California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[sigmadiva]

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. If your church considers itself Protestant, by definition, it must espouse a belief in original sin. Different churches handle original sin differently, of course. From everything you've posted in this thread, it sounds like your church is coming from an Arminian perspective. If you don't mind my asking, what church is this? I completely understand if you don't want to put it out in public.

Church of Christ. There are a number of churches with a similar title in their name, but we are just the plain Church of Christ.


Here is the web site for the church I attend (I hope this is not a violation of the TOS - I just want to answer a question.)

ETA - on second thought, I'll pm the web site.

[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.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

And in the case of legalizing gay marriage - why should I give in to the opposing beliefs? They should give into mine - hence, the impasse on this issue.

Because your beliefs restrict others' freedom and pursuit of happiness. Ours do not.

As for family values, what is more valuable in a family than marriage? This would create more families.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Because your beliefs restrict others' freedom and pursuit of happiness. Ours do not.

I would disagree with this statement in the context of this thread. There have been a few posters who just outright stated that religion should be removed from all decisions concerning morality and laws. In order for me to do that, then I would have to deny my religious beliefs and practices, which I have no intention of doing. So, while you (and the general you) may feel that religion should be taken out of it. There are those that feel religion should be the major part of it, and denying those people their ability to infuse their religion would be very restrictive for them.

And again, where do you draw the line? Albeit Rudey went of on this ridiculous tangent with the animal thing, what I read his point to be is at what point to say no? By your statement then, those who want to practice polygamy should be allowed, those who want to engage in sex with minors should be allowed, those who want to engage in sex with animals should be allowed. Where does it end?

As for family values, what is more valuable in a family than marriage? This would create more families.

I meant family values in the context of Dubya, you know, husband, wife, a couple of kids and they all go to a (protestant) church.

[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.

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

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

For me it was an innate 'decision' - I just always liked boys.

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.

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.

This goes right with the logic that the earth is the center of the universe. However there is proof that there is a lot outside our tiny galaxy... or that evolution does not exist, however there is proof that in a way, an evolution of some sort at least exists. Oh, yeah evolution is just a theory... like gravity.

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

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

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

And again, where do you draw the line? Albeit Rudey went of on this ridiculous tangent with the animal thing, what I read his point to be is at what point to say no? By your statement then, those who want to practice polygamy should be allowed, those who want to engage in sex with minors should be allowed, those who want to engage in sex with animals should be allowed. Where does it end?

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.

[GooniePDT49]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Strictly speaking, don't gays have just as much right to marry someone of the opposite sex as straights? I'm failing to see where there's discrimination here.

I dont have a problem with it. they can be as miserable as the rest of us.

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

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I meant family values in the context of Dubya, you know, husband, wife, a couple of kids and they all go to a (protestant) church.

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...

this is from wikipedia:
A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.

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

[GooniePDT49]

Originally Posted by Kevin

So far, our definition of marriage has only included as between a man and a woman. This court decision alters that distinction. I think such definitions are solely the province of legislatures and I agree with many that this is about as "activist" a decision as I've ever seen.

I have no problem with gay marriage. I'm 100% for it. I just don't like seeing judges doing what legislatures should be doing.

Judges have always done this throughout American history. Just read the Dred Scott case of 1857. A judge overturned the federal govts decision that slaves were free and citizens above the 36' 30 line in Missouri. The court ruled in fact that slaves were not free in this part of Missouri, and therefore could not sue. Only citizens are allowed to sue, not slaves. It was the federal court that overturned the federal legislature's as well as the ST Louis's court decision. How is THAT possible?

[GooniePDT49]

Originally Posted by nate2512

No, you didn't win that battle. I actually defeated it with that post, but you seem to be too ignorant to understand that.

ignorance is a southern thing!

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by GooniePDT49

ignorance is a southern thing!

Your comment is ignorant AND smug

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

Originally Posted by PhiGam

Your comment is ignorant AND smug

thank you, I did not want to be the only one who said that his excuse for ignorance, was highly ignorant.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I would disagree with this statement in the context of this thread. There have been a few posters who just outright stated that religion should be removed from all decisions concerning morality and laws. In order for me to do that, then I would have to deny my religious beliefs and practices, which I have no intention of doing. So, while you (and the general you) may feel that religion should be taken out of it. There are those that feel religion should be the major part of it, and denying those people their ability to infuse their religion would be very restrictive for them.

I meant family values in the context of Dubya, you know, husband, wife, a couple of kids and they all go to a (protestant) church.

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.

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 don't see what harm it does if everybody who decides to get involved truly has a choice in the matter. I can see how some would find great financial benefit and time benefit from sharing finances and child care responsibilities. A family could potentially have 3 or 4 breadwinners and still have a Stay At Home Mom if they wanted to go that route. I wouldn't personally engage in it, but I could see how it could be advantageous.

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