California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage

[Homyrrh]

(from The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/15cnd-marriage.html?hp))
May 16, 2008
California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
By ADAM LIPTAK
Same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The court’s 4-to-3 decision striking down state laws that had limited marriages to unions between a man and a woman makes California only the second state, after Massachusetts, to allow same-sex marriages. The decision, which becomes effective in 30 days, is certain to play a role in the presidential campaign.

“In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship,” Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote of marriage for the majority, “the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.”

California already has a strong domestic partnership law that gives gay and lesbian couples nearly all of the benefits and burdens of heterosexual marriage. The majority said that is not enough.

Given the historic, cultural, symbolic and constitutional significance of the concept of marriage, Chief Justice George wrote, the state cannot limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. The court left open the possibility that another terms could denote state-sanctioned unions so long as that term was used across the board.

The state’s ban on same-sex marriage was based on a law enacted by the Legislature in 1977 and a statewide initiative approved by the voters in 2000, both defining marriage as limited to unions between a man and a woman. The question before the court was whether those laws violate provisions of the state Constitution protecting equality and fundamental rights.

Conservative groups have proposed a new initiative, this one to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. If it is allowed onto the ballot in November and approved by the voters, Thursday’s decision would be overridden. The groups have gathered more than a million signatures on initiative petitions and submitted them to the state.

Justice Marvin R. Baxter, dissenting, said the majority had should have deferred to the state Legislature, which has in recent years increased legal protections for same-sex couples.

“But a bare majority of this court,” Justice Baxter wrote, “not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the people themselves.”

The California Legislature has twice passed bills allowing same-sex marriages, but they were vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said they would overturn the 2000 referendum.

Mr. Schwarzenegger opposes the current ballot initiative seeking a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. He said Thursday that he respected the court’s decision and would not support overturning it, according to The Associated Press.

In 2004, Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco directed the county clerk to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. Before the California Supreme Court halted the practice, more than 4,000 same-sex couples received marriage licenses in San Francisco.

[MadsenOMC]

As they should have.

[Homyrrh]

As they should have.
Constitutionally?

[MadsenOMC]

Yes.

[QUENTIN]

Absolutely. To do anything else is to divide the country arbitrarily into "citizens" and "gay citizens". What makes homosexuals any different as Americans than heterosexuals, besides what they do consensually with their genitals? To not unequivocally allow gay marriage is to set up the same kind of false "separate but equal" rules that were deemed unconstitutional when they tried it with black Americans. It's a basic civil rights issue.

[MadsenOMC]

Nicely said QUENTIN. Smart man.

[Homyrrh]

Yes, that's possibly one of the best, yet simplest, gay rights defenses I've read.

However, the comparison between homosexuals and blacks presents a single blatant discrepancy. All African-Americans were born African-American. But were all homosexuals born so?

[MadsenOMC]

But were all homosexuals born so?

Yes. Or did you choose to be straight?

[Moviefan1234]

Absolutely. To do anything else is to divide the country arbitrarily into "citizens" and "gay citizens". What makes homosexuals any different as Americans than heterosexuals, besides what they do consensually with their genitals? To not unequivocally allow gay marriage is to set up the same kind of false "separate but equal" rules that were deemed unconstitutional when they tried it with black Americans. It's a basic civil rights issue.

Exactly what I wanted to come into this thread and say, but you said it so much better than I could have dreamed of. Very well said.

[shoe1985]

I used to think it was wrong, but it is 2008. What someone else does, has no affect on me. I am sure people will come out saying how wrong this it, but why bother to pay attention? You live your life, I live mine. Don't judge, be the bigger person and walk away.

[QUENTIN]

Yes, that's possibly one of the best, yet simplest, gay rights defenses I've read.

However, the comparison between homosexuals and blacks presents a single blatant discrepancy. All African-Americans were born African-American. But were all homosexuals born so?

Well I've got two answers to that.

First -It doesn't matter at all. Let's say homosexuals choose to be homosexual. They're just like anyone else and one day they decide to actively choose who they're attracted to and have sex with them accordingly. How does that choice negate their basic constitutional rights as citizens? If I convert to Judaism, should I not be allowed to practice my religion freely in the U.S. because I wasn't born Jewish? Or maybe I choose to be a member of an unpopular political group, do I not have the right to assemble and petition the government because I chose my beliefs? Of course not, rights are equally bestowed upon all Americans. Gay sex isn't a crime, so having it shouldn't result in a loss of rights and privileges that all other citizens exercise.

Second -Well, that's a moot point anyway. I didn't choose to be straight, neither did you. Madsen's question is used frequently, but it really does illustrate how asinine that line of thinking is. Not to mention that essentially all studies done on the subject, both directly and tangentially (like studies of smell that inadvertently showed lesbians and straight men are both aroused on the biochemical level by the scent of female hormones and gay men and straight women the opposite) that wasn't pseudo-science funded by some conservative special interest or religious group has concluded that homosexuality is biological, we even know several of the genetic traits it is linked to.

So yes, homosexuals are born that way. And even if they weren't, that has no bearing on their right to marry just like any other citizen. Constitutionally, the issue couldn't be much simpler.

[Vong]

I used to think it was wrong, but it is 2008. What someone else does, has no affect on me. I am sure people will come out saying how wrong this it, but why bother to pay attention? You live your life, I live mine. Don't judge, be the bigger person and walk away.

