California overturns ban on same-sex marriage

[fwellers]

I am one who believes that this country was founded under Christianity. How come our elected officials have to be sworn in with their hand on the Bible?

Yuk !!! Do you hear yourself ? You sound like King George, or Ayatollah Khomenni. Same thing. No difference. You want your goddam religion to be the rule of the land. Hardly anything ever said in any forum EVER, pisses me off more than religious resurrectionists and those who, while denying that they do it, yet wish to take the country over for their religion.

I do not believe in the current view of "separation of church and state". I believe Thomas Jefferson in his writings meant that the "state" had no right mingling or tampering with the church but by all means the church has every right to influence government.

Pure resurrectionist nonsense. The govt should be secular. the type of thought you posted is why I want to see all mention of god or relgion, or hands on bibles taken totally and utterly out of all govt !!!! I can't stand to hear people say that we are a "christian" nation. It sickens me more and more. Those people have either not learned on iota from history, or just don't care. Those are the people who will usher in the next world war.
Killing each other over religious ideology.
it's very sad, scary and repulsive to me.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by Logodae

Oh, and gay women are not at risk for AIDS -- and not just because it's uncommon in that population. Women having sex with women just doesn't transmit the virus.

Cite please. I thought transmission of bodily fluids was the method for infection. Why don't women having sex with each other transmit bodily fluids?

Another interesting point and myth. Gay men = anal sex. Not true. Many gay men think that anal sex is as disgusting as heterosexual men do, so they don't partake in it.

BTW, I'm not gay. Just wanted to add this interesting tid-bit.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by ogrekilleat

In fact, it is Christian scriptures (i.e. "The Bible", which I believe is still considered appropriate moral guidance by many) that originally defined marriage as one man and MANY women--in addition to condoning slavery and wife-beating. We have chosen to deviate from those teachings because we no longer believe God condones them. Would it be much different if we decided that we no longer believe God condones discriminatory anti-gay policies?

A lot of these are mis-interpretations.

This could be generalized to say that the spread of STDs is an indicator that all sex is immoral.

Actually, all premarital sex is immoral. And it's completely accurate in relation to the STD argument as you have a blood test and check for things like this before you get married.

Interestingly, we actually have a very real problem in this world, which is that there are many orphans who would probably like to be adopted. Sadly, like all animals, we are hard-wired to want to pass on our own genes, which causes us to think that it's "better" to have our own children rather than adopting one or more of the many children who desperately need homes.

However, one of our natural advantage is our ability to make decisions that go AGAINST our instincts by striving to adhere to a moral code. My fervent hope is that one day, more people will have a moral code that goes against the very natural desire to procreate, in favor of adopting. I believe this would be pleasing in the sight of God, whether or not the adopted children have two mommies or two daddies.

Good point. Where do these orphans come from? A lot come from premarital sexual activity. And obviously many more come from the poorer nations. Don't get me started on the morality of being rich when there is so much suffering in the world. (I don't know how any millionaire can sleep at night when there is so much suffering due to poverty in the world.)

[SmartAlx]

The question of gay marriage isn't as simple to Christians as letting bygones be bygones and letting people be who they want to be. Allowing gay people to marry is one more step down a path that Christians believe society shouldn't be treading. And even moreso it negatively affects the lives of Christians. At least many Christians believe so. It's not a direct effect, but it certainly has an INDIRECT effect on the world at large, good or bad. Bad in many Christians' opinion. Allowing gay people to marry is as much an act against a christian as a christian voting against gay marriage is an act against a gay couple. Why? Because gay marriage affects the world in a way that Christians believe is bad. It does affect their lives, eventually. So if both have valid arguments, it's like two parents fighting for custody of a child. Both have rights, but only one can win. And in this case, there's little compromise. There's not going to be weekend visitation rights for gay marriage.

So, presuming both have valid claims of suffering if they don't win, who will win the gay marriage debate? Since the Christian nation is the bad guy in the court of public opinion these days, they generally inevitably lose. So I believe that universal legal gay marriage is where the nation and world will head one day, unless there is some other factor that affects public opinion. And that is an entirely real possibility in 20 or 30 years. Who knows what could happen? Maybe something will cause a real puritan attitude to wash over the world.

Anyway, just some thoughts for some open minds.

[PianoManGidley]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

And even moreso it negatively affects the lives of Christians. At least many Christians believe so. It's not a direct effect, but it certainly has an INDIRECT effect on the world at large, good or bad....Because gay marriage affects the world in a way that Christians believe is bad. It does affect their lives, eventually.

Would you care to explain precisely HOW the lives of Christians are negatively effected this way? Are you afraid that every time a gay couple gets married, a Christian somewhere in the world drops dead? Or perhaps some highly faithful gay couple will randomly start seeking out Christians to rape them? Or is it perhaps the gays' front lawn decorations really don't match the overall aesthetics of their Christian next-door neighbors?

