Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban

[dgriffin]

Concerned, I completely agree with you, but I see enforcement as another matter. There are certainly absolutes in the human experience and I am convinced our modern society has thrown out many traditions that it doesn't fully understand. It's almost as if we have forgotten the reasons why our institutions came to be and cannot see why they should be kept. No doubt many should not be kept, but I think we should be very careful.
But were we to differ on gay marriage, for example, I don't see where someone's views should be forced upon me, unless he or she can show that a clear danger exists if my opinion prevails.
It may be tragic to in the future watch as society falls, but salvation cannot be legislated.

[Disgusted-Daily]

concerned,

Well said, If this happens it should not be in the same church that has been against for decades.

With that said I think we drifted a little here on the subject. I don't really care what they do with there life's until you bring children into the equation.

Again I don't believe this is good for a child and may be confusing to some. How can a child be happy with this arrangement when his fellow class mates are picking on him? Everyone knows how cruel children can be to others, just plain honest. Everything in School and the world is developed around the term Dad & Mom. This would have to play into some Psychological effect on a child in his life.

I do not want to have to explain to my son why two guys or girls are holding hands or kissing each other in the public for all to see. Lets use San Francisco for a public example. They are way out of control and tell me you would want yourself or child in that type of environment.

We all have agreed who are we to judge. Well then why do we judge others?

[concerned]

I think it comes down to the point does gender matter? If we think it used to but no longer does, then who the hell cares about "marriage" anyway? If gender doesn't matter, then marriage doesn't matter. It appears to those who advocate gay marriage, that the real purpose of their advocacy is NOT to get married per se, but to obtain social "respect" and "dignity" for their relationship choices. And since marriage traditionally uniquely bestows blessings only on opposite gender choices, they feel slighted.

I think gender is part of the creation DNA of the species and does matter and will always matter and that marriage is the unique, although somewhat mysterious, union of two genders into "one flesh."

Even polygomy maintains the proper gender structure, although it still strays from the ideal of one man/one woman.

[Clipper]

I highly respect your position Concerned, and would hardly even attempt to argue religious beliefs and theology with a person as educated and knowledgeable on the subject as you are.

I would have to agree with the alternative of "civil unions" for those with alternative life styles. Marriage holds a deep spritual meaning to those who have been successful in maintaining a strong happy experience with it. My mom and dad would have been married for 59 years had my mom lived a few short months longer.

I envied their relationship, and to this day, envy the relationship of ANY successfully, happily, married couple. While I was to blame for my first divorce through my drinking, I was repaid in kind in my last marriage, and have no desire to enter into any LEGAL situation which requires my risking all that I have worked for, in order to hold onto a certificate of commitment from a court or a church. I believe God brings us together, but I find it hard to believe that he requires that commitment to be documented on paper by mortal man, whether it be clergy or judge. My present commitment to my mate, is well established in our hearts and in the eyes of God. Our relationship is much happier and deeper than many marriages today. I need nobody to wave the sign of the cross over the two of us and tell us to "go in peace". We have been going in peace for 12 years, and we have gone with more generalized, daily happiness than most of our married friends. Do ya know why?? Because we know the difference between the definition of "committed" and "trapped by man's law".

Gay marriage falls into the category of highly volatile subjects to discuss on a forum. People have very definite, and unchangeable opinions, that have been formed and entrenched in their very being.
I would say it rates right up there with abortion, immigration, and racial bias. Some things breed opinions that are so deeply rooted, that discussion, while heated and informative, will never bring about understanding between the two sides of the issue.

The argument could go on forever. Some believe that our God is omnipotent, and rules ALL from on high, with a purpose for everything that happens in life, good and bad. Others believe that man controls his own destiny, and they also believe that sin is kept on a ledger that will be pulled out, and accounted for on the day of our death.

Theology, basic religious beliefs, politics, and an individuals concept of right and wrong, are what makes each of us individuals. While I respect others opinions on such issues, I also believe that most of those subjects are for a person to decide for themselves. There are some issues, such as the abortion issue, that many of us believe are individual decisions that should not be influenced by government or church interference, while others of us, feel it is there "God given duty" to try and change other people's opinions on.