That is generally how every society should base itself on; utilitarianism works well in societies that have numerous venues and options to either pleasure or make yourself happy. As long as what you do does not affect anyone else, what is the harm? You are only harming yourself, and the government has no right to tell you how to live your life or how to treat your body. Freedom of life includes what you want to do with it.

What you said is a benchmark for arguments to allow the legalization of marijuana, suicides and other societal stigmas.

[shoe1985]

That is generally how every society should base itself on; utilitarianism works well in societies that have numerous venues and options to either pleasure or make yourself happy. As long as what you do does not affect anyone else, what is the harm? You are only harming yourself, and the government has no right to tell you how to live your life or how to treat your body. Freedom of life includes what you want to do with it.

What you said is a benchmark for arguments to allow the legalization of marijuana, suicides and other societal stigmas.

Well, those are harming yourself. Marijuana does slow you down, and if you are driving a car, which I know many people would do, they would harm others. Suicide is just like murder, and if you are that bad emotionally, you should get help.

[Vong]

Well, those are harming yourself. Marijuana does slow you down, and if you are driving a car, which I know many people would do, they would harm others. Suicide is just like murder, and if you are that bad emotionally, you should get help.

Driving your car while under the influence is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about doing shit in your own home. Driving under any influence is illegal. There are no pot-enthusiasts that argue they should be allowed to drive and smoke....it's beyond stupid.

Murder is to kill another....suicide is to kill yourself....they are not one in the same. If people want to seek the help for their suicidal nature, they can seek it. But for those who are beyond help they should have the right to say when it's time to die. Just like those who are terminally ill or in constant pain. Who are we to say whether or not they should live however many weeks, months, years they have left? It's not our life to make that decision...it's theirs.

[Homyrrh]

Well I've got two answers to that.

First -It doesn't matter at all. Let's say homosexuals choose to be homosexual. They're just like anyone else and one day they decide to actively choose who they're attracted to and have sex with them accordingly. How does that choice negate their basic constitutional rights as citizens? If I convert to Judaism, should I not be allowed to practice my religion freely in the U.S. because I wasn't born Jewish? Or maybe I choose to be a member of an unpopular political group, do I not have the right to assemble and petition the government because I chose my beliefs? Of course not, rights are equally bestowed upon all Americans. Gay sex isn't a crime, so having it shouldn't result in a loss of rights and privileges that all other citizens exercise.

Second -Well, that's a moot point anyway. I didn't choose to be straight, neither did you. Madsen's question is used frequently, but it really does illustrate how asinine that line of thinking is. Not to mention that essentially all studies done on the subject, both directly and tangentially (like studies of smell that inadvertently showed lesbians and straight men are both aroused on the biochemical level by the scent of female hormones and gay men and straight women the opposite) that wasn't pseudo-science funded by some conservative special interest or religious group has concluded that homosexuality is biological, we even know several of the genetic traits it is linked to.

So yes, homosexuals are born that way. And even if they weren't, that has no bearing on their right to marry just like any other citizen. Constitutionally, the issue couldn't be much simpler.
:)

[bigred760]

I think it's a good start. While most of the rest of the country probably won't budge until the end of time, having one of the biggest (THE biggest?) states in the union okay this is huge.

And Quentin . . . great response.

[Homyrrh]

I think it's a good start. While most of the rest of the country probably won't budge until the end of time, having one of the biggest (THE biggest?) states in the union okay this is huge.

And Quentin . . . great response.
Well, excepting Alaska area-wise. But I'm fairly confident CA is the largest population-wise. However, if anyone was going to approve gay marriage, I'd have bet them.

Money on when Texas decides to?

[shoe1985]

Murder is to kill another....suicide is to kill yourself....they are not one in the same. If people want to seek the help for their suicidal nature, they can seek it. But for those who are beyond help they should have the right to say when it's time to die. Just like those who are terminally ill or in constant pain. Who are we to say whether or not they should live however many weeks, months, years they have left? It's not our life to make that decision...it's theirs.

See, I may agree with you some things, suicide is not one of them. For someone to be suicidal there must be something wrong. If given the right medical attention, this could be defeated.

Terminally ill is another thing altogether. If your going to die painfully, I have always felt that you should be given the option of allowing the person to die. They are going to live a damn life of pain and suffering, let them go.

It is their life, but suicide is something I don't agree with. Get the person some help, there is something going on in their head to cause it. Look at the story about the woman who pushed that one girl to kill herself. Is that ok? No, the girl could have been fine before this woman did all these things to her. If given help, this girl would have never killed herself.

You can stop suicide from happening by getting a person help. You can't stop gay people from liking another person. It is just how they are.

[Tweek]

Absolutely. To do anything else is to divide the country arbitrarily into "citizens" and "gay citizens". What makes homosexuals any different as Americans than heterosexuals, besides what they do consensually with their genitals? To not unequivocally allow gay marriage is to set up the same kind of false "separate but equal" rules that were deemed unconstitutional when they tried it with black Americans. It's a basic civil rights issue.

Well done! Well done! :)





You can stop suicide from happening by getting a person help. You can't stop gay people from liking another person. It is just how they are.

Giving someone the resources is a step but the suicidal person has to be willing to use them...

[shoe1985]

Giving someone the resources is a step but the suicidal person has to be willing to use them...

I had an experience with a person that was going to kill themselve. It took a group of us to get together and confront this person. Someone had found a note, and called everyone. Our friend saw that people cared, and got the help needed.

