Proposition 8 Overturned

[imaginary friend]

1) thought I'd add a few other translations of said verse:    http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/6-9.htm

Most still specifically mention "homosexuality" and "males lying down with males."  So which translation do you favor?

I laugh at all of them. I don't live my life or base my ethics on the words of fairy tales.

Reality - it totally rocks!   

[JTBaby]

Another blow against the bigots of catholicism (gay marriage bad, but protecting child abusers is ok), mormonism (gay marriage bad, polygamy and racism good, now where the bloody hell ARE those plates ?) , islam (gay marriage bad, honor killings good) and evangelicals (gay marriage bad, bombing family planning clinics good)

[Tumbling Dice]

Another blow against the bigots of catholicism (gay marriage bad, but protecting child abusers is ok), mormonism (gay marriage bad, polygamy and racism good, now where the bloody hell ARE those plates ?) , islam (gay marriage bad, honor killings good) and evangelicals (gay marriage bad, bombing family planning clinics good)

Oooh, you're such an extremist, JT.

[striker]

Another blow against the bigots of catholicism (gay marriage bad, but protecting child abusers is ok), mormonism (gay marriage bad, polygamy and racism good, now where the bloody hell ARE those plates ?) , islam (gay marriage bad, honor killings good) and evangelicals (gay marriage bad, bombing family planning clinics good)

Speaking of which, here's what Mormons used to show to kids. It gets really interesting at 2:10.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q6brMrFw0E

And Mitt Romney is ahead. Wow.

[Aqua]

The people against gay marriage are idiots, bigots, and quite possibly one of the worst kinds of human beings.

So because I believe in God and verses like 1 Corinthians 6:9, you equate me (and other Christians) with the likes of Hitler and this guy??

BTW, what are your thoughts about "triangular triads"?  Anything goes, right?

Unless we all get on the same page and look at humanity for what it really is (evolved apes), we aren't going anywhere.

From where did morals originate?  Marc Hauser of Harvard has been leading the research on the origins of morals… well, that is until he was fired for eight counts of academic misconduct.  How ironic.

Bottom line, there is absolutely zero basis for morals or ethics in nature.  And as Professor William Provine famously stated: “modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear… There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death… There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.”

Now if we are all just evolved animals, and there is no free will (according to Provine), then I obviously can't help the views that I hold, right?

I implore you to open your mind to common sense and the truth, and to stop clinging desperately to your current conception of morals.
Firstly, there is basis for morality in evolution. Secondly, we fight Darwinian impulses all the time. To speciously use the phrase "just evolved animals" does not change the fact that we are highly evolved animals capable of making any choices we want. Contraception is an example of us resisting a Darwinian impulse. And there are many other examples.

Secondly, even if there was no basis for good and evil, moral or immoral in the natural world, why on earth does that matter?. There still CAN be a basis for morality in human society. We can create a right or wrong. In fact, we already have. We did when we rejected old religious teachings in favour of modern, secular morality, such as the abolition of slavery (among many others). We base these moral decisions on a criteria of fairness and the well being of sentient beings. This has been the direction of positive morality for the past 2000 years. When Ryanm speaks of a "conscience" as a filter for biblical teachings and "divine" mandate, this is what he's talking about: empathy and understanding teaches us what is right or wrong, and it is ultimately through these two avenues that we make our moral decisions.  I hear all the time that without God there is no "objective morality", or to quote your reference "no purposes". Can we please grow up to be a society that isn't paralysed and stupefied by the truth? Even if there are no "purposes", it does not mean that there isn't earthly purpose in our daily lives. It does not mean we can't construct morality, whether that involves repudiating our Darwinian impulses or not. Perhaps we should imbibe the Hindu moral teaching of good for the sake of good, independent of reward. It's the most practical, selfless, earthly path for human prosperity. So objective purpose or not, divine mandate or not, supernatural supervision or not, and having impunity or not, we can still be moral beings. Because luckily, we have two innate agents of morality, namely empathy and understanding. We are more or less agreed on what is right as a species. I hate to offer you a cliche example, but yes, look at the "golden rule", present in teachings of Confucius and other pre-biblical sources, as well in areas of the world then-untouched by Judeo-Christian moral philosophy.

Furthermore, though, this is how our morality should be sorted out! By rational discussion and analysis of implications. This is the method we trust to Law and Medicine. I'd like to think that we've lived long enough as a self aware species to know that sometimes answers aren't black and white, and absolutism, most of the time, has crippling deficiencies when it comes to addressing real world problems and actually achieving just outcomes. Once again... I direct you to the legal system.

