution and state laws, so the line is already drawn their... and so are animals... but you want to deny two consenting adults to do what they want in the privacy of their home.

I agree with this. My point is that where you draw the line and where I draw the line may be different. The point for us is to agree where the line should be drawn.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

SOOOO... you believe everyone should be protestant... you said family values is apart of the american ways of life, and you added protestant in your definition... why stop their, why not just go to the 'church of christ'... and everyone think like YOU and act like YOU...

No, I said President Bush said we should have 'famliy values'. And did you not catch the '' in my post? I was being sarcastic.

You preach about beliefs and how they are such a stronghold to who you are and your opinions, but you refuse to accept that other's beliefs outside your own.

Mmmmm, no. I think you are reading far too deep into what I've been posting. Way back in this thread, I stated that I really have no problem with gay people on a day to day basis. I mean, being gay is not going to impact the price of gas, which is a big issue in my life now.

If someone holds religious beliefs or practices different from mine, fine. I feel that they have every right to do so.

This sounds like a violation of the Church of Christ's beliefs...

Not really. What we beleive is that everyone is free to believe as they choose, but along life's way one should find his / her way to Jesus and his teachings.

anyhow, you keep on believing what you want, and I will believe my own beliefs, and this will make us TRULY American because we are all allowed our own beliefs, and you go vote, and I will go vote, and we will just cancel each other out, ok?

I will. I think I've said this myself several times. We are at an impasse.

All I've been trying to do is to state the counter-point to the 'pro-gay' marriage stance.

Afterall, for some people, it just really boils down to that fact that God made Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve. These people don't care about civil unions, whether or not this debate should be in the courts, in the legislature, or whether each state should decide. The decision on gay marriage is just that simple for them.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by AGDee

The thing is, you can still follow your religion to the letter if gay marriage is legal because YOU don't have to participate in a gay marriage if you don't want to.

Well, I guess this is very subjective for some people. Because in my religion this can not happen. No, I don't have to particiapte in a gay marriage any more than I would have to particiapte in a heterosexual marriage.

But, from my religious teachings, I would not accept a gay marriage as being a true marriage in the eyes of God. I mean, yes, gay people can go through the ceremony and call themselves married, but I don't have to acceppt it.

We have already had the animal and minor discussion. They are not adults at the age of consent who can make decisions for themselves. There's no point in going there again. I have already stated that I'm not convinced polygamy AMONG CONSENTING ADULTS should be illegal.

I know we've been over this issue ad nauseum, but it seems to me that you keep bringing it up on a tangental basis. Maybe I'm reading your posts wrong.

I don't see what harm it does if everybody who decides to get involved truly has a choice in the matter.

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.

For me personally, I'm not going to go out and beat people over the head to convince them to my way of thinking. But, if given the chance to vote on an issue, then I will according to my beliefs, what ever they may be.

You do realize that the majority of households in America do not fit your definition of a family?

Oh, sure. Again, however these people want to live their lives is fine. But, here again, if the opportunity comes for me to vote on how I think a family unit should exist, I will.

[GooniePDT49]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

Your comment is ignorant AND smug

Well, if southerners had emanicipated slaves we would have never had the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Dred Scott Case, or the Civil War. All of these events were irrepressible unfortunately. We dont need another 800,000 casualties! Long live the 20th Maine and the 54th Massachusetts!

[shinerbock]

I don't believe I've equated what "people believe" with what should be legislated. I'm simply saying something being natural doesn't mean it is socially acceptable. I think we've got two different lines of argument going.

I think gay marriage should be left to the states. I don't believe that people who have never before fit the American definition of marriage should have a fundamental right to include themselves under that label, against the tides of public opinion and history. That said, I am not avidly against civil unions or similar devices.

[MysticCat]

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.

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Protestants do believe that people are born with sin. Most Protestants don't practice infant baptism, however.

As jeni said, many if not most Protestants do believe in original sin. I'd be careful in saying, however, that most Protestants do not practice infant baptism. Given that the Lutherans, Anglicans, Reformed/Presbyterians and Methodists are among the largest Protestant groups and given that they all practice infant baptism, saying that "most" Protestants don't practice infant baptism might be an overstatement.

I would agree, though, that most Protestant groups do not see baptism as remitting original sin in quite the same way as the Roman Catholic Church does.

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

For clarity's sake, original sin is one of the major theological beliefs that came out of the Protestant Reformation in full force.