That is a big issue with many people that want to commit suicide, we learned, is that most of these people don't believe anyone cares about them. Maybe the person was bullied, or had nobody to turn too. Sometimes being a friend to these people can help make a lot of changes in this person's emotional state of mind.

But to get back on topic, which seems to happen, one thing happens, and we like to bring in other topics, which I did here.

I have no problem with homosexuals getting married. People can say the bible says marriage is between a man and a woman. Well, religion is not supposed to play a part in politics. We all believe in different things. If a man loves another man, or a woman loves another woman, why should we stop this? Because a book says so? I am not saying the bible is wrong or right. I believe in god, but I believe we should do what is right. Let these people live their lives.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Being against gay marriage doesn't make sense to me. It's not an issue I care about either, it just doesn't make sense to me to be against it. Loose interpretations and supposed implications to be found in the bible should serve as no grounds for a political position. I mean, it's not like being against the war in Iraq because the bible says crystal clear THOU SHALT NOT MURDER. It's more like assuming Jesus is against gay marriage, even though he never talked about the matter, and being so vehemently against it that one loses sight of the more pressing issues.

But like I said, a candidate's position on gay marriage won't move me one way or the other.

[someguy]

quentin you seem pretty experienced on gays

[MadsenOMC]

quentin you seem pretty experienced on gays

More like pretty experienced on common sense.

[QUENTIN]

quentin you seem pretty experienced on gays

Yeah, I'm wicked homo that's hows I know about all that queer junk I been talking.

[someguy]

More like pretty experienced on common sense.

this is a pretty baseless generalization im sure there are gay people who do not have common sense

[MadsenOMC]

Well what in the hell does "pretty experienced on gays" mean?

[electriclite]

Being against gay marriage doesn't make sense to me. It's not an issue I care about either, it just doesn't make sense to me to be against it. Loose interpretations and supposed implications to be found in the bible should serve as no grounds for a political position. I mean, it's not like being against the war in Iraq because the bible says crystal clear THOU SHALT NOT MURDER. It's more like assuming Jesus is against gay marriage, even though he never talked about the matter, and being so vehemently against it that one loses sight of the more pressing issues.

But like I said, a candidate's position on gay marriage won't move me one way or the other.
Not to mention the fact it isn't even listed in the 10 Commandments. I mean for something described as an "abomination" you'd think God (if you believe God made the 10 commandments) would've bothered to mention it somewhere. What did it slipped His mind?

And if you believe that it was secretly made up by Moses or men in general, well why the hell didn't they mention it either? No gays in the desert or Egypt?

[Homyrrh]

Not to mention the fact it isn't even listed in the 10 Commandments. I mean for something described as an "abomination" you'd think God (if you believe God made the 10 commandments) would've bothered to mention it somewhere. What did it slipped His mind?

And if you believe that it was secretly made up by Moses or men in general, well why the hell didn't they mention it either? No gays in the desert or Egypt?

Ah boy...

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.

This is among many others. IF anyone has a copy of the NIV Study Bible, just flip to the concordance and search for the entry "Sexual Immorality". I believe the Bible is clear in condemning homosexuality, and that it is a definite sin. That does not, however, condemn it within the realm of national politics.

The Bible lays down more than just ten "rules". Hell, the most important one (Luke 6:31), isn't even mentioned within the body of the Commandments (Exodus 3).

Further readings:

http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/gay-rights

[MadsenOMC]

Yeah well the bible condemns a lot of things, and was written a very, very long time ago. For something that is supposedly a big deal, it's hardly even mentioned in the bible. Other, way more trivial topics are mentioned far more than homosexuality.

[Homyrrh]

Yeah well the bible condemns a lot of things, and was written a very, very long time ago. For something that is supposedly a big deal, it's hardly even mentioned in the bible. Other, way more trivial topics are mentioned far more than homosexuality.
Hm. I'd be inclined to engage in any debate, but you have not provided any source material. I mentioned a concrete and definitive standpoint that the Bible presents, supported by actual, objective examples and passages.

Your post, honestly, is incredibly ignorant and seemingly apathetic, and I believe you completely misunderstand what the Bible is. It was "written a very, very long time ago"...so what? Did homosexuals not exist hundreds and thousands of years ago? I Corinthians, one of Paul's many epistles was written well after Christ's death, which, given the relative course of history, wasn't that long ago. Is Suz Tzu to be forsaken? Hammurabi? Peculiarly, even older...

Alternately, regardless of whether it hardly is or isn't "hardly mentioned", which I'd strongly debate (after all, the Bible categorizes it distinctly as "sexual immorality" and that phrase alone is condemned many times), the fact is that it is written clearly once. Also, please elaborate upon what are trivial topics.

Again, I must objectively say there are passages from the Old Testament which provide legitimate cause for reconsideration. I believe the Bible is conclusive in its stand, though AGAIN, I will not say this stand should be directly, if at all, accepted in American politics.

In general, please don't make such grossly uncultured generalizations.

[someguy]

Well what in the hell does "pretty experienced on gays" mean?

madsen youre a pretty serious guy

quentin knows whats up

[MadsenOMC]

Hm. I'd be inclined to engage in any debate, but you have not provided any source material. I mentioned a concrete and definitive standpoint that the Bible presents, supported by actual, objective examples and passages.

