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

[EricBess]

Are you seriously attributing the price of petroleum to gay marriage?

No, I'm attributing it to greed. I attribute the fact that more and more greedy people are in positions to cause such problems to a general decline of family values. And I want to make it clear that I'm not "attacking" specific cases. I am certain that there are specific cases where some homosexual couples are better fit to raise children than some hetrosexual ones. I'm just saying that in general, there are benefits to "traditional" circumstances.

rokapoke -

#1 - Yes
#2 - No, but only because I think it is dangerous for government to regulate "marriage" as a concept at all.

Consider this - California has just decided that they will allow marriage between homosexual couples, right? What's the next step? A homosexual couple goes to their church and asked to be joined in marriage. The church, not accepting gay marriage, refuses. The couple sues. The state steps in and tells the church that the government recognizes gay marriage, so the church must allow for that if they want to maintain their "legal" status as a church.

This sort of thing has happened before (ask the boy scouts) and it's just a matter of time before the courts actually uphold something like this. That's dangerously close to establishment of religion by the state, IMO.

Also - I want to make something clear. I don't believe anyone has been offended by my words (I'm sure many don't even take me seriously ) and I certainly haven't been offended. As always, I appreciate hearing other people's viewpoints. While I may not agree with you, I do learn from you (and hopefully vice-versa). I find that it helps to understand other points of view to avoid disrespecting people.

And to that end, if anyone feels that I have disrespected you, I apologize and want to make it clear that this wasn't my intent.

And Oversoul - I wasn't trying to "predict doom and gloom". I used S&G hastily and more with the intent of a biblical reference that certain things were, shall we say "frowned upon" from a religious standpoint. I have a New Testiment example as well that is actually fairly specific, but realistically, I think that I've harped on the religious element enough for people to know where I stand . I do agree that in many things, we are far better off than we have ever been in the past.

 

[Spiderman]

I am certain that there are specific cases where some homosexual couples are better fit to raise children than some hetrosexual ones. I'm just saying that in general, there are benefits to "traditional" circumstances.

But can homosexuality alone be a disqualifying factor in adopting? That's the main point we were discussing in the first place. Not "certain cases" here or there, because obviously the agency will look at the home and decide on whatever circumstances they find. But if an application came through and indicated that the prospective parents were gay, is that automatic grounds for disqualification?

 

[Mooseman]

But can homosexuality alone be a disqualifying factor in adopting? That's the main point we were discussing in the first place. Not "certain cases" here or there, because obviously the agency will look at the home and decide on whatever circumstances they find. But if an application came through and indicated that the prospective parents were gay, is that automatic grounds for disqualification?

Of course, if you believe that such a behavior is inconsistent with a positive lifestyle....
Of Course not, if you believe that such behavior/genetics....blah blah blah, is consistent with a positive lifestyle......

 

[Spiderman]

True dat...

But I'm hoping to show there no basis for disapproval despite one's personal opinion

 

[Mooseman]

Would you find smoking a disqualifying behavior? Drinking? Doing drugs?
Pedophilia? Dementia? Bi-polar disorder?

 

[Oversoul]

Consider this - California has just decided that they will allow marriage between homosexual couples, right? What's the next step? A homosexual couple goes to their church and asked to be joined in marriage. The church, not accepting gay marriage, refuses. The couple sues. The state steps in and tells the church that the government recognizes gay marriage, so the church must allow for that if they want to maintain their "legal" status as a church.

That cannot happen. It would be totally unconstitutional. The state cannot force churches to accept people as members.

And it's a slippery slope argument anyway. Just because you're worried about the "next step" doesn't provide anything either way regarding the California decision.

This sort of thing has happened before (ask the boy scouts) and it's just a matter of time before the courts actually uphold something like this. That's dangerously close to establishment of religion by the state, IMO.

I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure that in every single case in which the BSA was sued in an issue that didn't involve access to government property (most notably scouting troops sponsored by military bases), the courts have ruled in favor of the BSA. This is entirely consistent with the First Amendment.