I also want to point out one more thing. If the Christian God was somehow disproven tomorrow, the world would be as is. My neighbours would not go out raping and pillaging. Nor would they come over to my house and steal my U2 DVDs.
We'd have to form a morality based on the criteria I mentioned above. Fairness and the well being of sentient creatures.

Your conception of morality as being arbitered necessarily and solely by the divine is affecting the way you view gay marriage.

The thing is, thanks to pluralism and multiculturalism, trying to incorporate the idea that your God is this moral arbiter, and that the bible is the documentation of his will into legislation, is not acceptable and it could be well argued is bigoted. Your religious beliefs can't be given any greater importance than those of other religions and those of the non religious. (God Bless America).

Edit: I don't think it is yet proven, by the way, that we have no free will without the existence of a God. I am aware some eminent scientists hold the view, but to lump in evolution with the absence of free will is misleading.
And to address your point about triangular triads, homosexuality "is a form of love as well as sex", and therefore demands our respect as such. (There's quite a stirring bible passage on love actually). That is the difference.

[The Unknown Caller]

^ I can't help but think that this post is a wonderfully written and constructed argument which will be totally lost on the people who shout simplistic and outdated interpretations of randomly selected biblical verses as their justification for enshrining bigotry in public policy.

[RunningtoStandstill (The League of Extraordinary BonoPeople)]

The people against gay marriage are idiots, bigots, and quite possibly one of the worst kinds of human beings.

So because I believe in God and verses like 1 Corinthians 6:9, you equate me (and other Christians) with the likes of Hitler and this guy??

BTW, what are your thoughts about "triangular triads"?  Anything goes, right?

Unless we all get on the same page and look at humanity for what it really is (evolved apes), we aren't going anywhere.

From where did morals originate?  Marc Hauser of Harvard has been leading the research on the origins of morals… well, that is until he was fired for eight counts of academic misconduct.  How ironic.

Bottom line, there is absolutely zero basis for morals or ethics in nature.  And as Professor William Provine famously stated: “modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear… There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death… There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.”

Now if we are all just evolved animals, and there is no free will (according to Provine), then I obviously can't help the views that I hold, right?

I implore you to open your mind to common sense and the truth, and to stop clinging desperately to your current conception of morals.
Firstly, there is basis for morality in evolution. Secondly, we fight Darwinian impulses all the time. To speciously use the phrase "just evolved animals" does not change the fact that we are highly evolved animals capable of making any choices we want. Contraception is an example of us resisting a Darwinian impulse. And there are many other examples.

Secondly, even if there was no basis for good and evil, moral or immoral in the natural world, why on earth does that matter?. There still CAN be a basis for morality in human society. We can create a right or wrong. In fact, we already have. We did when we rejected old religious teachings in favour of modern, secular morality, such as the abolition of slavery (among many others). We base these moral decisions on a criteria of fairness and the well being of sentient beings. This has been the direction of positive morality for the past 2000 years. When Ryanm speaks of a "conscience" as a filter for biblical teachings and "divine" mandate, this is what he's talking about: empathy and understanding teaches us what is right or wrong, and it is ultimately through these two avenues that we make our moral decisions.  I hear all the time that without God there is no "objective morality", or to quote your reference "no purposes". Can we please grow up to be a society that isn't paralysed and stupefied by the truth? Even if there are no "purposes", it does not mean that there isn't earthly purpose in our daily lives. It does not mean we can't construct morality, whether that involves repudiating our Darwinian impulses or not. Perhaps we should imbibe the Hindu moral teaching of good for the sake of good, independent of reward. It's the most practical, selfless, earthly path for human prosperity. So objective purpose or not, divine mandate or not, supernatural supervision or not, and having impunity or not, we can still be moral beings. Because luckily, we have two innate agents of morality, namely empathy and understanding. We are more or less agreed on what is right as a species. I hate to offer you a cliche example, but yes, look at the "golden rule", present in teachings of Confucius and other pre-biblical sources, as well in areas of the world then-untouched by Judeo-Christian moral philosophy.

