California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

For sigmadiva's post, I think there's a reason that "sleep" was in quotations. So I didn't feel the need to expound on what sexual orientation (as distinct from, yet related to sexuality) entails.

I'm trying to keep this thread PG-13.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I do realize that. I was not going to muddy the waters of this conversation with all of the variants on sexual behaviors. Just trying to keep it simple.

You can keep it simple and convey an understanding of these things, though.

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

You answered this in your response below - the majority opinion is that the private business of a heterosexual couple can be "public".

So why do we pesky heteros keep our private business public? Why can't we just go away? I don't want to know what we're doing in private.

[Leslie Anne]

Originally Posted by Leslie Anne

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

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Because as a Christian, the Bible says so. I just don't think they should get married.

But you're talking about religion, sigmadiva. This is a legal matter in a country that embraces the separation of church and state. Why do your religious beliefs get to determine how someone else can live their life?

I'm not trying to gang up on you. I'm just posing a question.


And to all the others who are against gay marriage on the basis of religion (Christianity in particular), suppose this country's population was composed of a majority of a different religion: Islam, Buddhism, Confucianism, Judiaism? Would you still be so willing to let the majority rule your life based on their religious beliefs? Just curious.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

I recommend reading Angela Davis, bell hooks, and Patricia Hill Collins because they offer some of the best discussions on the relationship between race and gender (and sexuality and sexual orientation, to an extent).

Thank you. I'll get their books.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I'm trying to keep this thread PG-13.

Eh...we're adults who can handle a discussion of the connect and disconnect between sexuality, sexual behavior, and sexual orientation.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

So why do we pesky heteros keep our private business public? Why can't we just go away? I don't want to know what we're doing in private.

But then how will you know if you are "doing it" "right"?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Leslie Anne

But you're talking about religion, sigmadiva. This is a legal matter in a country that embraces the separation of church and state. Why do your religious beliefs get to determine how someone else can live their life?

I'm not trying to gang up on you. I'm just posing a question.


And to all the others who are against gay marriage on the basis of religion (Christianity in particular), suppose this country's population was composed of a majority of a different religion: Islam, Buddhism, Confucianism, Judiaism? Would you still be so willing to let the majority rule your life based on their religious beliefs? Just curious.

Cuidado por favor!

A big component of American culture is supposedly Christianity. The separation of Church and State doesn't apply when the return of Christ Jesus is near! If gays take over, we'll be damned to Hell. You better recognize and get right with the Lord.

<------ a Christian who jokes about humans and religion

[Leslie Anne]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

You better recognize and get right with the Lord.

I know. I'm going straight to Hell.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by Leslie Anne

But you're talking about religion, sigmadiva. This is a legal matter in a country that embraces the separation of church and state. Why do your religious beliefs get to determine how someone else can live their life?

I'm not trying to gang up on you. I'm just posing a question.

No problem. I've been on GC a while.

Anywho, if it was just a legal matter then a civil union should be enough. Marriage is mentioned and sanctioned in the Bible. The majority of the people in this country are Christians, or are part of a religion that recognizes marriage between a man and a woman. So that is where the religious issuse comes in.

And to all the others who are against gay marriage on the basis of religion (Christianity in particular), suppose this country's population was composed of a majority of a different religion: Islam, Buddhism, Confucianism, Judiaism? Would you still be so willing to let the majority rule your life based on their religious beliefs? Just curious.

As far as I know each of those religions support a marriage between a man and a woman. So, yeah if I were that religion I would practice and support their beliefs. Or, I would do as our Founding Fathers and get up and move to another country where I could establish my own rules. (Now I see why the "Others" are so protective of the island...)

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by Leslie Anne

I know. I'm going straight to Hell.

Don't feel bad. This will probably happen to me too. At least all of my friends will be there.

[Coramoor]

Originally Posted by TSteven

FYI:

By what scale, the NYT?

[AGDee]

There are many things that parts of the Bible say are wrong but they are legal in our society.. gluttony, greed, pride, gambling, etc. The Bible is a moral guide, not a legal one.

The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32). (From a history of marriage) http://marriage.about.com/cs/general...agehistory.htm


Yet, marriage existed long before that. So, it is ok for current Christians to protest changing the definition of marriage yet it was Christians who changed it then? It has changed many times over many cultures over many years.

