It has been argued that since the U. S. is a secular nation, that society decides morality. Society was given the opportunity to draw a conclusion as to the legality of homosexual marriage, and decided that it was not legal. So judges consulted the constitution and decided that society was wrong in its moral conclusion and made homosexual marriage legal over society's objections.

So what I see is that is a contingent who is unwilling to allow their morality to be dictated by shamans consulting centuries old religious texts, supports shamans consulting centuries old secular texts to dictate societal moral standards.

Would that be considered "thread fluffing"?

;)

The root problem of over-zealous religious types (particularly Christians, but certainly not limited to them) is when they try to claim that they have an absolute monopoly on truth and salvation. Someone said a few posts back that the Bible is not to be taken literally. Thank you. FWIW I have read (and still do, occasionally) the Bible myself (I know, shocking to a lot of folks here). I also think there are some wonderful, uplifting and powerful stories in there. Great messages, good guidelines on how to live a good and positive and charitable life. But I most certainly do NOT believe it is "truth" or the "Word of God" word-for-word literally. Impossible. It is wrought with contradictions and inconsistencies, and this subject has been beaten to death on many other threads/forums.

I say let people take what they will away from the Bible/Koran/Torah/whatever. Let it guide them. Fine and dandy. People could probably benefit from such guidance today. Ultimately, folks are going to make up their own minds as to how such texts are going to apply to them and factor into their own belief systems anyway, so efforts on the part of the pushy, loudmouthed zealot to use them as hammers to pound others' beliefs into a particular form that they personally find pleasing and acceptable are largely for naught anyway. It's ultimately a wasted expenditure of energy.

The core point remains - these sorts of religious teachings have their value in a religious context and in the context of providing guidance to people on a personal level with regards to how they want to formulate their own hierarchies of values or moral codes. They most certainly do NOT have value in establishing a hard-and-fast set of secular laws that are enforceable in the context of a supposedly "free" secular society like our own.

I like the Bible. I think there are some good messages in there and I actually try and apply some of those teachings to my day-to-day life. But it is not the only book or collection of such recommendations I use. Nor do I infuse it with absolute credibility. This is the crux of where the hardcore zealots lose any credibility with the rest of us (regardless of religion). When they claim (adamantly) that they know the truth, they're enlightened, they alone are privy to the secrets of the hereafter and everyone else therefore needs to listen to THEM and THEM ALONE, they lose credibility. By contrast, the person that suggests a way of living, teaching or code of values as something believed to be consistent with our own best interests as a civilized society, logic, even extending to the realm of the metaphysical or "divine" is someone I'm apt to listen to.

To put it another way (in the words of my third-grade teacher), "empty barrels make the most noise" (hopefully post counts are somehow exempted from that rule. . .) ;)

When did this occur? I don't remember voting on this? It doesn't work this way, luckily.

The thing of it is, this country is not "majority rule". Just because there are more Christians than any other religion, that does not mean that Christians get to make the rules (or any group, for that matter). The constitution is set up to protect individuals freedoms, not support the agenda of the majority.

In some parts of the country, Muslims are probably the majority (Dearborn, MI for example). If you lived in Dearborn, are you saying that you would then have to conform to Islam's moral standards because they - as a society - get to decide? Or are you protected by the constitution to enjoy your own freedoms?

That pretty much sums it for for our friend RPKESQ. Like I said, anyone who has engaged this gentleman in debate over religious matters has arrived at the same conclusion. His "knowledge" is limited to that which he can regurgitate through rote memorization; there is no deeper understanding of the subject matter beyond those simple memory tricks.

It's really too bad; I honestly feel for the poor guy. I see him using the typical defensive mechanisms of the failed "intellectual". The condescending attitude, the propensity to attack others' intellect, and just the overall vile nature of his responses. The need to blow his own horn, and to "wear (his education) on his sleeve", to make sure we all know he has one. We have all seen it in others. These behaviors serve as a shield, meant to protect one from any sort of challenge that one would inevitably fail.

There is a lot of combined knowledge on this board. A surprising amount, really. I believe it would be well neigh impossible to bluster and bull***** on any topic and not be called on it by others with some real knowledge. That is simply what has happened here with poor RPKESQ. Some one wasted a lot of time and money trying to make a "silk purse" out of this particular "sow's ear". I would just like to know what kind of school would give an advanced degree to such. Maybe they just wanted to get rid of him.

Oh, and Markus - ya durn fur'ner - see what ya done? I hope it's a good pipe, and a really good beer...

IROC, the society where homosexual marriage has been legalized was given the opportunity to vote on the subject. The courts overruled society's decision.

When it comes to dictating moral standards, why would the Constitution and the decisions of those who interpret it have more authority than the will of the people that it/they govern?