[Jennihul]

Christians themselves are not affected directly. Christianity's incessant reliance on it's dogma IS affected. Everytime we modern, intelligent, annoyingly persistent humans question the dogma and they cannot answer the question to our satisfaction, a little more of their power gets chipped away. Another piece that has to be relinquished. Unwillingly handed back. Apologies uttered. Explanations given.

Then, any sane normal cogent human says: well if THAT was BS the whole time, maybe everything about Christianity is BS. The house of cards begins to quake and shake a little more.

Which is why movies like The Golden Compass get boycotted. The DaVinci Code causes such a stir. Harry Potter is seen as "satanic." Christians hate when they have to answer those hard questions and hate even more when they have to admit they were wrong. When their dogma is challenged. Which is why it kills the church to finally and reluctantly admit that Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute. Which is why it took decades to uncover the priest sex abuse scandals.

What other delicious secrets does the Vatican hide from us to protect itself from criticism and impending implosion?

Jennifer

[Dave Kaminski]

Originally Posted by PianoManGidley

Would you care to explain precisely HOW the lives of Christians are negatively effected this way? Are you afraid that every time a gay couple gets married, a Christian somewhere in the world drops dead? Or perhaps some highly faithful gay couple will randomly start seeking out Christians to rape them? Or is it perhaps the gays' front lawn decorations really don't match the overall aesthetics of their Christian next-door neighbors?

I'd like to comment on behalf of SmartAlx's argument:

The life of Christians is negatively effected by the allowing of gay marriage because it furthers an ideal that they openly condemn in their belief system. What's happening is there is internal friction because what they are teaching is not what's going on around them, making the walls of their palatial city erode.

This, however, is what amuses me. They're very much against something along these lines, which is not in their commandments, however we often see those same people who blow the whistle on homosexual relations caught up with their own flaws which are blatantly against their belief system.

Christians still lie, cheat, and steal, they just TRY NOT TO. Now they're TRYING NOT TO let homosexuality 'run amok,' which they feel will usher them into eternal happiness. It's not the focus on not doing it, it's the focus on trying not to do it and trying to stop it from happening.

It's their effort to stop homosexual marriage that makes them feel "closer to god" because they feel they're helping to mold the world that their god would have wanted. I'm not sure why he didn't just make it that way in the first place, though...

[ogrekilleat]

SmartAlx:

Actually, all premarital sex is immoral. And it's completely accurate in relation to the STD argument as you have a blood test and check for things like this before you get married.

Okay, let's say I agree. Now explain how preventing people from getting married does anything other than encourage premarital sex.

[Jennihul]

Originally Posted by smartalx

Actually, all premarital sex is immoral. And it's completely accurate in relation to the STD argument as you have a blood test and check for things like this before you get married.

Sex was invented millennia before the institution of marriage. Good thing your ancestors were immoral or you wouldn't be here Alex.

Only five states in the union require a blood test before marriage.


Jennifer

[elliot]

I haven't followed this too closely, but I think it's great that gay couples are finally being given the right to do what heterosexual ones have done for so long. I wonder about divorce rates and the other legal issues associated with it though. Don't you have to split 50% of your assets with the other person in cali if you get married then split up, or something to that effect?

[Jennihul]

Those legal issues are civil and there will probably be no difference between hetero and homosexual couples.

Here is a sad story: A friend of mine, gay female1 and her partner2 legally adopted a child from China and then artificially inseminated partner 2 with a child. They happily raised their family until partner 2, the biological mother of the second child was killed in a car wreck. Partner 2's family sued for custody and basically stole their baby from partner 1. Now Chinese daughter has lost her sister and mommy had her baby torn away. Simply from people's stupid biases.

Legal marriage can spare people heartache like this.


Jennifer

[Love]

Originally Posted by PianoManGidley

Would you care to explain precisely HOW the lives of Christians are negatively effected this way? Are you afraid that every time a gay couple gets married, a Christian somewhere in the world drops dead?

LOL

[PianoManGidley]

Originally Posted by Love

LOL

Hey, if that were true, then it's probably true about the same thing when someone says "I do not believe in faeries." So, if the Christians wanna get even on that one, all they gotta do is say "I do not believe in faeries" and us fags (well, the really effeminate ones, anyway) will start dropping like flies. Right?

[carenkh]

Originally Posted by Logodae

Oh, and gay women are not at risk for AIDS -- and not just because it's uncommon in that population. Women having sex with women just doesn't transmit the virus. Clearly, if AIDS is a message from God, then She wants all women to become lesbians.

You stole my line! My response when the tired lie "obviously it's wrong; AIDS is the proof" comes up is, "Then obviously lesbians are God's chosen people!"

Originally Posted by Amadeus

I believe Thomas Jefferson in his writings meant that the "state" had no right mingling or tampering with the church but by all means the church has every right to influence government.

Absolutely not true. Jefferson, while not a Unitarian, held Unitarian beliefs - which you can find if you read his letters and other correspondence. He didn't believe Jesus was THE ONLY way to God - why would he have believed a church or religion should influence government? Unitarian Universalists have long fought for gay rights, and supported gay marriage - even before it was 'cool'.

