California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by Leslie Anne

Exactly! So if that's the ONLY difference, then why are you allowed to marry but she isn't?

Because as a Christian, the Bible says so. For me there is no contradiction. Being gay is about sexual behavior, not whether you can drive a car or not. Gays can still ive their lives as they want. I just don't think they should get married.

And then you slipped into the completely illogical:

I was just trying to be funny here....guess it got lost in the message.

So African-Americans are the only minorities?

No, AfAm are not the only minorities, but they are the only ones that I feel comfortable speaking about becasue I am one.

I don't think you quite understand what the word "minority" means. At its root, it's simply about percentages not cultural history.

From my life experience it is about both. I can not separate one from the other.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Leslie Anne

So African-Americans are the only minorities? I don't think you quite understand what the word "minority" means. At its root, it's simply about percentages not cultural history.

Minority isn't only about population representation.

It is also about power differentials in terms of majority and minority in power. You can be the majority in population representation but a minority in terms of power (i.e. (South) African Apartheid).

So history and power are also factors in being a minority group. Homosexual representation in the total population has yet to be uncovered. So we can only assume that they are indeed the minority based on a heterocentric culture (including power differentials), and dating, marriage, and natality data.

To partially add to an understanding of sigmadiva's comment, I do not consider homosexuals to be the same type of minority group that racial and ethnic and gender minority groups are. Sexual orientation is not a factor in many contexts whereas race, class, and gender are. Granted, race, class, and gender are often expressed through expressions of sexuality. But a homosexual white male, for instance, will benefit from white male privilege in most contexts before he is oppressed because of his sexual orientation.

[ASUADPi]

I'm beyond thrilled that California overturned the ban. Too bad Arizona is now attempting to put a prop on the November ballot deeming marriage as between a "man and a women" I'm actually looking forward to voting against that stupid prop.

Homosexuals deserve the same "domestic" rights as a married couple as PeppyGPhiB stated earlier.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

A good friend and I were in grad school at the same time. She is gay (lesbian) and I'm straight. We're both Black females of the same age. We both have similar backgrounds in terms of family. She is Catholic, I'm protestant - basically both of us are of Christian religions. She had struggles in grad school, so did I.

Oh, there is one more difference when you got married, you probably did it in church, and your marriage was probably blessed by an ordained minister and God. Your friend won't get this because gays and lesbians are an abomination in the eye's of God.

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

As far as I can tell, with White gays especially, they still get better treatment than I do. Why? Because at the end of the day they are White and I'm not. And if you don't believe me ask Hillary Clinton, since it will be the less educated White people who can get her into the White House.
(Meaning one's race is more important than anything else.)

So their opinion matters less because they weren't so fortunate to go to college as you and I?

And why does it have to be about race? I'm sick of people always making things out about race?

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

But first, gays had been given the right to marriage and then the right wing got all up in arms and got the ban on the ballot. So they were fighting to get the right back. Why couldn't the right just have stood to begin with? Why is it ok that all kinds of political and legal maneuvering can go on because straight taxpayers are scared of something, but it's not ok when gay taxpayers need to also use political and legal channels to gain, maintain or protect their rights?

Why is it ok to use the gay taxpayers' money to enact legislative bans against them, but when gays use taxpayer money it's an affront to the rest of the country?

I don't think there is anything wrong with gay people trying to do that. Other than my personal objections to their lifestyle, I could care less if they decide to use legal channels to advance their cause. I hope they fail, but I don't object to them making the attempt (personal objections noted, of course).

I was quite simply refuting your point that this wasn't being driven by the gay community.

[christiangirl]

Jeni--thanx for the interjection, I'll look at that. I think I remember something about that in history (though I definitely forgot once the semester was over).

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I don't think there is anything wrong with gay people trying to do that. Other than my personal objections to their lifestyle, I could care less if they decide to use legal channels to advance their cause. I hope they fail, but I don't object to them making the attempt (personal objections noted, of course).

I don't know why that made me laugh so hard, but it did.