Your post, honestly, is incredibly ignorant and seemingly apathetic, and I believe you completely misunderstand what the Bible is. It was "written a very, very long time ago"...so what? Did homosexuals not exist hundreds and thousands of years ago? I Corinthians, one of Paul's many epistles was written well after Christ's death, which, given the relative course of history, wasn't that long ago. Is Suz Tzu to be forsaken? Hammurabi? Peculiarly, even older...

Alternately, regardless of whether it hardly is or isn't, which I'd strongly debate (after all, the Bible categorizes it distinctly as "sexual immorality" and that phrase alone is condemned many times), the fact is that it is written clearly once. Also, please elaborate upon what are trivial topics.

Again, I must objectively say there are passages from the Old Testament which provide legitimate cause for reconsideration. I believe the Bible is conclusive in its stand, though AGAIN, I will not say this stand should be directly, if at all, accepted in American politics.

In general, please don't make such grossly uncultured generalizations.

Wow. That asshole response doesn't indicate you want a civil debate. If you actually want to discuss this, come down off your high horse & lose the condescending and holier-than-thou attitude. Then maybe we can have a nice talk about this. After this post, though, I have no desire to engage in a discussion with you. Your whole tone is very off-putting.

[MadsenOMC]

madsen youre a pretty serious guy

That I am. Guilty as charged.

[Tweek]

I had an experience with a person that was going to kill themselve. It took a group of us to get together and confront this person. Someone had found a note, and called everyone. Our friend saw that people cared, and got the help needed.

That is a big issue with many people that want to commit suicide, we learned, is that most of these people don't believe anyone cares about them. Maybe the person was bullied, or had nobody to turn too. Sometimes being a friend to these people can help make a lot of changes in this person's emotional state of mind.

But to get back on topic, which seems to happen, one thing happens, and we like to bring in other topics, which I did here.

I have no problem with homosexuals getting married. People can say the bible says marriage is between a man and a woman. Well, religion is not supposed to play a part in politics. We all believe in different things. If a man loves another man, or a woman loves another woman, why should we stop this? Because a book says so? I am not saying the bible is wrong or right. I believe in god, but I believe we should do what is right. Let these people live their lives.

Last thing I'll say on the subject (as you said, off-topic)... Some people are far gone to the point where no amount of reaching out will change their minds... :(

But on-topic:

The reason you gave in your last paragraph is one of the reasons I think gay marriage should be legal country-wide.

Then there's also the fact that it's "so unnatural" because we're meant to reproduce... Well considering a good majority of "straight sex" that's moot.



this is a pretty baseless generalization im sure there are gay people who do not have common sense

Where was the generalization?

:confused:

[someguy]

That I am. Guilty as charged.

ah who cares if you're serious or not you're still good

let's lighten up with the comedic stylings of mike huckabee

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/97143.html

[MadsenOMC]

ah who cares if you're serious or not you're still good

let's lighten up with the comedic stylings of mike huckabee

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/97143.html

Thank you. :) Likewise.

That is some funny shit.

[Homyrrh]

Wow. That asshole response doesn't indicate you want a civil debate. If you actually want to discuss this, come down off your high horse & lose the condescending and holier-than-thou attitude. Then maybe we can have a nice talk about this. After this post, though, I have no desire to engage in a discussion with you. Your whole tone is very off-putting.
If I came off as such, I do apologize, as condecension, arrogance, and conceit are some the most loathesome qualities that I know of. My intent was nothing of the like. Actually, I am a man of faith, but also a practical man of reason, and again make note that all of my posts are inherently objective despite any conviction I may have. Likewise, also realize I make a great effort to separate my politics and piety.

Otherwise, in simpler form, you made a statement (or at the least clearly inferred so) that the Bible was too old, not specific, etc. In disagreement, I provided a few arguments to negate the unsupported claims that you had made. This is no problem, nor do I ever want it to be, but I would enjoy being able to further substantiate an objective POV by hearing your validations of what you had posted earlier. When you started your post with "Yeah well, the Bible...", I think you might excuse me for immediately (and possibly ignorantly) regarding your post as overly casual and unresearched and consequently approaching it as such.

Concluding, drop it if you want, no hard feelings here, but I truthfully would like to continue within the bounds of morality and forum rules.

As for the Huckabee joke...well, Conan, Colbert and Stewart can rest on their laurels :D

[MadsenOMC]

It was not casual and unresearched. I have had 12 years of Catholic education, including numerous college-level theology courses. I have read the bible. I wasn't just making a throwaway comment.

My main point was this: homosexuality is not mentioned very often in the bible (I believe it is a total of six times). Alcohol, for example, is mentioned far more than homosexuality. Greed & poverty as well. Salt is apparently mentioned more than 30 times. The list goes on. If it is so important, why isn't it mentioned more often?

[Badbird]

However, the comparison between homosexuals and blacks presents a single blatant discrepancy. All African-Americans were born African-American. But were all homosexuals born so?

I never understood this line of thinking. It's not a choice. But let's say it was... does it matter? I can choose to convert to any religion I want and I will be protected under the law. But that's another topic...


Anyway, here's some interesting statistics... (http://www.analsexyes.com/statistics.shtml)

Studies done on sex practices of heterosexuals in the US reveal:

25% had at least experimented with anal sex at one point in their lives.

10% have done so at least once in the previous year.