Furthermore, though, this is how our morality should be sorted out! By rational discussion and analysis of implications. This is the method we trust to Law and Medicine. I'd like to think that we've lived long enough as a self aware species to know that sometimes answers aren't black and white, and absolutism, most of the time, has crippling deficiencies when it comes to addressing real world problems and actually achieving just outcomes. Once again... I direct you to the legal system.

I also want to point out one more thing. If the Christian God was somehow disproven tomorrow, the world would be as is. My neighbours would not go out raping and pillaging. Nor would they come over to my house and steal my U2 DVDs.
We'd have to form a morality based on the criteria I mentioned above. Fairness and the well being of sentient creatures.

Your conception of morality as being arbitered necessarily and solely by the divine is affecting the way you view gay marriage.

The thing is, thanks to pluralism and multiculturalism, trying to incorporate the idea that your God is this moral arbiter, and that the bible is the documentation of his will into legislation, is not acceptable and it could be well argued is bigoted. Your religious beliefs can't be given any greater importance than those of other religions and those of the non religious. (God Bless America).

Edit: I don't think it is yet proven, by the way, that we have no free will without the existence of a God. I am aware some eminent scientists hold the view, but to lump in evolution with the absence of free will is misleading.
And to address your point about triangular triads, homosexuality "is a form of love as well as sex", and therefore demands our respect as such. (There's quite a stirring bible passage on love actually). That is the difference.

AQ, if I could stand up and applaud you right now, I would be doing so.  Couldn't have phrased it any better myself.

[Big Girls Are Best]

My brother and his husband were fortunate to wed in the short period of a few months after the CA Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage constitutional and before Prop 8 passed. 

So what happens if their job relocates them to a state that does not recognize gay marriage?  Are they still legally married?

It just astounds me that the initiative process was used to take rights away from other human beings.

Exactly where is this spelled out in the Constitution as a “right”?  Are you referring to the clause in the Declaration of Independence, “the pursuit of happiness”?  Because if so, then technically anything that makes people "happy" (e.g., triangular triads) is fair game, right?  Please explain how gay marriage is a “right.”

[striker]

My brother and his husband were fortunate to wed in the short period of a few months after the CA Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage constitutional and before Prop 8 passed. 

So what happens if their job relocates them to a state that does not recognize gay marriage?  Are they still legally married?

It just astounds me that the initiative process was used to take rights away from other human beings.

Exactly where is this spelled out in the Constitution as a “right”?  Are you referring to the clause in the Declaration of Independence, “the pursuit of happiness”?  Because if so, then technically anything that makes people "happy" (e.g., triangular triads) is fair game, right?  Please explain how gay marriage is a “right.”

Yeah, skip what I asked you to answer and go after what someone has said.
Quit viewing the constitution and your bible as a means of living, you tool. You should really think about what you're saying--it's devoid of any logic and reasoning.

[U2_fan8 [aka U28]]

Exactly where is this spelled out in the Constitution as a “right”?  Are you referring to the clause in the Declaration of Independence, “the pursuit of happiness”?  Because if so, then technically anything that makes people "happy" (e.g., triangular triads) is fair game, right?  Please explain how gay marriage is a “right.”

The 14th Amendment states that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Given the many tax and social security benefits of marriage, I'd say denying gays - citizens of the U.S. - the "privilege" of marriage is unconstitutional.

My my, this thread is devolving quickly...

[Blue Silken Sky]

My brother and his husband were fortunate to wed in the short period of a few months after the CA Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage constitutional and before Prop 8 passed. 

So what happens if their job relocates them to a state that does not recognize gay marriage?  Are they still legally married?

It just astounds me that the initiative process was used to take rights away from other human beings.

Exactly where is this spelled out in the Constitution as a “right”?  Are you referring to the clause in the Declaration of Independence, “the pursuit of happiness”?  Because if so, then technically anything that makes people "happy" (e.g., triangular triads) is fair game, right?  Please explain how gay marriage is a “right.”

To your first question, their marriage would only be recognized by the other states that currently recognize gay marriage.  For example, the currently file as married with the State of California but must file as single for their federal tax returns.  They don't work for companies that operate in other states, but I hardly see how the question is even relevant.  "Oh sh*t!  We're in Colorado now.  Guess we're not actually married!"  Or what?  "Let's not take a big opportunity in Colorado because our marriage won't be recognized?"  Hmm...would someone pose the same question to an interracial couple married in Massachusetts in the 1950s considering a move to the South?

