Other Resources The Political Joe » Justices rule on SSM Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 7
 
 
2013-07-03 8:30 AM
in reply to: dontracy

User image

Regular
5477
5000100100100100252525
LHOTP
Subject: RE: Justices rule on SSM
Originally posted by dontracy

Originally posted by switch Because with my framework of humans, history and politics and my inability to fully comprehend "God's" greatness it is the belief that makes the most sense to me

OK. 

Would you acknowledge that you could be wrong?

Sure. Can you?


2013-07-03 8:31 AM
in reply to: powerman

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Justices rule on SSM
Originally posted by powerman

I agree with the spirit of your post. I do find it funny how much diversity is pushed to be embraced, just as long as you are not conservative Christian it's all good. Progressive Christians are cool... but that has gone on for a very long time... and you do not win that case by engaging in the same behavior.

In a representitive republic, it is fine if you want to vote a certain way. But in the end, all we really care about is our own personal liberties. I'm not gay. You won't find me in a gay march on DC fighting for gay liberties. But I do not oppose them. Because in general, I do not oppose liberties being forwarded. In general, I do oppose liberties being restricted on principal. The only thing the Constitution limits is Federal power. It grants, or rather protects, individual liberties. That is the way it should be.

So, in your example, in the square, bring your concerns. If someone wants liberties extended, I'm good with that. If that infringes on yours, I will listen. But if you want to restrict said liberties, then you need to have a pretty strong case. And if your personal religious beliefs are all you have, then in our square, that is not enough for me. If your religious freedoms are indeed being attacked by those against such things, that is not going to cut it either.... for me. And then we can all leave the meeting in the square, and continue to conduct our lives as we see fit.

I agree with that.

If we disagree on a particular issue, I can bring my case to the public square. You're willing to listen to my argument, and I'm willing to listen to yours. 

You've laid out the standard you require to be persuaded to change your mind.  Significantly, you acknowledge that you're willing to change your mind and are open to persuasion. It's the same with me.

If I can persuade you, then we might agree on the issue. If I can't, then we won't. Regardless, we'll let the democratic process play out.

This is as it should be. 

2013-07-03 8:39 AM
in reply to: switch

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Justices rule on SSM

Originally posted by switch Sure. Can you?

Regarding myself, see my last post to powerman. I am open to persuasion.

OK.

So you admit that you might be wrong about sin being a human construct.
You seem to believe in a God that in no way requires any moral conduct on our part,
in fact the concept of moral acts are not even a part of this God's concerns.

You've come to this conclusion based on a matrix of history and human behavior,
call it theology based on anthropology, as well as the insight that the full reality of God
is beyond human understanding.  All reasonable.

Is that all fair to say about what you believe? 

2013-07-03 9:01 AM
in reply to: dontracy

User image

Champion
14571
50005000200020005002525
the alamo city, Texas
Subject: RE: Justices rule on SSM
Originally posted by dontracy

Originally posted by switch Sure. Can you?

Regarding myself, see my last post to powerman. I am open to persuasion.

OK.

So you admit that you might be wrong about sin being a human construct.
You seem to believe in a God that in no way requires any moral conduct on our part,
in fact the concept of moral acts are not even a part of this God's concerns.

You've come to this conclusion based on a matrix of history and human behavior,
call it theology based on anthropology, as well as the insight that the full reality of God
is beyond human understanding.  All reasonable.

Is that all fair to say about what you believe? 

i don't think that's what she said at all.  she just said that she believes that homosexuality, and to her cartoon, masturbation, are not sins.

2013-07-03 9:05 AM
in reply to: mehaner

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Justices rule on SSM

Originally posted by mehaner i don't think that's what she said at all.  she just said that she believes that homosexuality, and to her cartoon, masturbation, are not sins.

OK.

That's why I asked her for clarity.

Let's see what she says.

2013-07-03 9:10 AM
in reply to: dontracy

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Justices rule on SSM
I laughed out loud at Switch's cartoon....and then I thought...hey, wait a minute, and I got really scared. Laughing


2013-07-03 9:25 AM
in reply to: mehaner

User image

Regular
5477
5000100100100100252525
LHOTP
Subject: RE: Justices rule on SSM
Originally posted by mehaner
Originally posted by dontracy

Originally posted by switch Sure. Can you?

Regarding myself, see my last post to powerman. I am open to persuasion.

OK.

So you admit that you might be wrong about sin being a human construct.
You seem to believe in a God that in no way requires any moral conduct on our part,
in fact the concept of moral acts are not even a part of this God's concerns.