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

When and if same-sex marriage becomes legal, however, I would think it would be the prerogative of any particular church (or Church) to decline performing the ceremony, just as some won't marry a Christian and a Jew, for example.

Hmmm, I thought of that briefly. I guess it depends on the denomination and if it allows individual churches to do what would not be accepted by the whole (Mormons come to mind, for some reason).

Excellent discussion, guys. So, strictly for S&G, let's say gay marriage is legalized and could be performed at any courthouse, city hall, what have you. However, about 60-70% of America's churches refused to do the ceremony and would not recognize gay marriages and/or families. Would churches still retain the right to offer their services (pre-marital counseling, family ministry, etc.) as they please? I'm not asking if it would be morally acceptable for churches to deny these things to gay couples, just if you think they would still have the right to. Would the protests continue until churches were more open or would governmental rights be enough reason for everybody to go sit down and move on?

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

Jeni--thanx for the interjection, I'll look at that. I think I remember something about that in history (though I definitely forgot once the semester was over).


I don't know why that made me laugh so hard, but it did.


Hmmm, I thought of that briefly. I guess it depends on the denomination and if it allows individual churches to do what would not be accepted by the whole (Mormons come to mind, for some reason).

Excellent discussion, guys. So, strictly for S&G, let's say gay marriage is legalized and could be performed at any courthouse, city hall, what have you. However, about 60-70% of America's churches refused to do the ceremony and would not recognize gay marriages and/or families. Would churches still retain the right to offer their services (pre-marital counseling, family ministry, etc.) as they please? I'm not asking if it would be morally acceptable for churches to deny these things to gay couples, just if you think they would still have the right to. Would the protests continue until churches were more open or would governmental rights be enough reason for everybody to go sit down and move on?

Of course churches have the right to do what they want in that regard, just as they do now. Technically, you could probably be married in the eyes of the church but not in the eyes of the law (like the polygamists), just as you can be married by law but not in the eyes of the church (like a Catholic who has been divorced, didn't have that marriage annulled and didn't marry the second time in the church) Churches get to do what they want.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

Excellent discussion, guys. So, strictly for S&G, let's say gay marriage is legalized and could be performed at any courthouse, city hall, what have you. However, about 60-70% of America's churches refused to do the ceremony and would not recognize gay marriages and/or families. Would churches still retain the right to offer their services (pre-marital counseling, family ministry, etc.) as they please? I'm not asking if it would be morally acceptable for churches to deny these things to gay couples, just if you think they would still have the right to. Would the protests continue until churches were more open or would governmental rights be enough reason for everybody to go sit down and move on?

Um, churches already decline to marry certain couples. Some won't marry interfaith couples, some won't marry a couple that hasn't been baptized, many won't marry couples that don't first go through premarital counseling, some won't marry couples they just don't feel should be married (after meeting with them), and some won't marry couples that have lived together. Most also have rules regarding dress, music and decorations if you want to get married in their church, if you want to get really specific. Our society in no way mandates that churches must marry any couple, or that couples must get married in a church, and couples that do marry in a church do not receive any special legal rights as a result. Marriage is a contractual relationship, not a religious state.

[Tom Earp]

I love reading PlayBoy/Penthouse about this type of relationship.

[Kevin]

It's a legal definition issue for them because the only place they can realistically make changes is in the courts.

My argument is that whether they're morally right or wrong, the courts are not the place to be changing the law.

[DSTCHAOS]

Slippery slopes gets slipperyererer and slopeyerererer.

[Taualumna]

I'm sure someone has already brought this up, but gay marriage has been legal in Canada for a few years. No church is required to perform a ceremony if it goes against their beliefs/teachings. I'm pretty sure if a person who is legally allowed to perform a civil marriage is not comfortable doing so, he/she can find someone who is. You shouldn't be forced to do something you're not okay with.

[DSTCHAOS]

So this is becoming the gays in fraternities thread.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

So this is becoming the gays in fraternities thread.

No it's turning into a Biblical theology thread.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by nate2512

No it's turning into a Biblical theology thread.

Only if people are prepared to do more than throw Scriptures around.

But this really is becoming the gays in fraternities thread.