Original sin as understood in the Western church, Roman Catholic and Protestant alike, is largely based on Augustine's understandings. ('Course, Calvin took it a step further with total depravity.) But yes, almost all Protestant groups -- even those that rejected infant baptism -- retained the doctrine, though as you say, with varying degrees of emphasis or understanding. The Eastern Orthodox never accepted the Augustinian understanding, and there is nothing comparable to it in Jewish teaching.

Originally Posted by GooniePDT49

ignorance is a southern thing!

Apparently, it's a Connecticut thing as well.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Not to start another tangent / flame war, but there are people who believe that people choose to be gay.

if people who think/believe it is a choice aren't gay, then that doesn't really matter

[GooniePDT49]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

As jeni said, many if not most Protestants do believe in original sin. I'd be careful in saying, however, that most Protestants do not practice infant baptism. Given that the Lutherans, Anglicans, Reformed/Presbyterians and Methodists are among the largest Protestant groups and given that they all practice infant baptism, saying that "most" Protestants don't practice infant baptism might be an overstatement.

I would agree, though, that most Protestant groups do not see baptism as remitting original sin in quite the same way as the Roman Catholic Church does.

Original sin as understood in the Western church, Roman Catholic and Protestant alike, is largely based on Augustine's understandings. ('Course, Calvin took it a step further with total depravity.) But yes, almost all Protestant groups -- even those that rejected infant baptism -- retained the doctrine, though as you say, with varying degrees of emphasis or understanding. The Eastern Orthodox never accepted the Augustinian understanding, and there is nothing comparable to it in Jewish teaching.

Apparently, it's a Connecticut thing as well.

The former confederate states have a longer history of being ignorant then any other section in the country. Remember, CT didnt start the Civil War, South Carolina did. And where is SC located? In the South! What happened when Massachusetts allowed gay marriage? The former confederate states quickly moved to ban it. Their definition of sex between two men is listed under their sodomy laws. How ignorant.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by GooniePDT49

The former confederate states have a longer history of being ignorant then any other section in the country. Remember, CT didnt start the Civil War, South Carolina did. And where is SC located? In the South! What happened when Massachusetts allowed gay marriage? The former confederate states quickly moved to ban it. Their definition of sex between two men is listed under their sodomy laws. How ignorant.

Thanks for proving my point that ignorance can be found anywhere, and no region of the country has a monopoly on it.

[TexasWSP]

Originally Posted by GooniePDT49

Well, if southerners had emanicipated slaves we would have never had the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Dred Scott Case, or the Civil War. All of these events were irrepressible unfortunately. We dont need another 800,000 casualties! Long live the 20th Maine and the 54th Massachusetts!

The former confederate states have a longer history of being ignorant then any other section in the country. Remember, CT didnt start the Civil War, South Carolina did. And where is SC located? In the South! What happened when Massachusetts allowed gay marriage? The former confederate states quickly moved to ban it. Their definition of sex between two men is listed under their sodomy laws. How ignorant.

You're an idiot.....and your sense of history concerning the reasoning behind the Civil War, the freeing of slaves, life in general etc. is on line with that of a floating turd.

Congratulations oh non-ignorant one.

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by GooniePDT49

Well, if southerners had emanicipated slaves we would have never had the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Dred Scott Case, or the Civil War. All of these events were irrepressible unfortunately. We dont need another 800,000 casualties! Long live the 20th Maine and the 54th Massachusetts!

Don't you guys have some witches to burn?

Don't get me started on the war between the states (which was anything but civil- look up General Sherman), the north was as much at fault for that as we were.

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by GooniePDT49

The former confederate states have a longer history of being ignorant then any other section in the country. Remember, CT didnt start the Civil War, South Carolina did. And where is SC located? In the South! What happened when Massachusetts allowed gay marriage? The former confederate states quickly moved to ban it. Their definition of sex between two men is listed under their sodomy laws. How ignorant.

Firing the first shot does not mean that SC started it. The reasons behind the war between the states are a lot more complex than you're letting on- probably because you're clueless. Taking a basic American history course in high school (especially in a liberal state) does not mean that you know anything about the war between the states.

[DSTCHAOS]

Rannnnnndommmmmmmmm......

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I would agree, though, that most Protestant groups do not see baptism as remitting original sin in quite the same way as the Roman Catholic Church does.

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