Among women 25-29, 12% had engaged in anal intercourse in the last year and 2.4% during their last sexual event

8% of males and 6% females reported having anal sex at least once a month during the last year

Most of them 1 to 5 times/month

So you see, more straight people are having "gay" sex than actual gay people. So the sex thing can't really be the reason... can it?


It must be that whole "But they can't have children" thing, right?

Well, according to this site, (http://www.mayoclinic.com/print/infertility/DS00310/DSECTION=all&METHOD=print) Ten percent to 15 percent of couples in the United States are infertile. Infertility is defined as not being able to get pregnant despite having frequent, unprotected sex for at least a year.

So that's also more straight people who can't have kids than gay people.


So if that's not the case, then just why is it people don't want those darn gays getting married?

Oh yes, that ancient book that no one agrees on, everyone interprets differently, and has talking snakes and misbehaving children being stoned to death. Of course. That makes lots of sense.

[Homyrrh]

I never understood this line of thinking. It's not a choice. But let's say it was... does it matter? I can choose to convert to any religion I want and I will be protected under the law. But that's another topic...


Anyway, here's some interesting statistics... (http://www.analsexyes.com/statistics.shtml)

Studies done on sex practices of heterosexuals in the US reveal:

25% had at least experimented with anal sex at one point in their lives.

10% have done so at least once in the previous year.

Among women 25-29, 12% had engaged in anal intercourse in the last year and 2.4% during their last sexual event

8% of males and 6% females reported having anal sex at least once a month during the last year

Most of them 1 to 5 times/month

So you see, more straight people are having "gay" sex than actual gay people. So the sex thing can't really be the reason... can it?


It must be that whole "But they can't have children" thing, right?

Well, according to this site, (http://www.mayoclinic.com/print/infertility/DS00310/DSECTION=all&METHOD=print) Ten percent to 15 percent of couples in the United States are infertile. Infertility is defined as not being able to get pregnant despite having frequent, unprotected sex for at least a year.

So that's also more straight people who can't have kids than gay people.


So if that's not the case, then just why is it people don't want those darn gays getting married?

Oh yes, that ancient book that no one agrees on, everyone interprets differently, and has talking snakes and misbehaving children being stoned to death. Of course. That makes lots of sense.
Heh, definitely one of the more explicit posts I've read in awhile...:)

But obviously I was just being hypothetical. I definitely see the the validity in some of the refutations you've provided. However, again, I think the context of the Bible, at least in this thread, is being mildly skewed. I had made a few points that this Book is entirely clear what its stance is on the matter, and while again its open to interpretation on many levels, I personally understand it to distinctly and vividly condemn homosexuality.

Now, again (...), WHY the Bible would be used as a basis for determining the fate of homosexuals in America is beyond me, even as a Christian (though most things about the course of the religion have baffled me lately....bugger, regardless...). So while I have my own perosnal convictions about the morality of homosexuality, I see no objectiveness in condemning it socially or politically. As a pathetic analogy, I despise the very existence of the NY Yankees, but it would be unfair to excluse them from any MLB revenue sharing.

I think the argument that had been used previously in this thread, that omitting homosexuals from the right to marriage alienates them from society and reduces their citizenship, is about is sensible as a stance can be. Even McCain, who technically opposes gay marriage:
The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation.

...yet still sees no basis for amending the constitution to oppose it.

[inglourious basterd]

First, and most importantly, I agree with the ruling and I feel that homosexuals do deserve equal civil liberties as heterosexuals.

What I just wanted to say is that I disagree with the idea that all homosexuals are "born" homosexual.

Quentin is right that there are many studies out there that support the conclusion. I've read interesting embryologic studies that support developmental origins for transgenders and homosexuals. But, while many homosexuals may have legitimate biologic origins for their sexual preference, I don't think that all homosexuals are biologically wired to be homosexual.

Alfred Kinsey's famous research on sexuality showed that there isn't a clear line between "gay" and "straight'. In reality, there's a continuum and an large, unclear gray area between the two polar ends. As much as biology contributes to the continuum, so too does psychological, social, and cultural factors.

My intent is not to discuss whether homosexuality is "right" or "wrong". I just argue the politically-correct and widely embraced idea that "gays were born gay". While it may be legitimately true for some/many, I wonder whether it's really the case for most.

[electriclite]

Ah boy...



This is among many others. IF anyone has a copy of the NIV Study Bible, just flip to the concordance and search for the entry "Sexual Immorality". I believe the Bible is clear in condemning homosexuality, and that it is a definite sin. That does not, however, condemn it within the realm of national politics.

The Bible lays down more than just ten "rules". Hell, the most important one (Luke 6:31), isn't even mentioned within the body of the Commandments (Exodus 3).

Further readings:

http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/gay-rights


Yeah but my point was that the 10 Commandments were one of the few physical earthly items made by God's own "hands", yet He did not mention this "abomination" in one of these rare occurrences.

The Bible is written by men "inspired" by God. The Commandments are God sans the middle man. Hence me finding this absence of mention odd.

(Luke 6:31) Is basically a summary of commandments 5-10

[Homyrrh]

Yeah but my point was that the 10 Commandments were one of the few physical earthly items made by God's own "hands", yet He did not mention this "abomination" in one of these rare occurrences.

The Bible is written by men "inspired" by God. The Commandments are God sans the middle man. Hence me finding this absence of mention odd.