You've come to this conclusion based on a matrix of history and human behavior,
call it theology based on anthropology, as well as the insight that the full reality of God
is beyond human understanding.  All reasonable.

Is that all fair to say about what you believe? 

i don't think that's what she said at all.  she just said that she believes that homosexuality, and to her cartoon, masturbation, are not sins.

To be perfectly honest, I am still not sure how I feel about "moral conduct" and how it relates to God. 

Here's what I will say:  Nobody is all good or all bad.  I really can't emphasize that enough.  I've committed almost every "sin" as defined by the Catholic Church.  I don't think I'm a "bad" person.  I think that moral conduct is a very, very complicated thing to parse out.  And, again, I think it is very difficult for any human to be able to comprehend the complexity of what goes into individual choice and action.

It is not that I believe in a "God that in no way requires any moral conduct on our part, in fact the concept of moral acts are not even a part of this God's concerns" it is that the God that I believe must exist (if there is a God) is one who would be able to understand actions that some humans define as "sin" in a broader context that includes all of the things that go into that individual's choice and action.  I also believe that God would have understanding and forgiveness that is beyond what we can even begin to know as humans.

2013-07-03 9:48 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Justices rule on SSM
Originally posted by switch Here's what I will say:  Nobody is all good or all bad.  I really can't emphasize that enough.  I've committed almost every "sin" as defined by the Catholic Church.  I don't think I'm a "bad" person.  I think that moral conduct is a very, very complicated thing to parse out.  And, again, I think it is very difficult for any human to be able to comprehend the complexity of what goes into individual choice and action.

It is not that I believe in a "God that in no way requires any moral conduct on our part, in fact the concept of moral acts are not even a part of this God's concerns" it is that the God that I believe must exist (if there is a God) is one who would be able to understand actions that some humans define as "sin" in a broader context that includes all of the things that go into that individual's choice and action.  I also believe that God would have understanding and forgiveness that is beyond what we can even begin to know as humans.

Well then we agree about God's understanding of human sin and of God's forgiveness.

Yes, human behavior is complicated. In the moral realm though, much of it has been parsed out and is knowable. It's one thing if many choose to ignore that knowledge because they enjoy the sin, but to say therefore that the sin doesn't exist is another.

This question is important in this discussion. You're making a moral claim when you say that those who believe as I do about same sex marriage are somehow "wrong". That's a moral claim.

That's fine. You have a right to make moral claims. After that though, you have a responsibility to lay out where that claim comes from.  What are the principles from which you make the moral claim.

Does that make sense?

To get back to powerman's protocol for how we might conduct ourselves in the public square; you ought to clearly state why you believe what you believe. It needs to be more persuasive than an internet meme.



Edited by dontracy 2013-07-03 9:49 AM
2013-07-03 9:59 AM
in reply to: dontracy

User image

Regular
5477
5000100100100100252525
LHOTP
Subject: RE: Justices rule on SSM
Originally posted by dontracy
Originally posted by switch Here's what I will say:  Nobody is all good or all bad.  I really can't emphasize that enough.  I've committed almost every "sin" as defined by the Catholic Church.  I don't think I'm a "bad" person.  I think that moral conduct is a very, very complicated thing to parse out.  And, again, I think it is very difficult for any human to be able to comprehend the complexity of what goes into individual choice and action.

It is not that I believe in a "God that in no way requires any moral conduct on our part, in fact the concept of moral acts are not even a part of this God's concerns" it is that the God that I believe must exist (if there is a God) is one who would be able to understand actions that some humans define as "sin" in a broader context that includes all of the things that go into that individual's choice and action.  I also believe that God would have understanding and forgiveness that is beyond what we can even begin to know as humans.

Well then we agree about God's understanding of human sin and of God's forgiveness.

Yes, human behavior is complicated. In the moral realm though, much of it has been parsed out and is knowable. It's one thing if many choose to ignore that knowledge because they enjoy the sin, but to say therefore that the sin doesn't exist is another.

This question is important in this discussion. You're making a moral claim when you say that those who believe as I do about same sex marriage are somehow "wrong". That's a moral claim.

That's fine. You have a right to make moral claims. After that though, you have a responsibility to lay out where that claim comes from.  What are the principles from which you make the moral claim.

Does that make sense?

To get back to powerman's protocol for how we might conduct ourselves in the public square; you ought to clearly state why you believe what you believe. It needs to be more persuasive than an internet meme.

Jeez, Don, I feel like I've tried to be really, really clear.  The meme was my 3rd or 4th swing in this thread at trying to communicate what I believe. And now I've taken another 3 of 4 swings at elucidating. What part hasn't been clear?

