California Supreme Court struck down the state's gay marriage ban

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Oversoul, May 15, 2008.

  1. Modus Pwnens Eligible for User Title

    The reason that man and woman are physiologically different has nothing to do with any religions, it is nature's way of allowing different species to reproduce. Of course, this is stuff for an entirely different, and already aged debate on Intelligent Design versus Evolution.

    I personally do not care what "scriptures" have to say about my life, but I wonder what proof or empirical evidence (scary word when religion is involved) you have for your rather strange claim that an enternal commitment is not available for gay people (if I misunderstood your point, please tell me).
  2. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Like I said, the time where the "king" or administrative leader was the puppet is the times I'm wondering about. In the Western world, I don't think there were ever theocracies, but the whole point is if and when did religious leaders have enough influence to make law and were the marriage stuff part of it?
  3. Mooseman Isengar Tussle

    Are you kidding me? Constintine changed the entire religion of the empire..... who else but the religious leader has the power to do that..... The roman Emporer may not have dealt with day to day crap in the church, but when he talked the church listened......

    For Louis XIV: "Bishops were not to leave France without royal approval; no government officials could be excommunicated for acts committed in pursuance of their duties; and no appeal could be made to the Pope without the approval of the king. The king was allowed to enact ecclesiastical laws, and all regulations made by the Pope were deemed invalid in France without the assent of the monarch"
  4. Oversoul The Tentacled One

    Yeah, I suppose they would be the same in that respect, but if you stretch it that far, EVERYONE believes that there is a reason genders are the way they are. Like Modus pointed out, evolution has an answer to that. And at the very least, we can say that unless we reject causality outright, there HAD to be some reason.

    But it's the people who choose to include the ceremonial religious tidbits (it isn't required or anything) in their marriage and later disregard those parts or never took them seriously to begin with. There are some problems associated with this, but I fail to see how it's my problem or your problem or society's problem. It's a problem for the people who got themselves into into this type of situation.

    And what does it have to do with gay marriage, anyway?

    Legally, marriage is not an "everlasting covenant." Nothing about heaven either. You're right, the government can't make that sort of thing happen and I submit that the government should have no business in such things. So yeah, if the legal marriage doesn't really have much in common with the religious concept of marriage (I mean, they do have a common origin and an intertwined history and the same name), what's the problem?

    Yeah, with the caveat that there have been some important exceptions here and there, I concur.

    ID is dead. It's been replaced with "teach the controversy." Although arguably, that's all it ever was in the first place.

    I don't even see how it matters. Legally, eternal commitments and other such things should be pretty much irrelevant. EB is free to make whatever statements he likes about eternal commitments, but neither his nor my nor anyone else's views on eternal commitments should shape policy.

    Well, Henry VIII did have to break his whole country away from the RCC in order to annul his marriage, because it was only the church that had the authority to do so and the Pope wouldn't allow it. Is that the sort of thing you're talking about? Religious leaders at points in history have been powerful enough to influence pretty much everything. But what's your point?

    Who else but a religious leader? How about a really powerful king/emperor/despot/dictator/whatever? There was a well-established church. He converted, but the circumstances behind his own conversion are a bit sketchy historically. I hesitate to give him credit for single-handedly changing the religion of the empire when Christianity was already a significant force, despite religious persecution and all that.

    Also, Constantine was rather late in the empire, long after the Pax Romana. I doubt that every Roman emperor would have had the power to change the religion of the whole empire. Constantine's reversal of Christian persecution and later conversion to the religion were probably the culmination of an existing trend that began long before he was born.

    Like Henry VIII, this is an example of a very powerful king (only moreso). He disagreed with the church and was powerful enough to buck their authority. He wasn't the religious leader and I highly doubt that anyone at the time considered him to be.
  5. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    If you're asking this, then you're losing the question in the midst of the middling details.

    The point is: This whole discussion is centering on the certain rights that the status of "marriage" confers today. It doesn't matter whether you are married by a priest/pastor/someone from the church or going down to the state office and getting married there (justice of the peace?). The fact is, two people are considered married and because of that status, certain legal things can happen (insurance, death and estate disposal - a big one, next of kin, etc.).