(Luke 6:31) Is basically a summary of commandments 5-10
Understandable. You probably not the only person, including myself, who's troubled with interpreting the Bible :rolleyes::D

And though you have generalized on the whole regarding the passage from the Gospel According to Luke, admittedly it's a legitimate conclusion. However, the immediate context of the verse in the sixth chapter seems to deviate at least slightly from any direct reference to the Commandments. While the New Testament (of which the Gospels constitute the first four books) makes countless allusions (usually noted and/or explained in the study notes) to the Old Testament, this passage from Luke does not (or at least, does not seem to). I'm personally not sure, or convicted, that quantifying the mention of certain "topics" or "issues" presented in the text is the best way to decipher their importance.

The ways of this Book are mysterious, for lack of a better term. It is a work of history and guidance, and is altogether a good read even for those not of a Christian faith.

As for this topic, I think my previous post (last on page 1) covered it well enough).

[Vong]

Why is it that every damn issue in the U.S. ends with a discussion over what is said in that fucking book? >_<

[Homyrrh]

Why is it that every damn issue in the U.S. ends with a discussion over what is said in that fucking book? >_<
Already said my piece. Can't really translate it any further.

[QUENTIN]

Why is it that every damn issue in the U.S. ends with a discussion over what is said in that fucking book? >_<

This annoys me as much as it annoys you I'm sure, it sucks and it's stupid. But I'm also pretty appreciative right now to have someone like Homyrrh posting here. After several years of bashing our heads against the brick wall that was Lynn while she put her fingers in her ears and recited Bible verses, then having religion enter almost no conversations here for a few months, it's nice to see a representative of that vast majority of Americans (Christians) who is still open to debate, receptive to other's ideas and opinions, and recognizes that the Constitution and the Bible are entirely separate documents that should have no bearing on each other.

I do find it curious that the religious right focuses so much on homosexuals, considering how little relative attention is paid to them in the Bible. Surely homosexuality is condemned, but why not go after idolaters, the greedy, and liars of which there are millions more of in the country, the book seems far more concerned with, and who actually negatively effect others with their actions? Actually, why not focus the evangelical movement of 90 million Christians on ending poverty, something Jesus talks about more than any other subject, and when that's solved they can refocus their attention to condemning gays and single mothers.

[Homyrrh]

This annoys me as much as it annoys you I'm sure, it sucks and it's stupid. But I'm also pretty appreciative right now to have someone like Homyrrh posting here. After several years of bashing our heads against the brick wall that was Lynn while she put her fingers in her ears and recited Bible verses, then having religion enter almost no conversations here for a few months, it's nice to see a representative of that vast majority of Americans (Christians) who is still open to debate, receptive to other's ideas and opinions, and recognizes that the Constitution and the Bible are entirely separate documents that should have no bearing on each other.

I do find it curious that the religious right focuses so much on homosexuals, considering how little relative attention is paid to them in the Bible. Surely homosexuality is condemned, but why not go after idolaters, the greedy, and liars of which there are millions more of in the country, the book seems far more concerned with, and who actually negatively effect others with their actions? Actually, why not focus the evangelical movement of 90 million Christians on ending poverty, something Jesus talks about more than any other subject, and when that's solved they can refocus their attention to condemning gays and single mothers.
In partial response to both Quentin and Vong, I think it is obvious, for good or bad, that nearly all of the conservative platform, parts of the liberal, and the basis of Western law are all rooted in the Bible (Exodus 20). Thou shalt not kill (Com. 6, Exodus 20:13), thou shalt not steal (8, 20:15), thou shalt not lie (9, 20:16), and thou shalt keep holy the Sabbath [i.e. - the blue laws like not selling cars on Sundays, etc.](4, 20:12). These are at least four, which seem to constitute a valid reason that supports, at the least, the [I]inclusion of the Bible in debate of social issues.

After all, as I think can be acknowledged by all involved posters here, most conservatives (not all, excepting myself for example) subscribe to the Religious Right platform, and consequently feel convicted to adhere to their faith on every level life, including and especially politics. This is why nearly every issue (i.e.- something that has at least two argued sides) includes mention of the Bible.

And Quentin, one of the gravest, ultimate, and eternal faults of Christians is convenience. The Bible is used and manipulated to mean what it is wanted to mean, regardless of who one is or what they stand for. And I think greed is a much too intangible, less important issue than others you mentioned, like poverty. Besides, public figures like Warren Buffet are prime examples as to how capitalism, at its most extreme, should be handled ($700k home, donating his $62 billon fortune, etc.), and that greed isn't always synonymous with money.

Ultimately, homosexuality is an actual debated issue--is it moral? immoral? intrinsic? chosen?--as opposed to something like poverty; yes, people are poor. That is unfortunate, but out of convenience it is easier to condemn homosexuals than to feed billions.

[Vong]

I respect relgious opinions, to an extent.

Extreme theists (of any faith) are basing their opinions on words written over a thousand years ago that has very little meaning in today's context and society. We (should) have evolved beyond relying on what ancient words of mystical importance wants us to do and figure things out for ourselves.

The respect that I have for religious zealots is for their good intentions (at least some of them). Those that are believers but adhere to evolving societal benchmarks are good in my books. Those that keep their heads in a book and look to the stars for answers get a thumbs down from me.

[RicochetShaw]

I wonder if the US Supreme Court will eventually pick this up on appeal. Then things could get really interesting.

