California overturns ban on same-sex marriage

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

...but then again, you're the expert.

LOL, no not at all. You've missed the point.

Rewriting and reinterpreting according to the tolerances of the different ages has been a continuous component of Christianity. It wasn't too long ago that Christians were using the Bible - the NEW Testament - both to keep women from voting ("Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, not to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." - 1 Timothy 2:11) and to condone slavery ("Slaves, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the forward." - 1 Peter 2:18). Guess what? As public attitudes changed, people found it increasingly difficult to ignore what their own minds were telling them, and gradually decided to "reinterpret" what was previously regarded as unambiguous dogma. If Christianity is still around in 200 years time, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see gay marriage accepted, and the rules re-interpreted once again - or even re-worded, like the way 'Slaves' has since been changed to 'Servants' in that latter verse – to accomodate the more enlightened general outlook of people.

Let's face it, I've yet to read any convincing reasons to oppose the marriage of two people of the same sex other than religious ones - that it says so in the Bible/Quran/etc. Though I'd be interested to hear any non-religious arguments put forward.

Genuinely I don't mean to sound arrogant, but when it comes to justifying moral positions, Christians might as well quote me the script of a Spiderman comic. In fact at least in that I might expect to see some of the fruits of the last 1000-2000 years of enlightenment thought, of knowledge and progress (much as I appreciate that some of the 'nicer stuff' in the New Testament was to some degree ahead of its time).

The point though is, not only are the rules of these holy books conceived entirely by man rather than some God or other, but also that they're on a continuous path of being reinterpreted according to what is acceptable at any given time, and the issue of gay marriage appears to represent one such transitionary issue.

[Sean]

I think most religious people also tend to forget that many of the religious teachings from 2000 years ago when the New Testament was being written were based on specific needs of the time. I mean let's face it - we just don't have the same problems with leprosy today that they were having back in those days. And in my personal opinion, the rules and laws surrounding marriage are an example of this when you look at them from a practical point of view. As one example, marriage used to be more about procreation because numerous hands were needed around the home/farm/family business to survive. That's simply not the case today. At this point in history, what I personally find to be important is that marriage, be it between a man and a woman, or two women, or two men, needs to be founded on love and mutual respect, and taken seriously. As I've said before in this thread, it serves a huge and important social purpose, and I just want to see it, as well as the people who wish to take part in it, treated with the thoughtfulness they deserve.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

http://www.kcra.com/cnn-news/17964159/detail.html

Remember that thing called Seperate, But Equal.

Same difference.

[myrrh]

I obviously don't agree with gay marriage.

However, in terms of this law, then I see no problem with it. Why? Because the whole system of law in the United States is based on Democracy, and not any sort of religious law. Simply put, Democracy is the rule of the people, and if enough people want to allow gay marriage, then there should be no problem with that.

Now, say if here in Morocco, they decided to allow gay marriage I would have a serious problem with that. This is because here they are supposed to base their laws on Islaam, and this would be a clear violation of the laws of Islaam.

I don't think that it is correct for any state in the United States to define marriage as because this definition is based on some religious belief, and such things should not play a role in United States politics, according to the system of the United States.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by myrrh

I obviously don't agree with gay marriage.

However, in terms of this law, then I see no problem with it. Why? Because the whole system of law in the United States is based on Democracy, and not any sort of religious law. Simply put, Democracy is the rule of the people, and if enough people want to allow gay marriage, then there should be no problem with that.

Now, say if here in Morocco, they decided to allow gay marriage I would have a serious problem with that. This is because here they are supposed to base their laws on Islaam, and this would be a clear violation of the laws of Islaam.

I don't think that it is correct for any state in the United States to define marriage as because this definition is based on some religious belief, and such things should not play a role in United States politics, according to the system of the United States.

Re. US - that's fair enough, and broad-minded of you. Of course it still sucks if you're homosexual and through random chance happen to be born in Morocco rather than the US, with no money to move abroad... but then to me that points to the merits of democracy rather than to any inconsistency on your part.

Btw, is that a fairly new thing, spelling Islaam with a second a (like how it should be pronounced) or is it really spelled like that elsewhere?

[myrrh]

Spelling things with a more grammatical lean has been going on for a few years amongst the people who read and make an attempt to pronounce things correctly. I have books published from 1999 that have it spelled Islaam, so it isn't all that new.

With regards to this in general with the religious standpoint: In Islaam homosexuality is a major sin. Islaam does not teach that you are born a homosexual, as then you would be born a sinner, and this is goes against the teachings of Islaam.

That being said, Islaam also teaches us that no one is perfect and everybody sins. However, one should not publically flaunt their sins. This is where the main issue of gay marriage would lie, because now you would be publically announcing that so-and-so are together and in doing so, you would now be subject to the 'law'.

As to the merits of democracy, well that is a whole other thread...

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by Deckard

Re. US - that's fair enough, and broad-minded of you.

um... I think he meant that the system is satanic, so let it be further satanic, which isn't really broad minded as it is defeatist and condemning.

not that I'm trying to attack you, myrrh, but that is what you meant, right?

glad to see you back around.

edit: ah yes, that's better. my sarcasm detector was turned off

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

um... I think he meant that the system is satanic, so let it be further satanic,

And are you implying Gay Love is satanic?

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Man, I'm at the edge of my seat waiting for this response.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by jOHN rODRIGUEZ

And are you implying Gay Love is satanic?

Yeah, Strangelet! Do you think that gay people are little satan babies?!?!? I'm waiting with bated breath to hear what a hateful gay-basher you are, because obviously, to anyone with(out) a brain, that's what you were saying!!!!!

Why oh why do I ever override my ignore settings?