Also - I want to make something clear. I don't believe anyone has been offended by my words (I'm sure many don't even take me seriously ) and I certainly haven't been offended. As always, I appreciate hearing other people's viewpoints. While I may not agree with you, I do learn from you (and hopefully vice-versa). I find that it helps to understand other points of view to avoid disrespecting people.

Likewise.

 

[DarthFerret]

I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure that in every single case in which the BSA was sued in an issue that didn't involve access to government property (most notably scouting troops sponsored by military bases), the courts have ruled in favor of the BSA. This is entirely consistent with the First Amendment.

Actually, I believe what EB was refering to was the allowance of girls into the Boy Scouts. I was in scouts when I was younger, and made it to Eagle Rank. One of the reasons that I will not become a Scout Leader in my neighborhood is that they now HAVE to allow a girl to participate. This is because some people did sue the Boy Scouts for not allowing girls to become members and go to the Boy Scout camps.


As for the answer to the earlier questions. Well, I am pretty sure most of the people here have already determined my answers to them. #1 is No, and #2 is also No. Now, keep in mind that if there is a law that is passed that contradicts my answers, I will follow the law and recognize thier rights. But if it is a matter of my personal opinion, then I have the right to believe as such.

Do I believe all Irish have bad tempers? No, but I have seen quite a few in my time that do (and are proud of it...heh heh).

Spidey and Mooseman: I think I know where your arguments have broken down. Moose will continue to argue in his favor that Homosexuality is a choice of behavior, and if desired can be stopped (like smoking). Spidey will continue to argue that there is an uncontrollable genetic reason that they behave the way that the do and cannot stop even if they desire to. Thus since niether of you are on the same page, the arguments will, to quote Oversoul again "Come full circle."

I happen to agree with both of you to a degree. I think that there are some genetic qualities that help predisposition some people towards Homosexuality, however I also think that it is still within thier control and that they do have a choice. Kinda the same as I am more likely to get angrier quicker (I have a pretty bad temper and a fairly short fuse) however, I have also been working on controlling that type of behavior. It is not easy, but so far, my anger has become more manageable. I have done this without anger management classes, but note that they do exist, therefore someone somewhere agrees that this is modifiable behavior. Does that mean that someone could attend a Homosexual Management class? I have no idea. But, some churchs do offer such things (I think they term it as sin management, but I could be wrong as my church does not offer this at the current time).

I know I jump around from point to point, but now you have an insight into the way I think. Heh heh

 

[Spiderman]

Would you find smoking a disqualifying behavior? Drinking? Doing drugs?
Pedophilia? Dementia? Bi-polar disorder?

Depends on the severity of the "behavior". Drugs, pedophilia, dementia, and bi-polar are probably the closest to being disqualified than not.

DF: Here's the crutch: if homosexuality, i.e. preferring the company of the same sex is a "choice", then so must heterosexuality. So are people choosing to be with members of the opposite sex or are they just naturally attracted to them?

 

[Spiderman]

I just read (yesterday? today's online news?) that a referendum? something like that about re-banning of gay marriage is going on California's ballot?

Sorry for all of the questions marks, I don't remember the exact process. But the issue is not over and done with (it never is), it's going back to the voters is the bottom line.

 

[Mooseman]

Depends on the severity of the "behavior". Drugs, pedophilia, dementia, and bi-polar are probably the closest to being disqualified than not.

DF: Here's the crutch: if homosexuality, i.e. preferring the company of the same sex is a "choice", then so must heterosexuality. So are people choosing to be with members of the opposite sex or are they just naturally attracted to them?

So who decides which behavior is "acceptable" and which isn't? Who decides the "severity"?

Preferring to be in the company of, is not the same as having sex with..... many men and women find friendships with the same sex to be closer and deeper than with the opposite sex, but that doesn't mean they have to have sex with them....

The only difference between hetero and homo is who you have sex with.....

Yes, heretosexuality is a choice.....one with a purpose..... procreation....

 

[Spiderman]

The "experts", who presumably have tracked how kids are raised in such environments. Most, if not all, of those examples have been shown to be detrimental to raising kids. And as I said before, if it's been shown that raising kids in a same-sex environment is equally detrimental, then I'll add that to the list.