[Kevin Lockard]

Who cares. I'm all for gays getting equal rights, and I loathe how gays are very often treated as if they are of another species altogether, but really, there isn't a whole lot a married gay couple can do that an unmarried gay couple couldn't do, so I don't quite see the big deal, on a personal level.

I feel the same way about "straight" marriage.

EDIT;

And for the record, homosexuality has NOTHING to do with "morals." Homosexuality is a part of nature. There are several species in large numbers that have taken part, and continue to do so, in homosexual experiences, including humans, and this has happened throughout the dawn of history. The whole idea that homosexuality may raise a question about a person's morale is outdated, and is doing nothing but holding back further progression of society as a whole.

[MadsenOMC]

I doubt most gays choose to be gay. A small amount might, sure. But so what? Let them. Adults should be able to make those choices. I have to say, though, that in my personal experience, it is not a choice. I had a gay roommate/friend for three years, gay classmates, gay professors, and gay acquaintances (friend of a friend and the like). None ever said they chose to be gay, nor did any ever know someone who did. I think it's a mistake to insinuate that most of them choose it. I can't imagine it's more than a very small amount.

I get tired of the bible defense, too. Most people acknowledge that it is open to interpretation. It's silly to state that its stance on homosexuality is clear. How about some context? Plenty of people interpret it plenty of different ways. Either way, it's asinine to use it as a defense against gay marriage.

[Homyrrh]

I doubt most gays choose to be gay. A small amount might, sure. But so what? Let them. Adults should be able to make those choices. I have to say, though, that in my personal experience, it is not a choice. I had a gay roommate/friend for three years, gay classmates, gay professors, and gay acquaintances (friend of a friend and the like). None ever said they chose to be gay, nor did any ever know someone who did. I think it's a mistake to insinuate that most of them choose it. I can't imagine it's more than a very small amount.

I get tired of the bible defense, too. Most people acknowledge that it is open to interpretation. It's silly to state that its stance on homosexuality is clear. How about some context? Plenty of people interpret it plenty of different ways. Either way, it's asinine to use it as a defense against gay marriage.
I have a firm, supportable (see p. 1) conviction that, while the Bible may not be black and white, any legitimate interpretation will condemn homosexuality and all of its aspects; accordingly it is a sin (at least biblically). I honestly see little reasonable deviation that can be made from this. As I had unfortunately mentioned earlier, the text of the Bible is often manipulated for "convenience" and argument; I need go no further than point to polygamist Mormonism.

Regardless, it is unfounded and ludicrous for the right (or, objectively, others) to use this as their basis for substantiating an argument against gay rights, of course inclusive of marriage, or, down the line, universal adoption rights. While the United States is neither a theocracy or a fully-respectable Christian nation, it is still governed by many of the Bible's core teachings (see my post before this). It is unfortunate, then, that some cannot adequately see "the forest from the trees" and realize that while we, as a nation, can be influenced by the Bible, it cannot provide the platform on which our politics are made and people are governed.

[MadsenOMC]

Well-said Homyrrh. I can't really argue with any of that. I also don't think that religion should have anything to do with who can and can't get married in this country. My wife and I didn't get married in a church, nor do we belong to a church.

[SpoonMan999]

Though I have already admitted to being a Republican and a bit Conservative I'm going to shock and awe and say I live in California and voted in favor of gay marriage. What I believe in is best described as "non-religious conservatism." With that said I am a bit upset at this turn of events, why? Because when asked our opinions the people of California voted AGAINST gay marriage. Then, the supreme court said fuck your vote and over turned it. I'm glad they have this right now but I'm upset the majority was not properly represented.

With that said onto the religious aspect. Our country has a "seperation of church and state" policy. What the Bible says should never be used as an argument when determining law.

This quote is taken from another forum I post on in a thread on the same subject.

"1 Corinthians 6:9-10, NIV"
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.



The next verse isn't commonly translated as homosexual, so we will temporarily depart from our use of the NIV.

"1 Timothy 1:10, NASB"
and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,



Now. That's what they say in English. Homosexuals, homosexual offenders, effeminate, or sodomites. Let's look at them in Greek.

Homosexual, in Greek, is now: ομοφυλοφιλικός, or omophulophilikos as best as my translating abilities carry me. Now, we'll play spot the word.

"1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Greek"
ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; μὴ πλανᾶσθε: οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται οὔτε κλέπται οὔτε πλεονέκται, οὐ μέθυσοι, οὐ λοίδοροι, οὐχ ἅρπαγες βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν.



That section that I've bolded is where the words translated to homosexual and company are. Let's look at them closely.

μαλακοὶ, or malakoi, and ἀρσενοκοῖται, or arsenokoitai. Do those look like ομοφυλοφιλικός, or omophulophilikos? On to Timothy.

"1 Timothy 1:10, Greek"
πόρνοις, ἀρσενοκοίταις, ἀνδραποδισταῖς, ψεύσταις, ἐπιόρκοις, καὶ εἴ τι ἕτερον τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀντίκειται,



See ομοφυλοφιλικός? Doubtful. ἀρσενοκοίταις is what shows up. It says arsenokoitais, which I'm told is the same as arsenokoitai. Still isn't omophulophilikos.

To continue with this, I will quote a man who has done much more research on the subject than I could at my age.

"Reverend Mel White from www.soulforce.org"
Now what do the writings of Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 say, first, about God, and then about homosexuality? These are the last two places in the Bible that seem to refer to same-sex behavior. We can combine them because they are so similar.