I'll keep it to SSM, as that's the thread:

No, I don't believe that gayness is a sin, nor do I believe that expressing love in any way--gay or straight, erotic or agape--is a sin.  I believe that SSM is absolutely OK, and that God, as I understand God (and I have explained how I "understand" God), wouldn't IN ANY WAY judge gayness or SSM.  

2013-07-03 10:25 AM
in reply to: switch

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Justices rule on SSM




(FIXED 2.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
FIXED 2.jpg (42KB - 24 downloads)
2013-07-03 10:29 AM
in reply to: switch

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Justices rule on SSM

Originally posted by switch What part hasn't been clear?

What's not clear is why you believe this.

We're going to meet in the public square. We're going to try to persuade each other to our opinion.

What I'm hearing is that you believe what you believe because that's how you feel.  Am I wrong about that? 

From this feeling of yours I'm suppose to be persuaded to change to your opinion. 



2013-07-03 10:40 AM
in reply to: dontracy

User image

Champion
16151
50005000500010001002525
Checkin' out the podium girls
Subject: RE: Justices rule on SSM
This is a clear result of how her state sanctioned marriage is punitive when not recognized as valid. Clearly, if she is married, she's entitled to the same rights of inheritance as any married couple would be afforded. Park the morality of it; if the institution exists, it must have equal and full rights for anyone who is married. SCOTUS got it right.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/28/pf/taxes/same-sex-marriage-windsor/...
2013-07-03 11:02 AM
in reply to: dontracy

User image

Regular
5477
5000100100100100252525
LHOTP
Subject: RE: Justices rule on SSM
Originally posted by dontracy

Originally posted by switch What part hasn't been clear?

What's not clear is why you believe this.

We're going to meet in the public square. We're going to try to persuade each other to our opinion.

What I'm hearing is that you believe what you believe because that's how you feel.  Am I wrong about that? 

From this feeling of yours I'm suppose to be persuaded to change to your opinion. 

No, Don, one of the differences between you and me is that I'm not trying to change you.  I want to be able to just live my life.  I want you to be able to olive yours.  It's just that yours tries to tell me how to live mine. 

Yes, my beliefs are based on "feeling"--and context, and history, and deductive reasoning.  So are yours, years and years of other's feelings on their beliefs.  Neither are more vaild, which is why as long as yours don't impact me, I don't care what you think or believe. 

2013-07-03 11:13 AM
in reply to: pitt83

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Justices rule on SSM

Originally posted by pitt83 This is a clear result of how her state sanctioned marriage is punitive when not recognized as valid. Clearly, if she is married, she's entitled to the same rights of inheritance as any married couple would be afforded. Park the morality of it; if the institution exists, it must have equal and full rights for anyone who is married. SCOTUS got it right. http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/28/pf/taxes/same-sex-marriage-windsor/...

The state of NY changed the meaning of marriage as had been commonly understood.

This brings up the issue of discrimination against other types of relationships.
That's a lot of money she will be getting because of this ruling. What about those in relationships that are clearly not marriage? 

For example, what about two elderly sisters who choose to live together and support one another. They love one another as sisters do. There is no sexual component to their relationship. They've spent perhaps decades together caring for one another.

One sister dies. Ought not her sister receive the same legal and tax benefits as a spouse?
If not, why not? 
Can one rightfully claim those benefits only if there was a sexual component to their relationship?
If so, why is sex the determining factor? 

2013-07-03 11:17 AM
in reply to: switch

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Justices rule on SSM

Originally posted by switch Neither are more vaild, which is why as long as yours don't impact me, I don't care what you think or believe. 

C'mon. Be honest.

Of course you care what people like me believe. Otherwise, why would you post a meme as you did.

Of course one belief is more valid than another.  You believe that your beliefs are more valid than mine, including all of what you just posted. Right?

2013-07-03 1:06 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Regular
5477
5000100100100100252525
LHOTP
Subject: RE: Justices rule on SSM
Originally posted by dontracy

Originally posted by switch Neither are more vaild, which is why as long as yours don't impact me, I don't care what you think or believe. 

C'mon. Be honest.

Of course you care what people like me believe. Otherwise, why would you post a meme as you did.

Of course one belief is more valid than another.  You believe that your beliefs are more valid than mine, including all of what you just posted. Right?

I only take issue with others' beliefs when they try to dictate, control, or coerce an individual or a group, hence my problems with Catholicism.