Sorry, I was using "prefer to be in the company of" as a euphesm (sp?) for sex. I'll be more direct next time

And as someone (turgy22?) pointed out earlier, procreation is an invalid argument for heterosexual purpose since one can have kids in alternative ways. It may have been okay in the past when there weren't such alternatives, but that's not the case these days.

 

[Mooseman]

And as someone (turgy22?) pointed out earlier, procreation is an invalid argument for heterosexual purpose since one can have kids in alternative ways. It may have been okay in the past when there weren't such alternatives, but that's not the case these days.

But I said that the choice has a reason, a reason the other choice does not have. My statement is fact, not opinion.


Experts? What experts? This is getting ridiculous, your argument is now based on "experts"? Is this only "experts" you believe in or any old expert?

Sorry to sound condescending...... I'm failing to enjoy this discussion anymore....

 

[Spiderman]

The fact is that people have sex for reasons other than procreation. Hence, it's not really a valid reason for choosing "heterosexuality".

I say "experts" because I can't name any specific studies or people who have actually said this stuff because I'm not an expert myself. I would hope it's self evident that most of those behaviors you list are detrimental to raising a kid, but since you actually bring them up, either you truly believe they aren't or you're playing devil's advocate. If it's the former, I can't convince you because I can't bring up any hard evidence (if I was in your position, I wouldn't believe me either without it so I understand) and if it's the latter, then you don't need convincing.

 

[EricBess]

That cannot happen. It would be totally unconstitutional. The state cannot force churches to accept people as members.

Don't kid yourself. The state can deny tax exempt status to churches who fail to allow homosexual union. I'm not saying that this will happen anytime soon and I hope it never happens, but plenty of laws have been inacted that aren't "constitutional" and when the definition of "constitutional" is largely influenced by a small group of indivuduals.

I can almost guarentee that it is only a matter of time before this issue finds itself before the Supreme Court.

 

[turgy22]

I have a new thought to add to this discussion. A few people noted that they are opposed to marriage being in any way sanctioned by the government. So here's a few questions for those who feel that way (or anyone else who just wants to answer the questions):
1) Are you or do you ever plan to get married?
2) If yes, did you or will you get a government-sanctioned marriage license or are you / will you only married in the eyes of your church?
3) If you did / will receive a marriage license, then why?

 

[DarthFerret]

I will bite

1) Yes I am married.
2) That would largely depend upon the law. I married my wife in the church, before the eyes of the congregation and of God. I married her in a religious ceremony that the State at this time also recognizes. Therefore, in the eyes of both God and the government, I am married.
3) I recieved a marriage license because that is the law. In order to marry (at least in Texas) you must have a license. I may not agree with having to get one (I do not believe that the government should put a license on any religious ceremony), but my religious belief also involves following the law of man where it does not conflict with following the law of God. Therefore, I did both (as I would assume most people here have done as well).

I think I answered the questions that you asked, and the way that you meant them to be asked. If not, clarify and I will try to get to what you really are wanting.

 

[Oversoul]

Not married. Don't plan on being married.

 

[Spiderman]

1) Am married
2) Got a government license and was married by a pastor, although not in a church setting but where we held our reception. The ceremony was as if it was held in a church though (followed the United Methodist marriage ceremony).
3) It was the law; needed to get a government license to get married legally.

 

[turgy22]

3) I recieved a marriage license because that is the law.

It's the law of the state. But is it the law of the church? And if you only care to be married in the eyes of God, why not just go to the church and ask for a religious ceremony, completely bypassing the government laws.

For example, the United Church of Christ supports gay marriage and asks all its congregations to marry any couple, regardless of gender. Therefore, any same-sex couple belonging to the UCC can go before their pastor and get married in the eyes of God. It won't be a legal marriage, but it will be recognized by their church. So if you don't care about or oppose the government's involvement of marriage, why bother with the licensing?

 

[DarthFerret]

The "law" of my church/religion is to obey the law of man where it does not conflict with the law of God. I am pretty sure I already answered that.