[Stu]

I think its amusing to look at the parallels between Islam and Christianity regarding their conservative attitudes towards the evolution of culture. Islam, you could say, is hundreds of years behind the current global culture on various issues like women's rights, gay marriage, seperation of church and state, etc... and I think in many ways Christianity is starting to fall behind the global cultural evolution as well. (as exemplified by their attitudes on gay marriage)

The obvious conclusion is that Christianity is acting like an anchor on american culture, holding it back from keeping up with the rest of the world. If that trend continued American would, culturally speaking, look a lot like the middle east does now in a couple hundred years.

I think it's also interesting that American christians criticize Muslims for lagging on cultural issues like women's rights and the secular western world criticizes american christians for lagging on issues like gay marriage. Do they not see the parallel?

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by ogrekilleat

Okay, let's say I agree. Now explain how preventing people from getting married does anything other than encourage premarital sex.

Insert clapping smilie here.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by Jennihul

Sex was invented millennia before the institution of marriage. Good thing your ancestors were immoral or you wouldn't be here Alex.

Only back then they didn't abort their young. They fathered and mothered their children with love and affection. The fathers didn't run off when the girl got pregnant. Getting pregnant was a GOOD thing to the men. The children were the fathers' most prized possessions back then, even when they were young. Even if the couples didn't go through a ceremony, the couple acted as if they were married. In fact, they were MORE bonded together back then than they are today. You might even say that they were MORE married back then.

Totally different situation today, where pregnancy is to be avoided, and it is barely considered in the throes of passion, we overestimate the effectiveness of birth control, men are quick to split when the girl gets pregnant, and unborn children are so devalued that the right to decide if it's a life takes precedence over the child's right to live. And the sociology of a society of millions or billions is much more dynamic today than the sociology of a few hundred people was back then. Who knows the long term ramifications of casual sex today? I believe that it really is one of the worst things to happen to western society in the past 50 years. Just imagine how many children were born to single mothers since the sexual revolution??? There must be millions!!!! CERTAINLY that has had to have had a negative effect on society.

(If you want to get into a debate about it, then please let's not hijack this thread any more. Let's start a new one.)

[Dave Kaminski]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Only back then they didn't abort their young. They fathered and mothered their children with love and affection. The fathers didn't run off when the girl got pregnant. Getting pregnant was a GOOD thing to the men. The children were the fathers' most prized possessions back then, even when they were young. Even if the couples didn't go through a ceremony, the couple acted as if they were married. In fact, they were MORE bonded together back then than they are today. You might even say that they were MORE married back then.

Totally different situation today, where pregnancy is to be avoided, and it is barely considered in the throes of passion, we overestimate the effectiveness of birth control, men are quick to split when the girl gets pregnant, and unborn children are so devalued that the right to decide if it's a life takes precedence over the child's right to live. And the sociology of a society of millions or billions is much more dynamic today than the sociology of a few hundred people was back then. Who knows the long term ramifications of casual sex today? I believe that it really is one of the worst things to happen to western society in the past 50 years. Just imagine how many children were born to single mothers since the sexual revolution??? There must be millions!!!! CERTAINLY that has had to have had a negative effect on society.

(If you want to get into a debate about it, then please let's not hijack this thread any more. Let's start a new one.)

Mmm.. it was only the sexual revolution of America.. I don't think it's the first one ever, and this is just another growth period. We were founded by puritans/christians/etc. and now the other mindsets here are rising up and taking their part in contributing their beliefs. We've got a long way to go, too. It's not the worst thing by far, there are many bad and good things and they will continue to happen as they must!

[PianoManGidley]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Only back then they didn't abort their young. They fathered and mothered their children with love and affection. The fathers didn't run off when the girl got pregnant. Getting pregnant was a GOOD thing to the men. The children were the fathers' most prized possessions back then, even when they were young. Even if the couples didn't go through a ceremony, the couple acted as if they were married. In fact, they were MORE bonded together back then than they are today. You might even say that they were MORE married back then.

Totally different situation today, where pregnancy is to be avoided, and it is barely considered in the throes of passion, we overestimate the effectiveness of birth control, men are quick to split when the girl gets pregnant, and unborn children are so devalued that the right to decide if it's a life takes precedence over the child's right to live. And the sociology of a society of millions or billions is much more dynamic today than the sociology of a few hundred people was back then.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the sociology of a society from--let's get our evolution timetables correct and say a few hundred thousand years ago--is "more dynamic" than that of today...but there ARE very much noticeable differences between today's society and infrastructure and that of even a few generations ago. It used to be that children were seen as an asset, because they could provide more labor and therefore help provide more income for the household. Now, with child labor laws and industrialization, children are no longer needed in such a sense, and therefore are seen more as a liability than an asset.

Also, I'm no historical anthropologist, but who said that cultures at the dawn of civilization didn't ever abort children? We have records, at least, of human sacrifices throughout the ages--wouldn't children, including newborn babies, have a likelihood of being among those sacrificed?

But I still fail to see what this has to do with gay marriages, really...