California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[nate2512]

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

Ok, now my cheese is basically charcoal. Was just watching the news, and it was announced that in California, the gay marriage issue will be BACK on the ballot in November. I hope not too many states follow this lead. Not because I do not think the people should have a voice, but this will DIRECTLY effect the election AGAIN, and it is just bad news for Barack. I think he still has a good chance at winning California, BUT I hope not too many states follow with putting such an issue, because it IS the reason Bush won Ohio in 2004, and def. a way for McCain to win it again...

I need new cheese.

Hm...voters exercising their right to vote affecting an election, now we just can't have that can we?

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by nate2512

Hm...voters exercising their right to vote affecting an election, now we just can't have that can we?

You should probably read a little closer before you criticize. I love the right to vote. However, the gay marriage ban was put on the ballot in several states in 2004 to help Bush win the election. My fear is that the PURPOSE of many states adding it again in 2008 is NOT to get an opinion on gay marriage, but to make sure that the voters with traditional conservative beliefs come and vote for the PRESIDENTIAL election.

[nate2512]

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

You should probably read a little closer before you criticize. I love the right to vote. However, the gay marriage ban was put on the ballot in several states in 2004 to help Bush win the election. My fear is that the PURPOSE of many states adding it again in 2008 is NOT to get an opinion on gay marriage, but to make sure that the voters with traditional conservative beliefs come and vote for the PRESIDENTIAL election.

Ok, so the liberals go vote FOR gay marriage, and vote for Obama. If you can't get a majority vote, don't bitch and blame a gay marriage bill on the defeat. I can't help it that certain states have to keep re-hashing this over and over again, because they just can't seem to respect the people's majority opinion, it's obvious that the gays are pushing for this to be on the ballots otherwise the states aren't going to do it for the hell of it. Why don't you go file a lawsuit and say the states are "helping" McCain win, see how that goes?

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by nate2512

Ok, so the liberals go vote FOR gay marriage, and vote for Obama. If you can't get a majority vote, don't bitch and blame a gay marriage bill on the defeat. I can't help it that certain states have to keep re-hashing this over and over again, because they just can't seem to respect the people's majority opinion, it's obvious that the gays are pushing for this to be on the ballots otherwise the states aren't going to do it for the hell of it. Why don't you go file a lawsuit and say the states are "helping" McCain win, see how that goes?

LOL, yes, every thing is black and white, right? I think I made a mistake it my last post. I said "conservatives." I meant conservative on this view. It WAS admitted by multiple Republicans and a lot of Bush's campaign members that the gay marriage ban on the ballot in 2004 was going to help him win. Most of the political analyst, if you go back and read the political blogs at the time say so too. ANNNDD, the voting polls show that more people came out to vote mainly because of the ban, not the President.

I am MORE than aware that the majority of Americans are against gay marriage: Republicans and a large portion of Democrats. Kerry was from Massachusetts and had a strong stance in gay marriage. To say putting the ban on the ticket did not have a toll is a ignorant thing to say. Go look at ANY post-analysis of that election. I just want us to vote on the candidates... not a single issue, when we vote for president. Is that too much to ask?

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Christening (meaning at its root "to make Christian") and baptism are the same thing.

I have to disagree. It's to my understanding (though I do not claim to know everything) that christening was merely the parents' act of dedicating their child to God (which makes it synonymous with "infant dedication") and baptism was one's act of dedicating him/herself to God--making the choice of one's own free will. A dedication differs in that the parents are merely "giving their child to God" (which can be taken in whatever context you will, I know it varies from sect to sect). A baptism is not a remitting of original sin because that (somewhat) occurred at the moment the person accepted Jesus as savior, but a public declaration of that acceptance and acknowledgement that a new life is going to be lived. I grew up Baptist and while I don't claim that denomination anymore, this is this path I followed in childhood and what I was told those things meant.

hijack:
It's because of the definition of baptism that I find it a shame when parents (who do believe in the diff that I stated) force a 5 yo to be baptised--it's supposed to be a personal choice, not like a dedication where it's your parents decision. Most kids that I know are christened as infants and baptised between ages 5-10. My mother was infuriated when I said I wanted to make sure I was old enough to really understand "what I was getting into" so to speak. I refused to be baptised until I was sure it was what I wanted--when I was 15. I think it was my way of telling her I didn't really believe in God, but that's another story...
/hijack

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by nate2512

Ok, so the liberals go vote FOR gay marriage, and vote for Obama.