Heterosexuals can get married without including religion in any way. Any legal references to marriage are only legal, they are not religious. In the eyes of the law you are just married whether you are married by a Justice of the Peace, a Catholic Priest or a Rabbi. Therefore, any religious arguments against gay marriage are illogical because there is no religious component to our current marriage laws. You can choose to be married by a religious officiator but it certainly isn't a requirement.

As to whether homosexuality is a choice, I truly find it hard to believe that you can control who is sexually attractive to you. There are men who are only attracted to blonde women or only attracted to red heads. There are women who are only attracted to tall men or men with facial hair. You can't even control who you are sexually attracted if you are heterosexual! Many of us have met someone of the opposite sex who is kind, fun, and a good friend, but we just can't think of them "that way" for some reason. Sometimes we try very hard to, because we hold that person in high regard and think that we *should* be attracted to them, but we still are not, no matter what we do. You cannot force yourself to be attracted to someone who is not attractive to you. Why would this be any different for homosexuals? If you are not attracted to members of the opposite sex and the only people you have ever been attracted to are of the same sex, then what are you supposed to do?

I never will be able to understand why anybody is against gay marriage as a legal institution. It isn't as though anybody who is going to force someone into a gay marriage against their will. If consenting adults want to pledge themselves to each other for a lifetime, then why shouldn't they be allowed to?

[Leslie Anne]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Anywho, if it was just a legal matter then a civil union should be enough.

And we're back to this:

Originally Posted by Senusret I

One reason that civil unions aren't good enough is that they are not portable beyond the state they were issued. Another is that there are like 2000 or so rights that automatically come with marriage that have to be duplicated when a state creates civil unions. In a nutshell, it's a waste of time and resources.

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Marriage is mentioned and sanctioned in the Bible.

Yes, but that's not the only way to be married. What about courthouse marriages? Are those people not actually married?

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

The majority of the people in this country are Christians, or are part of a religion that recognizes marriage between a man and a woman. So that is where the religious issuse comes in.

Majority rule can be a very dangerous path.

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

As far as I know each of those religions support a marriage between a man and a woman. So, yeah if I were that religion I would practice and support their beliefs.

I wasn't referring to marriage specifically. I meant EVERYTHING about that religion controlling your life.

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Or, I would do as our Founding Fathers and get up and move to another country where I could establish my own rules.

So...like it or leave? Dear Lord!

[christiangirl]

*sigh* I just finished a skating session and am so sore I can't get into a comfy position, so I won't go into everything I'd like. Furthermore, I'm going to speak on this objectively without giving my opinion because I'm sure I'd be crucified no matter which side I was really on.

I think the root problem is not about the definitions, but rather the root of the definition. If I'm correct (and if I'm not, someone please interject), the act of marriage has a religious base--it is two people of the opposite sex coming together in the eyes of God. It's not so much the opposite sex part that is the problem, but Who is blessing it, IMO--that is, because of the root of the tradition, it is implied that God is okay with it. So if one sees homosexuality as an "abomination in the eyes of God" (as nate so eloquently put it ), well there'd be a problem. Religious peoples, just like everyone else, can be a bit possessive. If what belongs to the church is being given to those the church believes go against God, yes they'll raise hell about it. (Yes, one could argue this is also a problem when atheists partake in "marriage" but, for the sake of argument, let's continue not caring about that.) This is why "civil unions" started off as a good idea. It goes back to the old "separate but equal"...I think the whole point of that was to give everyone legal equality while simultaneously keeping the Church happy by separating it from what it does not approve of. Separation of church and state is what everyone wanted, right? Well, we remember how well "separate but equal" worked out the first time (not making this about race, just an example). When civil unions proved not to give equal rights to those it was designed for, we hit another problem. So we have some saying they shouldn't be equal at all, some saying it should, and some saying "If it's equal, why not just make it marriage since God loves everyone." Oh, and those who don't care, but they are not the focus right now.

This leaves the following questions to be answered: Does marriage really belong to the Church and, if so, does it retain the right to give marriage to whom it chooses? Or, since marriage now has legal ties, can the government give it to whom it chooses? Does the GBLT community just want the equal rights or must the title of "marriage" come with the package? I don't know anyone who dreams about the day they get to be "civilly unified," but if legitimately equal rights are established, they might not care.

Some of these may have already been answered--I won't pretend I've read all 7 pages of this. I'll leave you to discuss anyway.

[DSTCHAOS]

Slippery slopes gets slipperyererer and slopeyerererer.