Edited by switch 2013-07-03 1:07 PM


2013-07-03 1:14 PM
in reply to: dontracy

User image

Champion
16151
50005000500010001002525
Checkin' out the podium girls
Subject: RE: Justices rule on SSM
Originally posted by dontracy

Originally posted by pitt83 This is a clear result of how her state sanctioned marriage is punitive when not recognized as valid. Clearly, if she is married, she's entitled to the same rights of inheritance as any married couple would be afforded. Park the morality of it; if the institution exists, it must have equal and full rights for anyone who is married. SCOTUS got it right. http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/28/pf/taxes/same-sex-marriage-windsor/...

The state of NY changed the meaning of marriage as had been commonly understood.

This brings up the issue of discrimination against other types of relationships.
That's a lot of money she will be getting because of this ruling. What about those in relationships that are clearly not marriage? 

For example, what about two elderly sisters who choose to live together and support one another. They love one another as sisters do. There is no sexual component to their relationship. They've spent perhaps decades together caring for one another.

One sister dies. Ought not her sister receive the same legal and tax benefits as a spouse?
If not, why not? 
Can one rightfully claim those benefits only if there was a sexual component to their relationship?
If so, why is sex the determining factor? 




Familial inheritance is clear. Well defined.

And, I think you validated my point: Sex shouldn't be the determining factor. Hence, the ruling is just and fair.
2013-07-03 1:29 PM
in reply to: pitt83

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Justices rule on SSM

Originally posted by pitt83 Familial inheritance is clear. Well defined. And, I think you validated my point: Sex shouldn't be the determining factor. Hence, the ruling is just and fair.

Not social security, for example.

What about two friends who live together into old age, not lovers - no sex involved, who aren't related?

I'm trying to follow your logic, so I'll go with you that sex shouldn't be a determining factor. So if that's the case, isn't the institution of marriage itself discriminatory: traditional, gay, or otherwise?  

Ought not any two people in any type of relationship have the same legal and tax rights as a married couple?

2013-07-03 1:32 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Justices rule on SSM

Originally posted by switch I only take issue with others' beliefs when they try to dictate, control, or coerce an individual or a group, hence my problems with Catholicism.

So do you try to coerce Catholics into getting in step with your beliefs?

It seems that what you are saying is, "I recognize only one moral law, that being that you ought not impose moral laws on others, since there are no moral laws apart from this one, and I have the right to impose this  one moral law on everyone else."



Edited by dontracy 2013-07-03 1:33 PM
2013-07-03 1:51 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Justices rule on SSM
Originally posted by dontracy

Originally posted by switch I only take issue with others' beliefs when they try to dictate, control, or coerce an individual or a group, hence my problems with Catholicism.

So do you try to coerce Catholics into getting in step with your beliefs?

It seems that what you are saying is, "I recognize only one moral law, that being that you ought not impose moral laws on others, since there are no moral laws apart from this one, and I have the right to impose this  one moral law on everyone else."




I think it's apparent that she's saying exactly the opposite. She believes X. She does not intend to coerce or infringe upon your right to believe in X or not and nether does she care that you believe Y, except insofar as your belief in Y infringes upon her right to believe X.

People who feel strongly against SSM on religious grounds may feel as though the mere existence of SSM infringes upon their beliefs, but it doesn't, any more than the existence of bacon at the grocery store infringes upon a Jewish or Muslim person's right to practice their religion.



Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2013-07-03 2:03 PM
2013-07-03 1:57 PM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Regular
5477
5000100100100100252525
LHOTP
Subject: RE: Justices rule on SSM
Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by dontracy

Originally posted by switch I only take issue with others' beliefs when they try to dictate, control, or coerce an individual or a group, hence my problems with Catholicism.

So do you try to coerce Catholics into getting in step with your beliefs?

It seems that what you are saying is, "I recognize only one moral law, that being that you ought not impose moral laws on others, since there are no moral laws apart from this one, and I have the right to impose this  one moral law on everyone else."

I think it's apparent that she's saying exactly the opposite. She believes X. She does not intend to coerce or infringe upon your right to believe in X and nether does she care that you believe Y, except insofar as your belief in Y infringes upon her right to believe X. People who feel strongly against SSM on religious grounds may feel as though the mere existence of SSM infringes upon their beliefs, but it doesn't, any more than the existence of bacon at the grocery store infringes upon a Jewish or Muslim person's right to practice their religion.

Thank you JMK.  I'm getting kinda burned out on this, and I'm not sure I could have explained that as well as you just did :)



2013-07-03 2:20 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Champion
16151
50005000500010001002525
Checkin' out the podium girls
Subject: RE: Justices rule on SSM
Originally posted by dontracy

Originally posted by pitt83 Familial inheritance is clear. Well defined. And, I think you validated my point: Sex shouldn't be the determining factor. Hence, the ruling is just and fair.