I know you didn't say this outright, but it merits saying: Not all Democrats are liberals and vice versa.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

I have to disagree. It's to my understanding (though I do not claim to know everything) that christening was merely the parents' act of dedicating their child to God (which makes it synonymous with "infant dedication") and baptism was one's act of dedicating him/herself to God--making the choice of one's own free will. A dedication differs in that the parents are merely "giving their child to God" (which can be taken in whatever context you will, I know it varies from sect to sect). A baptism is not a remitting of original sin because that (somewhat) occurred at the moment the person accepted Jesus as savior, but a public declaration of that acceptance and acknowledgement that a new life is going to be lived. I grew up Baptist and while I don't claim that denomination anymore, this is this path I followed in childhood and what I was told those things meant.

According to my study during Confirmation/Baptism as well as my degree in Religion and Theology, christiangirl is correct. There is a baptism and infant baptism (christening). If an infant stays within in God's eyes as he grows, then he is not in need of a baptism in SOME religions. Others believe that a christening is to dedicate the child's life to God during its youth as the Parent's are still considered responsible for a child's "original sin." Catholics use to declare that this was before the age of 7, and after the child was then responsible. However the church has leaned off of this idea and the adult baptism has moved passed the age of 7 in some respects. My personal church believed that when a child reached the age of ten, it was necessary for him to go through confirmation which is ended with a baptism. This is after an infant baptism (christening) when the child is a mere infant. In Judaism, we know that this switch is 13.

The CONCEPT merely comes from when the parents are responsible for the child's original sin and when the child is then responsible that the child needs to recommit itself since, as an infant, the child is unable to actively choose a christian (or jewish) path.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

I know you didn't say this outright, but it merits saying: Not all Democrats are liberals and vice versa.

I wasn't even implying that, the majority of people who support gay marriage are going to be liberal, and the majority of liberals will vote Obama. So therefore the majority of liberals who vote for gay marriage will in turn vote for Obama.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by nate2512

I wasn't even implying that, the majority of people who support gay marriage are going to be liberal, and the majority of liberals will vote Obama. So therefore the majority of liberals who vote for gay marriage will in turn vote for Obama.

YES, you did not SAY that, but you made is safely to assume, that within YOUR eyes people are either liberal or conservative... ignoring moderate, which I will go on a limb and assume MOST people are, even when they label themselves liberal or conservative

[nate2512]

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

YES, you did not SAY that, but you made is safely to assume, that within YOUR eyes people are either liberal or conservative... ignoring moderate, which I will go on a limb and assume MOST people are, even when they label themselves liberal or conservative

Well people have differing view on what concepts and views are liberal/conservative so to argue about that would be a waste.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Even if I have really intensive purposes?

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

You should probably read a little closer before you criticize. I love the right to vote. However, the gay marriage ban was put on the ballot in several states in 2004 to help Bush win the election. My fear is that the PURPOSE of many states adding it again in 2008 is NOT to get an opinion on gay marriage, but to make sure that the voters with traditional conservative beliefs come and vote for the PRESIDENTIAL election.

In 2004 you would have been right. However, I think in California in 2008, it's a reaction to what many see as a court overstepping its bounds.

Originally Posted by christiangirl

I have to disagree. It's to my understanding (though I do not claim to know everything) that christening was merely the parents' act of dedicating their child to God (which makes it synonymous with "infant dedication") and baptism was one's act of dedicating him/herself to God--making the choice of one's own free will. A dedication differs in that the parents are merely "giving their child to God" (which can be taken in whatever context you will, I know it varies from sect to sect). A baptism is not a remitting of original sin because that (somewhat) occurred at the moment the person accepted Jesus as savior, but a public declaration of that acceptance and acknowledgement that a new life is going to be lived. I grew up Baptist and while I don't claim that denomination anymore, this is this path I followed in childhood and what I was told those things meant./hijack

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. Most Christians -- Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed/Presbyterian, Methodist -- do practice infant baptism; obviously, they do not see it as a public declaration of faith -- at least of the infant's faith. (Some see it as a declaration of the parent's faith.)