Paul is exasperated. The Christians in Ephesus and Corinth are fighting among themselves. (Sound familiar?) In Corinth they're even suing one another in secular courts. Paul shouts across the distance, "You are breaking God's heart by the way you are treating one another."

Like any good writer, Paul anticipates their first question: "Well, how are we supposed to treat one another?" Paul answers, "You know very well how to treat one another from the Jewish law written on tablets of stone."

The Jewish law was created by God to help regulate human behavior. To remind the churches in Corinth and Ephesus how God wants us to treat one another, Paul recites examples from the Jewish law first. Don't kill one another. Don't sleep with a person who is married to someone else. Don't lie or cheat or steal. The list goes on to include admonitions against fornication, idolatry, whoremongering, perjury, drunkenness, revelry, and extortion. He also includes "malokois" and "arsenokoitai."

Here's where the confusion begins. What's a malokois? What's an arsenokoitai? Actually, those two Greek words have confused scholars to this very day. We'll say more about them later, when we ask what the texts say about sex. But first let's see what the texts say about God.

After quoting from the Jewish law, Paul reminds the Christians in Corinth that they are under a new law: the law of Jesus, a law of love that requires us to do more than just avoid murder, adultery, lying, cheating, and stealing. Paul tells them what God wants is not strict adherence to a list of laws, but a pure heart, a good conscience, and a faith that isn't phony.

That's the lesson we all need to learn from these texts. God doesn't want us squabbling over who is "in" and who is "out." God wants us to love one another. It's God's task to judge us. It is NOT our task to judge one another.

So what do these two texts say about homosexuality? Are gays and lesbians on that list of sinners in the Jewish law that Paul quotes to make an entirely different point?

Greek scholars say that in first century the Greek word malaokois probably meant "effeminate call boys." The New Revised Standard Version says "male prostitutes."

As for arsenokoitai, Greek scholars don't know exactly what it means -- and the fact that we don't know is a big part of this tragic debate. Some scholars believe Paul was coining a name to refer to the customers of "the effeminate call boys." We might call them "dirty old men." Others translate the word as "sodomites," but never explain what that means.

In 1958, for the first time in history, a person translating that mysterious Greek word into English decided it meant homosexuals, even though there is, in fact, no such word in Greek or Hebrew. But that translator made the decision for all of us that placed the word homosexual in the English-language Bible for the very first time.

In the past, people used Paul's writings to support slavery, segregation, and apartheid. People still use Paul's writings to oppress women and limit their role in the home, in church, and in society.

Now we have to ask ourselves, "Is it happening again?" Is a word in Greek that has no clear definition being used to reflect society's prejudice and condemn God's gay children?

We all need to look more closely at that mysterious Greek word arsenokoitai in its original context. I find most convincing the argument from history that Paul is condemning the married men who hired hairless young boys (malakois) for sexual pleasure just as they hired smooth-skinned young girls for that purpose.

Responsible homosexuals would join Paul in condemning anyone who uses children for sex, just as we would join anyone else in condemning the threatened gang rape in Sodom or the behavior of the sex-crazed priests and priestesses in Rome. So, once again, I am convinced that this passage says a lot about God, but nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.



A big question to ask is this: "If Paul didn't condemn homosexuals before these two verses... And Christ didn't condemn them... and the Old Testament didn't condemn them... But everything else Paul condemned was condemned by the Old Testament or Christ... Where'd he get it from?"

Paul does not condemn homosexuals. Bad translators do.

Another chunk I wrote on Paul's passage in Romans:

There are numerous clues to understanding that passage. First, "They knew the truth of the Creator, but exchanged it for a lie." (I'm paraphrasing from memory, btw.) In that bit, it says that they knew about God but decided to ignore Him. Second, "They worshiped other gods." There's mentions of animals and such, as I recall. So, they knew about God, ignored Him, and started to worship other gods. Idolatry. Third, "So, God gave them to shameful lusts." Now, there's actually two things in that. First, "God gave them [...]" This wording is reminiscent of God turning the heart of the Pharaoh, or even better, removing His Spirit from King Solomon. If we recall the story of Solomon, Solomon was loved and blessed by God. However, Solomon began worshiping other gods. The gods of his wives. God, angered and saddened, removed His Spirit and allowed Solomon to fall into a degenerative path. The second bit, tied in with the Solomon story, is the word lusts. Shameful lusts, at that. Now, Solomon had tons of wives. He gave into their religious ways to please them because of their beauty. Lust. Which we already know is a sin. If Paul's "they" is indeed the Romans, there is a distinct possibility that Paul is referring to orgies. Idolatrous orgies. (Which is something Solomon could've done with his wives, btw...) In the Roman religion, there were many different sexual festivals and feasts. One that I like to liken this verse grouping to is the feast of Bacchus. Bacchus, as some may know, is the Roman equivalent of the Greek Dionysus. He is the god of debauchery and hedonism and, more importantly, alcohol. Wine. Bacchus had a group of women that followed him around the world, the Maenids. Crazy crazy sexual women. Like, by crazy, I mean insane. Anyways, one of the ways the Romans celebrated Bacchus was by getting piss-a** drunk and having raunchy, orgiastic sex. With everything and everyone. In public. I'd personally think that a public drunken orgy is rather shameful, wouldn't you? And it's definitely unnatural.