If a non-Muslim in Dearborn does not have to conform to the cultural mores of that majority group because of their "personal freedoms" then it MUST be that a Muslim in another city will not have to conform to the cultural mores of THAT place.

Livi,
One of the things that most here forget, and you might not know is that America was founded by what best could be described as religous zealots.The pilgrams who founded the plymouth colony were religous refugees in many ways. They set out with their puritanical ways to live life as they chose to as many european nations would not allow them to stay. These puritans essentially founded the society that we in the usa live in today so it is naturally a heavily christian based society. Over the next years more colonies were settled by more fundementalist groups such as the quakers(pa), the prodestants(maryland)
This is a repetitive cycle amongst christian groups such as the mormons (who mainly live in Utah for example). While much of the other people of the world progressed into a more liberal society, America in many ways stayed the same religous conservitive nation it always was.

Americans in general have a hard time with things that are viewed by their cultural bias as wrong or immoral. Such is the cultural relativism in the USA that schools are forced to teach creationism in many states because the religious wackos sue them so often that it is pathetic. It is easy to compare alot of these people to islamic extremists...they bomb places like the islamics..they hate other people that don't do what they want or judge to be "moral" just like the islamics...they murder people just like the islamics.... Most would have issue with the race of Jesus (who could NOT have been white btw) It also hard for these peole to accept that others "might" have some knowledge about things too
What sets us apart is the fact that EVERY person here has the RIGHT to live as they please, worship when, where and how they please. But in the last decades, one has to question this policy and wonder if it is indeed true. Decidely it is a closing curtain on American freedom, the christian nuts have starngled alot of freedom away with their crazed fear of change, terrorism and bumps in the night.

What i find my self asking is that as a christian myself. why would god want to make some people happy and deny this to others based on my society's bias? Who decides what is right and what is wrong?

The answer is the society, they establish the normal behavior patterns, they dictate what is abnormal and what is abberant behavior. This is why genders and sexuality are so closely associated even though they are entirely separate items.
America is a VERY homophobic country, it wasn't god that said this, it was man.

As it should be! Society (i.e. the population) cannot enact legislation that is unconstitutional. It's that simple. It will get overturned every time.

Edit - we can argue about what's constitutional or not, but that's a different (but relevant) subject...

Because it's the Constitution!! If "society" doesn't like the Constitution, then they can vote to change it, but you can't simply enact legislation that violates the Constitution just because "majority rules". Taken to extremes, can you imagine the problems this could cause!!! Suppose those same citizens of Dearborn, MI enacted a local law requiring all residents of Dearborn to pray to Mecca five times a day. You, as a resident of Dearborn would have to pray to Mecca, then?!??!

[QUOTE=Jeff Higgins;4009725]That pretty much sums it for for our friend RPKESQ. Like I said, anyone who has engaged this gentleman in debate over religious matters has arrived at the same conclusion. His "knowledge" is limited to that which he can regurgitate through rote memorization; there is no deeper understanding of the subject matter beyond those simple memory tricks.

It's really too bad; I honestly feel for the poor guy. I see him using the typical defensive mechanisms of the failed "intellectual". The condescending attitude, the propensity to attack others' intellect, and just the overall vile nature of his responses. The need to blow his own horn, and to "wear (his education) on his sleeve", to make sure we all know he has one. We have all seen it in others. These behaviors serve as a shield, meant to protect one from any sort of challenge that one would inevitably fail.

There is a lot of combined knowledge on this board. A surprising amount, really. I believe it would be well neigh impossible to bluster and bull***** on any topic and not be called on it by others with some real knowledge. That is simply what has happened here with poor RPKESQ. Some one wasted a lot of time and money trying to make a "silk purse" out of this particular "sow's ear". I would just like to know what kind of school would give an advanced degree to such. Maybe they just wanted to get rid of him.
QUOTE]

I note, as always, that no evidence to the contrary has been posted in regarding to statement made by me. :rolleyes:

Amazing. I'm wrong (by your claim) yet you cannot present any evidence. In the real world, that is called BS.:eek:

Ho Hum, same old whinning from the same old group. You will recall I was asked and called on my education in every instance where I posted details about it. You on the other hand, are dismissive as most are who have never earned a degree and have admitted that you have no formal training in many of these subjects we are discussing, but expect your uneducated opinion to be accepted as fact. I am so sorry, this isn't the backslapping beer swilling type of "intellectual" discussion you are used to. Opinions are everywhere, qualified opinions are not. You sir, have few, if any, qualified opinions in religion, evolution, history or social constructs. :rolleyes:

I really feel sorry for you, for you have never had to make the leap from conjecture to factual evidence. I'm not sure you know how.:eek:SmileWavy

RPK is a red herring!