My own tradition (Presbyterian, and yes it probably colors my discussion of the subject) views baptism as the sign that God claims us as part of the covenant, not that we have faith in God -- sort of a New Testament circumcision. In those churches that practice infant baptism, baptism is baptism, regardless of the age of the recipient. Without question, faith is required of an adult in a way that it is not required of an infant. But either way, it is baptism, the same sacrament. (This is one reason I see many writings steer away from the term "infant baptism" and speak instead of the baptism of infants or the baptism of adults.)

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

According to my study during Confirmation/Baptism as well as my degree in Religion and Theology, christiangirl is correct. There is a baptism and infant baptism (christening). If an infant stays within in God's eyes as he grows, then he is not in need of a baptism in SOME religions. Others believe that a christening is to dedicate the child's life to God during its youth as the Parent's are still considered responsible for a child's "original sin." Catholics use to declare that this was before the age of 7, and after the child was then responsible. However the church has leaned off of this idea and the adult baptism has moved passed the age of 7 in some respects. . . .

The CONCEPT merely comes from when the parents are responsible for the child's original sin and when the child is then responsible that the child needs to recommit itself since, as an infant, the child is unable to actively choose a christian (or jewish) path.

I see the distinction you are making, although I would disagree with the statement that if a child is "christened," and "stays in the eyes of God" he does not need baptism. He doesn't need baptism because he has already been baptized, and those traditions that practice baptism of infants also hold that baptism cannot be repeated.

However the point I was really trying to make is that christining means baptism, not dedication.

From dictionary.com:

chris·ten
–verb (used with object)
1. to receive into the Christian church by baptism; baptize.
2. to give a name to at baptism: They christened her Mary.
3. to name and dedicate: to christen a ship.
4. to make use of for the first time.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on baptism: "In English, the term christen is familiarly used for baptize. As, however, the former word signifies only the effect of baptism, that is, to make one a Christian, but not the manner and the act, moralists hold that 'I christen' could probably not be substituted validly for 'I baptize' in conferring the sacrament."

Back to the topic at hand.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. Most Christians -- Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed/Presbyterian, Methodist -- do practice infant baptism; obviously, they do not see it as a public declaration of faith -- at least of the infant's faith. (Some see it as a declaration of the parent's faith.)


I see the distinction you are making, although I would disagree with the statement that if a child is "christened," and "stays in the eyes of God" he does not need baptism. He doesn't need baptism because he has already been baptized, and those traditions that practice baptism of infants also hold that baptism cannot be repeated.

/hijack/

My church does not believe in nor do we practice infant baptism. We feel that the person must first study and understand the Word of God before he / she is baptized. Nor do we pratice infant christening.

/end hijack/

[MysticCat]

^^^ Never suggested otherwise. Many, many churches do not practice the baptism of infants and believe it to be an unscriptural practice -- growing up where the majority of people are Baptist or Pentecostal, I understand that quite well.

All I said was that most Christians belong to churches that do practice it. Seeing as how Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans represent well more than 60% of the world's Christians, then without taking into account the other Protestants that practice it, I think my claim was a supportable one.

This has became a major highjack/derailment. If anyone wants to PM about it, fine by me; as interesting as it may be to a few of us, though, I don't see it really adding anything to this particular discussion.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I see the distinction you are making, although I would disagree with the statement that if a child is "christened," and "stays in the eyes of God" he does not need baptism. He doesn't need baptism because he has already been baptized, and those traditions that practice baptism of infants also hold that baptism cannot be repeated.

However the point I was really trying to make is that christining means baptism, not dedication.

From dictionary.com:

chris·ten
–verb (used with object)
1. to receive into the Christian church by baptism; baptize.
2. to give a name to at baptism: They christened her Mary.
3. to name and dedicate: to christen a ship.
4. to make use of for the first time.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on baptism: "In English, the term christen is familiarly used for baptize. As, however, the former word signifies only the effect of baptism, that is, to make one a Christian, but not the manner and the act, moralists hold that 'I christen' could probably not be substituted validly for 'I baptize' in conferring the sacrament."

Back to the topic at hand.

Yes, and there are tons of nominations who have varied on when they use christening and baptism. Baptism can be repeated in some nominations when you are a "born again" and others mandate two. And others do something similar to a baptism when they are adults but they are not called a baptism. There are tons of denominations, and we are SOO getting off path.

[MysticCat]

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

. . . and we are SOO getting off path.

Which is why I said:

Originally Posted by MysticCat

This has became a major highjack/derailment. If anyone wants to PM about it, fine by me; as interesting as it may be to a few of us, though, I don't see it really adding anything to this particular discussion.