I myself accepted Jesus as my savior, and asked him into my life. I believe it is he that relieved my alcoholism. I try to live a life of being kind and good, and yet when someone wrongs me, or pisses me off, I don't gild the lilly in telling them where the bear shit in the buckwheat.

I believe in a hereafter, but I will not know if that belief is in error, until the day that I die. I hope that my mom and dad can be reunited, and as for me, I will either be overjoyed to find that I have lived a good enough life to join them, or I will simply be taking a dirt nap and rotting away into compost and decayed organic matter.

In the meantime, I don't believe in the "turn the other cheek" crap. If someone pisses me off they can expect a receipt. Slap MY cheek, and you get slapped back. I forgive the trespasses of those that trespass against me, when they have negotiated a workable truce, not simply because I want to be viewed as "christian".

I guess I am terminal in my stubborness and my lack of ability to follow the "norm".

Let the Gay community have "civil unions", if that is what most christian folk want to call it. It is not necessary to upset the perception of the majority, with simple terminology or definition, as long as the people are given rights to live their lives in peace and unity.

In the mean time, if sex between same sex couples is an abomination, THEY will have to pay for it on the judgment day, not ME, so it is none of my business. I find anal sex digusting, and this old raggedy ass, has an "Exit Only" sign posted, but that is strictly my own view.

No matter one's religious or secular opinions, life is a mystery. That is a true and indisputable fact.

[corner]

ok thats a picture i didn't need in my head

[dgriffin]

May 18, 2008 12:36:31 GMT -5 @concerned said:

I think gender is part of the creation DNA of the species and does matter and will always matter and that marriage is the unique, although somewhat mysterious, union of two genders into "one flesh."

Carl Jung on the anima in, "Two Essays in Analytical Psychology":
“The whole nature of man presupposes woman, both physically and spiritually. His system is tuned into woman from the start, just as it is prepared for a quite definite world where there is water, light, air, salt, carbohydrates etc."

And I would imagine vice versa.

[dgriffin]

May 18, 2008 17:16:13 GMT -5 corner said:

ok thats a picture i didn't need in my head

How about "No Loitering" ?

[frankcor]

concerned, I'm playing the devil's advocate here, but it sounds like your argument is that marriage is defined as being between a man and woman for the purpose of procreation in Natural Law because ... well ... it's always been that way.

Unless you can cite me a paragraph in natural law.

LOL, corner! re: unneeded picture

[dgriffin]

If there were no preferential treatment for married couples, there would be no fairness argument. Couples will gain "social "respect" and "dignity" for their relationship choices," only from those who agree with their choices, never from those who don't. Same sex couples have co-habited for years as odd couples. The only thing new here is the politics. Gay PR has developed an entire political class who support something in which they would not participate. How American is that!
I feel like I'm contributing to cable news ratings by even discussing it.

[Clipper]

I have to agree with ya Corner. I don't need that picture in MY MIND either, AND IT IS MY ASS, HAHAHA! Sorry to cause you any stomach distress!

[bobbbiez]

Wow, quite the discussion.

Don't know what I can add except I may not agree with same sex marriages, but can not condemn those that do. I truly don't understand or know why some are that way and some aren't.

I can't judge those that have feelings for "whoever."
When I was growing up it was "taboo" to marry either out of your nationality or God forbid out of your race.
Now, both are acceptable.

As far as children involved in same sex marriages. Again, I have to bring up my younger days when it was "taboo" to have a child out of wedlock or a child of a different race. Now both are acceptable.
Being a mother of two adopted children and knowing in my
younger days that it was also "taboo" for a single person to adopt a child and now that is acceptable.
I believe if a child is brought up in a stable home with love then that child will succeed well in life no matter who that child is brought up by.

We don't live in a perfect world but then who really knows what a perfect world really is. Years and times have changed drastically during my many years so who are I to say who is truly right or wrong. Who are I to judge when someone doesn't believe or live as I do.
I may not understand it but I can not commend someone that feels it is right. I guess it boils down to, "live and let live."