The real issue that has come out of this is that Livi is missing out on his beer's flavor because he's too busy SMOKING! (short little Dennis Leary reference there;) )

WTF man!

hose who say being gay is a choice by a SWEDISH STUDY no less...
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1815538,00.html?cnn=yes

What makes people gay? Biologists may never get a complete answer to that question, but researchers in Sweden have found one more sign that the answer lies in the structure of the brain.

Related Articles

Who Says A Woman Can’t Be Einstein?
THERE WAS SOMETHING SELF-DESTRUCTIVE ABOUT Harvard University President Larry Summers’ speech on gen...
More Sex Please, We’re French
What could be more French than sex? More sex, as it turns out especially if you happen to be a woman...
Yep, She's Mainstream
When I heard that Ellen DeGeneres was going to host the Oscars, I thought, They’re sure playing it s...
Tales from an Airport Toilet
A view of the men’s restroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport in Minneapolis. It’s only been th...


Scientists at the Karolinska Institute studied brain scans of 90 gay and straight men and women, and found that the size of the two symmetrical halves of the brains of gay men more closely resembled those of straight women than they did straight men. In heterosexual women, the two halves of the brain are more or less the same size. In heterosexual men, the right hemisphere is slightly larger. Scans of the brains of gay men in the study, however, showed that their hemispheres were relatively symmetrical, like those of straight women, while the brains of homosexual women were asymmetrical like those of straight men. The number of nerves connecting the two sides of the brains of gay men were also more like the number in heterosexual women than in straight men.

Just what these brain differences mean is still not clear. Ever since 1991, when Simon LeVay first documented differences in the hypothalamus of gay and straight men, researchers have been struggling to understand what causes these differences to occur. Until now, the brain regions that scientists have come to believe play a role in sexual orientation have been related to either reproduction or sexuality. The Swedish study, however, is the first to find differences in parts of the brain not normally involved in reproduction — the denser network of nerve connections, for example, was found in the amygdala, known as the emotional center of the brain. "The big question has always been, if the brains of gay men are different, or feminized, as earlier research suggests," says Dr. Eric Vilain, professor of human genetics at University of California Los Angeles, "then is it just limited to sexual preference or are there other regions that are gender atypical in gay males? For the first time, in this study it looks like there are regions of the brain not directly involved in sexuality that seem to be feminized in gay males."

Vilain, who studies the genetic factors behind sexuality and sexual orientation, notes that it may turn out that the brains of gay men possess only some 'feminized' structures, while retaining some masculine ones, and this is reflected in how they act on their sexuality. "We know from studies that men, regardless of their sexual orientation, retain masculine characteristics when it comes to their sexual behavior," he says. Both gay and straight men, for example, tend to prefer younger partners, in contrast to women, who gravitate toward older partners. Most men are also more likely than women to engage in casual sex, and to be aroused by visual stimuli. "So I expect that some regions of the brain will remain masculine even in gay men," says Vilain. For something as complex as sexual orientation, it's no surprise that everything from genes to gender to environment may play a role in ultimately determining your perfect partner.

hose who say being gay is a choice by a SWEDISH STUDY no less...
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1815538,00.html?cnn=yes

What makes people gay? Biologists may never get a complete answer to that question, but researchers in Sweden have found one more sign that the answer lies in the structure of the brain.

Related Articles

Who Says A Woman Can’t Be Einstein?
THERE WAS SOMETHING SELF-DESTRUCTIVE ABOUT Harvard University President Larry Summers’ speech on gen...
More Sex Please, We’re French
What could be more French than sex? More sex, as it turns out especially if you happen to be a woman...
Yep, She's Mainstream
When I heard that Ellen DeGeneres was going to host the Oscars, I thought, They’re sure playing it s...
Tales from an Airport Toilet
A view of the men’s restroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport in Minneapolis. It’s only been th...


Scientists at the Karolinska Institute studied brain scans of 90 gay and straight men and women, and found that the size of the two symmetrical halves of the brains of gay men more closely resembled those of straight women than they did straight men. In heterosexual women, the two halves of the brain are more or less the same size. In heterosexual men, the right hemisphere is slightly larger. Scans of the brains of gay men in the study, however, showed that their hemispheres were relatively symmetrical, like those of straight women, while the brains of homosexual women were asymmetrical like those of straight men. The number of nerves connecting the two sides of the brains of gay men were also more like the number in heterosexual women than in straight men.

Just what these brain differences mean is still not clear. Ever since 1991, when Simon LeVay first documented differences in the hypothalamus of gay and straight men, researchers have been struggling to understand what causes these differences to occur. Until now, the brain regions that scientists have come to believe play a role in sexual orientation have been related to either reproduction or sexuality. The Swedish study, however, is the first to find differences in parts of the brain not normally involved in reproduction — the denser network of nerve connections, for example, was found in the amygdala, known as the emotional center of the brain. "The big question has always been, if the brains of gay men are different, or feminized, as earlier research suggests," says Dr. Eric Vilain, professor of human genetics at University of California Los Angeles, "then is it just limited to sexual preference or are there other regions that are gender atypical in gay males? For the first time, in this study it looks like there are regions of the brain not directly involved in sexuality that seem to be feminized in gay males."