    Some people here (I think DF and maybe EB?) are saying that marriage is a religious concept and should be separate from the state. Which is fine but led me to wonder when in history did these legal laws become tied to marriage? And did it happen during a time when religious leaders played a part in making those laws - in effect, there *wasn't* a separation of church and state. It doesn't matter whether there was a church and king or whatever, if the church was the true power in the country and making decisions, *that's* the important part.

    Or did the legal laws come about when religious influences *weren't* at play?

    That's the point.
  6. DarthFerret Evil Sith Weasel


    The proof is in the biblical teachings of the New Testament of the Bible. I am not a religious authority and cannot quote specific verses but it is there. An eternal commitment would be one that continues on after the death of our mortal body into the realm of heaven. I guess you could say that if you don't go to heaven, you will be eternally damned in hell, however, if you use that argument then you would probably have to agree that a part of hell would be to not have that joy of the commitment.

    Of course, this is all based on the fact that you believe in the Bible. But, if I read that right, you were merely asking what the "Christian" argument for the lack of an eternal commitment for gays was. I may try to find supporting verses from the Bible at a later time, however, this is end-of-the-month, and I am surprised I had time to type even this little bit...
  7. turgy22 Nothing Special

    Update on the topic: NY issued a statement that all state agencies must recognize gay marriages that take place outside the state.

    I liked this article because it explicitly states what gay rights activists are fighting for.
    This is basically the reason I support state-sanctioned same-sex marriages. If you're enjoying a long-term monogamous relationship with a partner, you should have the right to all these things regardless of whether that partner is of the same sex or not. It's got nothing to do with religion and everything to do with equal rights. If I can put my wife on my health plan, then why shouldn't a gay person be allowed to do the same with their partner? If my wife and I can file joint tax returns, then why can't a gay couple? If me or my wife die, we'll immediately inherit the other's property. Why should a gay couple have to go through extra steps to ensure the same?

    The only right that I think can be argued is the adoption issue. A lot of people believe that same-sex couples shouldn't be permitted to raise a child. I haven't seen any studies on the negative effects of having two mommies or two daddies, but it's certainly a debatable topic.

    Of course, the basic argument usually boils down to a matter of wording. I don't think many people oppose civil unions, since they don't actually involve the word marriage. So if a civil union carries all the same rights as a marriage, I'd say that's good enough. If they don't or are more difficult to attain than a marriage, then things need to change to make things equal.
  8. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Exactly. Right on!

    Except the adoption should be a non-issue too. I don't see much difference between having two mommies/daddies raise a kid as either traditional or different race adoptions - in fact, I would be willing to bet that such kids would be raised more open-minded? more worldly-views than man/female parents.
  9. Oversoul The Tentacled One

    Well, I don't think marriage should be sanctioned by the state either. But I don't think most of the rights associated with marriage were imposed on it by religious institutions or anything like that. For example, the modern tax system is a lot younger than marriage. It was applied with marriage in mind, because it was (and is) a prevalent concept in society, not the other way around. Same goes for insurance and well, probably everything. I don't see the relevance, though. Assuming you named a specific legal aspect of marriage that was originally started by a church in a time when this church controlled marriage in that region, and that aspect continues today, so what? The state isn't obligated to honor this tradition if it deems the situation in need of change, nor is it obligated to excise that aspect because of its origins.

    That, and you haven't named a specific legal aspect of marriage as an example. So it's difficult to see where you're going with this anyway.
  10. Mooseman Isengar Tussle

    ?? I am not sure, but are you equating homosexuality to race? So, a gay couple raising a child, is the same as a white couple raising an Asian child? What are you trying to say here?
  11. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    turgy22's post (the one in the quotes) pretty much nailed the legal aspects associated with marriage that I was thinking of.