Secondly, you do know that each state has a constitution, right?  I'm speaking of the California State Constitution, which has been amended literally hundreds of times through the initiative process since the 1920s.  Citizens can bring initiatives before their fellow voters, and in California, initiatives (the propositions) can create new statutes and create amendments to the state constitution.  In 2000, California voters approved a proposition to define marriage as between only one man and one woman; I may be incorrect, but I believe this was passed as an amendment to the state constitution.  That initiative, like Prop 8, received literally millions of dollars in out-of-state funding.  In 2008, the California Supreme Court declared this new definition unconstitutional, based, I'm assuming, on rights previously enshrined in the state constitution.  That's what sparked the period of a few months when same-sex marriage was legally recognized in California.  Sure enough, the same out-of-state actors poured millions of dollars into the state to put Prop 8 on the ballet and promote the hell out it.  Then, in November of 2008, voters decided to overrule the State Supreme Court's declaration by replacing it with a new law. 

Does that make sense?  P.S. everybody: in every election since 1974, California's voters have gone to the polls and voted for more services but fewer taxes.  Go figure.   

[Big Girls Are Best]

Taking any one line out of any translation of the bible and believing it literally is dangerous… For instance, in 1 Corinthians 6:9, the message is essentially "the unworthy will not inherit the kingdom of God."

Well, let’s take 1 Corinthians 6 in context.  Following verse 9, Paul lists a few more unworthy things in verse 10.  But then he says in verse 11, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.”

Justified?  How is that possible?

He further states in verses 13 and 18, “Now the body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord… Flee sexual immorality.  Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body.”

So when taken in context, what exactly is Paul saying?  Sure, he listed several things in verses 9 and 10, but why does he spend the remainder of the chapter talking about sexual immorality?

Also, I find your mention of "triangular triads" misguided in this debate, which is about expanding marriage rights to same-sex couples. Bigamy or group marriages have nothing to do with this issue.

Of course they do!  And as a reader of HuffPo, I’m surprised you missed this:

'Sister Wives' Lawsuit: Federal Judge Rules TV Family Can Question Bigamy Statute (February 5, 2012)
A federal judge has ruled there's sufficient evidence to allow a polygamous family made famous by a reality TV show to pursue a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Utah's bigamy law.
 

Nor do other phenomena like bestiality or pedophilia, which are two more terms ignorant people love to throw into this debate because they lack the basic understanding of psychology

People who engage in these things are not entering into a contract.  However, people who wish to form a triad (or polygamy) are attempting to enter into a contract.

And pertaining to your last point, why isn't it possible that God guided mankind through the process of evolution? That's what I believe.

Jesus said in Matthew 19:4, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female.’” 

At the beginning of what?  Well, Jesus said in Mark 10:6, “from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’”

So if God merely guided a blind, automated evolutionary process that eventually resulted in humans, then are you suggesting that Jesus was not exactly being truthful about God’s direct role in the creation of humans? 

Science and religion aren't opposites, they're complementary languages trying to explain the same thing.

I don’t necessarily disagree, but science can neither explain Creation or the Big Bang because no one was there to make observations, nor is the origin event repeatable or falsifiable.  For example, how are we supposed to test Guth’s models for Inflation Theory?  Impossible!

Paul Davis writes in Taking Science On Faith (NYT, November 24, 2007), “until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.”

[The Unknown Caller]

It is somewhat disgusting (And yet not at all surprising) to see that opposition to this has abandoned any remote pretence to be about the actual law or the Constitution and has instead reverted to "My religion is right so I have the right to impose it on everyone, constitution be damned. Also, homosexuality = bigamy. Obviously."

[Big Girls Are Best]

Secondly, you do know that each state has a constitution, right? I'm speaking of the California State Constitution, which has been amended literally hundreds of times through the initiative process since the 1920s. Citizens can bring initiatives before their fellow voters, and in California, initiatives (the propositions) can create new statutes and create amendments to the state constitution.

Since gay marriage was brought before the voters and ultimately defeated, do the voters have any rights based on the process you have just outlined?

That initiative, like Prop 8, received literally millions of dollars in out-of-state funding… Sure enough, the same out-of-state actors poured millions of dollars into the state to put Prop 8 on the ballet…

So out-of-state funding is bad in this case, but perfectly fine when it comes to such things like the recall elections in Wisconsin, right?

Hate to break it to you, but there is out-of-state, special interest money in every election.

[briscoetheque]

The average cost of a wedding is $27,000.

The average cost of marriage is a whole lot more...