Vilain, who studies the genetic factors behind sexuality and sexual orientation, notes that it may turn out that the brains of gay men possess only some 'feminized' structures, while retaining some masculine ones, and this is reflected in how they act on their sexuality. "We know from studies that men, regardless of their sexual orientation, retain masculine characteristics when it comes to their sexual behavior," he says. Both gay and straight men, for example, tend to prefer younger partners, in contrast to women, who gravitate toward older partners. Most men are also more likely than women to engage in casual sex, and to be aroused by visual stimuli. "So I expect that some regions of the brain will remain masculine even in gay men," says Vilain. For something as complex as sexual orientation, it's no surprise that everything from genes to gender to environment may play a role in ultimately determining your perfect partner.

IROC, so we are allowing an old text, and those who are chosen to interpret it, dictate society's moral standards?

If you're referring to the bible, then sadly, yes it appears we are and it's very disappointing. :D

If you're talking about the Constitution, then for better or for worse, it is our country's governing document. Like I mentioned earlier, we can argue whether certain issues are truly "constitutional" or not, but our system of goverment was set up to do exactly what's it's doing. From Wikipedia:

"in the United States government, the Supreme Court is the final authority on the interpretation of the federal Constitution and all statutes and regulations created pursuant to it"

Don't like it? Change the Constitution or get judges on the Supreme court who will interpret in line with your beliefs. You can't argue that just because "society" wants something, then it's OK.

Thread is long, by the first page it was already way off tangent so I didn't read further, so what's the answer to the question posed?

I'd think most would agree there is no substantive difference between gay marriage and polygamy, i.e., whoever decided in California that marriage can now be between a man and a man could also decide that marriage could be between a man and two women, or three men, etc.

And the same justifications would apply ("if three people really love each other, why should we judge them or prevent them from getting married," etc.)

You are correct. For as well educated as he claims to be, he lacks the basic social skills needed for a forum of this type. He doesnt seem to be able to articulate his response in a staightforward and factual manner. 90% of his rebuttal will include anger, insults and demeaning comments with 10% being actual substance. I'm surprised he hasnt figured out that you can actually have a more substantive discussion by debating in a factual, civil, manner. There are many people on here that I strongly disagree with and they throw out jabs now and then, but this guy just CANNOT respond without nasty, negative unproductive comments. I think Trek had the right idea. I've only had to put one person on my ignore list since I joined this forum back in 06, but I have just increasesd that number to two. I guess thats not too bad, only one per year. :)

You seem to be getting the main point, to recap the various supportive points made.

1) the CA Supreme court struck down a uncontitutional law, as is its mandate.

2) like it or not, we follow (or try to) the CA state constitution.

3) no evidence has been presented that indicates being gay is: a) a choice, b) unnatural, c) catching!

4) no evidence has been presented that gay marriage can be judged as immoral uless you want to use ancient man-made religious texts that are filled with instructions that the vast majority of people would not follow in any case. Also these texts have been to quite a bit of revision and editing so they are hardly a good example of " direct from god". But the religious segment would enjoy forcing their version of morality on us all.

5) no senarios have been presented as how the hetrosexual person would be negatively impacted if gay marriage ruling was allowed to stand. It is already illegal to withhold any publicly offered service to any minority group regardless of religious beliefs.

6) polygamy has not been examimed by the highest courts for some time. It may be in the near future and it may be ruled as unconstitutional from a religious freedom persective (baring any underage issues, which are already covered in other court decisions). If so, so what?

This thread is done.SmileWavy

Richard is a "bull in a china shop" for sure, but he sure does rip you guys new *********s on a regular basis. I suppose I would resort to complaining about his tact, too, if I was taking such a beating and had no other response. :)

What? More whining from the "all I have is unsupported opinions and it is hurtful when that fact is pointed out to me" group. I am proud that you have to ignore me, instead of being able to present factual rebuttal. You go girl!

Wow, you people are pretty thinned skinned and emotional. Get a grip!

IROC, then what you are saying is that society does not determine its morality, but rather it gives authority to certain manuscripts and the interpreters of those documents.

If morality is so arbitrary, then I do not understand why people get so worked up on either side of the issue. When the decision is removed from society, just consult the appropriate documents and accept their authority. Regardless of the authority: Constitution, Bible, Articles of Confederation, I never voted for any of them, and if the documents go against my own beliefs of morality, then no matter the source, it is oppressive, and either way I have an equal voice in the morality of society.