    I am curious to find out whether such legal aspects started when religious institutions/thinkers held sway because it shows they were made at a time WHEN religion and state were together. They aren't now obviously, and some of the argument being made right now is that a "religious" marriage should be separate from state. But if the legal aspects started when they were together, then that whole argument falls apart - religious marriages *have* to be tied to secular marriages.

    I'm saying that whatever possible negative arguments that can be raised for same-sex parents adopting a child should be applied to different race parents/child, and that overall those arguments shouldn't matter whether the parents can adopt or not. turgy22 didn't specify any specific negative arguments in his statement, so I can't actually do a rebuttal or give examples, so I can only speak in general terms also.

    Sex and/or race shouldn't matter when adopting.
  12. Modus Pwnens Eligible for User Title

    Some research teaches me that the origins of religious marriage lies in the second half of the 4th century, the marriage (which used to be a "consortium omnis vitae" under Roman law - a partnership of the whole of life) was made into a "res sacra". The partnership was the only objective requirement for a marriage under Roman law (as defined by Modestinus)
    So before the 4th century, marriage had nothing to do with the (Christian) church.
  13. Mooseman Isengar Tussle

    I have to disagree.... sexual preference is not the same as race..... one is genetic, the other is behavioral..... these are not interchangeable.
  14. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    But it doesn't matter how they raise their kids, unless you can name some "negative" aspects that I'm not aware of.
  15. Mooseman Isengar Tussle

    Actually the origins of religious marriage is way before that.
    Cecrops (in Greek, Κέκρωψ) was a mythical king of Athens. The name means 'face with a tail': it is said that, born from the earth itself, he had his top half shaped like a man and the bottom half in serpent or fish-tail form. He was the founder and the first king of Athens itself, though preceded in the region by the earth-born king Actaeus of Attica. Cecrops is said to have ruled Athens 1556–1506 BCE. Cecrops was a culture hero, teaching the Athenians marriage, reading and writing, and ceremonial burial.

    I bet the Mayans had religious rituals of marriage and rules for it's practice.

    Yes, now we get to the qualitative part of the question..... What is "negative"? I bet DF would say that homosexuality is "negative", but you would not.....

    That still doesn't equate race and sexual preference....... they are apples and oranges......
  16. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    When it comes to raising a kid, they aren't. Whether something's genetic or behavorial (your words), you're still a person raising a kid.

    In other words, they're all interchangable: same-sex same race raising same race kid, same-sex same-race raising different race kid, different-sex same race raising same race kid, different-sex same race raising different race kid, different-sex interracial raising either one of the race's kids or a different race.

    Whatever the combo, it doesn't matter when raising a kid
  17. Mooseman Isengar Tussle

    Murderer, Child Molester..... are those the same?
    Drug user, drug abuser..... are these the same? They are just behaviors, right?

    There is a difference..... it's just that behaviors are qualitative and require a judgment to be made, "what is negative or bad", and those behaviors can be changed or modified (like smoking), while genetic or inherent can not be qualitatively judged (except by inbred idiots)
  18. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    I don't think we're getting anywhere through my attempts to explain it.

    So let's try it this way: See if you can explain the different "negative" aspects of raising a kid if the parents are same-sex or not and if the parents are same race or not.
  19. Mooseman Isengar Tussle

    There are no negative aspects when you are talking about race..... Race is not a behavior!!!!

    I'm sorry, but this is getting frustrating...
  20. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    You said it :)

    Maybe we're interpreting the word "negative" differently, because I can think of a few that have been brought up when a white couple adopts a black child. This has just been in the news recently too, maybe in the past week or so because the National Council for Adoption (or whatever the name is) is concerned about it. From what I remember, there's supposed to be some whole "black" culture thing that prospective white parents need to be aware of or else they have a whole lot of difficulty is raising the child than they "normally" would.

    Mind you, I don't necessarily agree with that analysis since I haven't studied it myself, but obviously the Council has and it's their arena.

    That's the kind of "negative" stuff that I'm talking about, that can be brought up in "support" of the negative aspects. I'm sure there's some that can be brought up for same-sex parents too.

    To which again I say, it doesn't/shouldn't matter.

Share This Page