Not social security, for example.

What about two friends who live together into old age, not lovers - no sex involved, who aren't related?

I'm trying to follow your logic, so I'll go with you that sex shouldn't be a determining factor. So if that's the case, isn't the institution of marriage itself discriminatory: traditional, gay, or otherwise?  

Ought not any two people in any type of relationship have the same legal and tax rights as a married couple?




Marriage is the vehicle whereby 2 people may become 1 legal entity with certain privileges extended to that legal union. So yes: According to law: Twompeople wishing to enter that entity should be entitled to do so regardless of the shape of their genitals. It is not discriminatory if no judgement of race, religion, national origin or sexual preference is a determining facto of who may enter that legal status. Let morality dictate what they do once conferred that status; the morality lies with the individuals involved and is not mine, nor the government's to question.

Edited by pitt83 2013-07-03 2:26 PM
2013-07-03 2:39 PM
in reply to: pitt83

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Justices rule on SSM

Originally posted by pitt83  Marriage is the vehicle whereby 2 people may become 1 legal entity with certain privileges extended to that legal union. So yes: According to law: Twompeople wishing to enter that entity should be entitled to do so regardless of the shape of their genitals. It is not discriminatory if no judgement of race, religion, national origin or sexual preference is a determining facto of who may enter that legal status. Let morality dictate what they do once conferred that status; the morality lies with the individuals involved and is not mine, nor the government's to question.

OK.

So should any two people be able to enter into a marriage with no restriction?

2013-07-03 2:41 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Justices rule on SSM

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I think it's apparent that she's saying exactly the opposite. She believes X. She does not intend to coerce or infringe upon your right to believe in X or not and nether does she care that you believe Y, except insofar as your belief in Y infringes upon her right to believe X. People who feel strongly against SSM on religious grounds may feel as though the mere existence of SSM infringes upon their beliefs, but it doesn't, any more than the existence of bacon at the grocery store infringes upon a Jewish or Muslim person's right to practice their religion.

OK.

Then it's fine to try to enact law through the democratic process based on faith based opinions. Correct?  No one will try to coerce voters from thinking otherwise?



Edited by dontracy 2013-07-03 2:47 PM
2013-07-03 3:17 PM
in reply to: dontracy

User image

Champion
16151
50005000500010001002525
Checkin' out the podium girls
Subject: RE: Justices rule on SSM
Originally posted by dontracy

Originally posted by pitt83  Marriage is the vehicle whereby 2 people may become 1 legal entity with certain privileges extended to that legal union. So yes: According to law: Twompeople wishing to enter that entity should be entitled to do so regardless of the shape of their genitals. It is not discriminatory if no judgement of race, religion, national origin or sexual preference is a determining facto of who may enter that legal status. Let morality dictate what they do once conferred that status; the morality lies with the individuals involved and is not mine, nor the government's to question.

OK.

So should any two people be able to enter into a marriage with no restriction?




Short of an age limit; yes. Age of maturity is a concept in law which has president and can be applied here to limit coercion of an milling minor.
New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » Justices rule on SSM Rss Feed  
 
 
of 7
 
 
RELATED POSTS

If new rules from the "fiscal cliff fiasco" didn't go into affect until 1 Jan...

Started by jldicarlo
Views: 2298 Posts: 13

2013-04-27 8:44 AM GomesBolt
RELATED ARTICLES
date : March 29, 2013
author : jtriathlete
comments : 0
I'm curious about the 'don't increase your run by more than 10% per week' rule. Is there a minimum mileage under which this doesn't apply?
 
date : March 12, 2013
author : mistymills
comments : 5
Dog training techniques have surprising parallels to triathlon training and race preparation. All the lessons I THOUGHT were for my dogs started seeming very applicable to me! Here's what I learned.
date : June 5, 2006
author : mikericci
comments : 0
How should I go about training for the marathon while also building base in the other two events? Doing this seems like it's causing me to break the 10% rule in running.
 
date : October 2, 2005
author : ChiRunning
comments : 0
In order to improve your running efficiency and enjoy that last leg of every race, there are three important “rules of the road” to follow.
date : July 4, 2005
author : Ontherun
comments : 3
Motivation can be hard to come by some days. Here are a few things I have learned to help stay focused.
 
date : September 5, 2004
author : USATriathlon
comments : 0
Position rule violations during triathlon racing.
date : September 2, 2004
author : Michael
comments : 1
How to properly and effectively lay out your triathlon transition area.
 
date : September 2, 2004
author : Michael
comments : 0
If you are going to do a triathlon, you need to know at least some of the basic rules that can keep you from getting hurt or hurting someone else.