[lilbump1980]

I have to say.. I feel that a gay couple being able to marry is great.. I thought my fiance would feel weird around some of the gay people i know, but he go to know them and knows that they would never try anything with him, they know he is straight. I know many gay people. Let me tell you they are great!... I have one friend who's girlfriend was married before in a heterosexual marriage. she has children. my friend is great to them, i wish they could have one of their own. I also know a couple that is gay who have many many foster kids... those kids love them.. they are great..
I don't feel that because you are gay you can not be a great parent. I was never exposed to gay people growing up.. you just didn't know any but now in my late 20's i know many and I must say... some are happier than some heterosexuals i see now.
I must also say my stepbrother is gay. I love him dearly, just wish his family would accept him. But things happen. I think when this subject touches people you know and love it changes all aspects of it.
That is just how I feel.
I love this country but it is getting rediculous that they are trying to tell people what they can and can not do.. i.e Same dex marriage, and lets not forget abortion. they are trying to rule what a woman can do to her own body as well...

[concerned]

It is alot more involved than " live and let be " and " tell people what the can or cannot do". If we just allowed everyone to do what they want this world would be unlivable and civilization as we know it today would be lost. Who make the laws of the land is it just man or a combination of man and God.

I can't think of how procreation would be possible without male and female. All nature is involved in this gift from God. Even in artificial procreation one need a male componet(sperm) and the female compliment(egg).

I don't think a person has to be gay in order to have anal sex, vaginal sex or oral sex. Even lesbians need to at times use an artificial device to simulate vaginal penitration.

I have two friends who for the past 30 years have lived a very commited gay relationship. Bob and Joe were both in religious life with me. They are now in retirement and live in Hawaii after having very very successful lifes. They even have twoo children that they adopted. They are both Down Syndrome children that no one wanted.

I hope I have not left the impression that I am condemning homosexuals. I am not. It took me a long time to convince me that this is a " life style choice ". It has nothing to do with how groups of men or women in prison's need for sexual gratification.

I am a little hesitant with transgendered individuals and some of the psychology and sexuality that come out from this. I can understand.

I do agree with Clipper. And in terms of Carl Jung my entire thesis is based on him and a theology of liberation form socialogical norms and absolutes.

[bobbbiez]

Concern, the laws of the land doesn't always give us a more livable civilization. I've seen some drastic changes in this world and not for the good of all. I truly feel the laws today protect more who do wrong then those who do right.

I've also learned that God's laws can be interpret in so many different ways that I tend to stay away from debating what any writings may mean.
Sad to say, but the laws of the land is succeeding in taking God out of everything.

As far as I'm concerned this "livable" world is far worse then the world I grew up in and it doesn't seem to be getting any better.

[Swimmy]

I have not read all the posts of this thread. I stopped when the trend seemed to go towards people not having a problem with gay couples having children if they could prove they could provide a safe, loving,and nurturing environment for them that does not bias children to prefer gay relationships over heterosexual ones. but those same people are for gay marriage, etc.

Anyone else see the irony? Why make it different for gay couples?! I don't know about you, but my parents and many other parents never had to prove that they could provide a safe, loving, and nurturing environment for their kids before having my brother and me. It's a good thing too because they both promised to disown us if we ever said we were gay. My mother also told me she would disown me if I came home with a girl other than white, catholic, and college educated. That's more damaging to society than having two men bringing up a child.

If heterosexual couples had this requirement, I'm sure plenty of the delinquents running around would not be in existence. Why is there a need to differentiate between straight couples and married couples when it comes to children? I can think of 5 families off the top of my head who are straight and should never have been allowed to procreate.

As for the idea of marriage, I do not believe gay couples should be allowed to "marry" as that term is defined. I have nothing against gays engaging in civil unions, but marriage is a religious sacrament that is defined as a union between a man and a woman. I have a problem when a minority of people want to cram their belief system down my throat in the name of freedom. I won't stand in your way to have a partnership with the same privileges of a married couple, but don't have the courts establish a religion by saying that a church must marry gay couples. (It's interesting that a church can marry you, but only a court of law can divorce you). It's America and you're free to believe in what you want.

Fear begets bigotry. How can anyone be against gays having children and desire to see them "prove" they can provide a safe, nurturing, and loving environment that does not bias the children to prefer the same sex over the opposite sex? If you're going to require that, then I say that no straight couple be allowed to have children without also proving that they can provide a safe, loving, and nurturing environment that does not bias children to prefer a straight relationship over a gay one.

Ok, I'm done ranting, I'll go back and read the remaining posts tonight.