Justices rule on SSM (Page 4)

I don't know what God cares about.  I do know that if God judges people based on who they love, I don't want anything to do with that God.

In my mind, God goes beyond the confines of human emotions and intelligence and would never be so petty.

Do you believe that God created "flawed" humans--that God would create people who feel love for the same sex, but are required to live a life without expressing that love, including marriage?

If you believe that people choose to be gay, it will be impossible for us to have a rational conversation moving forward.

Intercourse. Authentic marriage includes in its matrix the fecund nature of intercourse in type if not in actuality.

I'm sorry your Aunt has cancer.  These issues of medical decisions and such can be fixed by law without marriage. The LGBT agenda / progressive movement has used them as a trojan horse to get to what they want.

Love is willing the good for another for their own sake and then doing something to help bring that about.  

Love can take the form of filial love for one another, agape love for God, and erotic love for a spouse.

I think you're talking about erotic love, which is a rich field of understanding to till.

If you don't want anything to do with a God that has rules around erotic love, then that's between you and God.

See switch, here's the confusing thing: you say you don't know what God cares about and then in the very next paragraph you make a claim about God avoiding pettiness. Which is it? Do you know or do you not know?

We're all flawed. I certainly am. We're a fallen people living in a fallen world. Same sex attraction seems to be a mix of nature and nurture, so no I don't think that people choose to have same sex attraction.  However, we all do choose how to act upon our desires. All of us do.  To say that someone with same sex attraction can't control their sexual desires I think is to demean them in a way. We all have free will, and each of us is called to virtue regarding how we master our particular desires that might pull us one way or another.  

You're suggesting that love can only be expressed erotically. I don't agree.  There is also filial love that is expressed as love between friends.

In our culture, we've lost the understanding of the virtue of chastity.  It would be prudent to come to understand again what chastity means. It would be life giving not only to those with same sex attraction, but also clearly for heterosexuals caught up in the "hook up" culture and "fornication as recreation" culture as well. It's in the latter two groups that the problem in the culture is most clearly evident, more so than in those with same sex attraction.

Thanks, you too!

Please don't be sad.

What I've written I hope show reasonable arguments from a reasonable person; even if you disagree with them.

No it's not.

It's too hot in Philly today to burn down straw men though.

Be well.

Do you believe there is sin?

I haven't thought through it enough to give you an answer. Up 'til now, the idea of civil unions has been used as a trojan horse to push through a redefinition of marriage. The progressive movement as usual hasn't been honest.

So before, yes. Now, I don't know.

In the case of your aunt and medical decisions, sure.

It just occurred to me that Brian gives another example of the phenomenon I wrote about earlier.

He's saying in a sense (correct me if I'm wrong Brian, if you're still here) that the LGBT agenda is a moral crusade similar for example to the anti-segregationist movement, and further that there is a moral code that says that there ought to be equal rights under the law.

That's fine.  The notion of equal rights under the law of course comes out of the Judeo/Christian Western culture. It's rooted in a religiously informed notion of the nature of the human person. It was rightly applied to segregation laws.  Our understanding of the dignity of the human person is a religiously informed one, even if we ourselves might not be religious.

The he says essentially to not bring ones religiously informed opinions to the table regarding the LGBT agenda. (forgive me Brian if I put words in your mouth)

So which is it? Can't have it both ways.  

If you want to appeal to the religiously informed opinion of the human person regarding equal protection under the law, then you have to allow for it as well regarding the definition of marriage and other issues regarding human sexuality.  You might disagree with the religiously informed conclusion, that's fine. However, you have to allow it a place at the table and in the public square.

I respectfully disagree.  Women did not have the right to vote and men did.  They did not have equal rights with men and they successfully fought to obtain those rights.

anti-segregation movement was where black citizens (and other minorities) didn't have the right to go to places based on their skin color.  Yet again, they did not have equal rights with white people and they successfully fought to obtain those rights.

Gay people have exactly the same civil rights I do in every level of the constitution.  I know the LGBT agenda has tried to raise SSM to the level of a right, but it is not.  Rights are individual by nature and I'll even quote the Huffington Post:
Rephrasing gay marriage as a civil rights issue is a brilliant public relations move. Yet, it commits a logical error by categorizing marriage as an individual right, something that it never was previously.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nigel-barber/is-gay-marriage-a-civil-r_b_3202695.html

Now when it comes to marriage or civil unions which is merely a recognition by the government that two people (currently man and women in most states) have entered into a legal agreement that entitles them to certain benefits.  Yet again, gay people have the exact same entitlements, in that they have the ability to marry somebody of the opposite sex just like I do.  I don't have the ability to marry the same sex either, so the argument for equal "rights" isn't correct.

What the gay community is really asking for is special rights, in that they want to marry people of the same sex, which nobody (straight or gay) up to this point was allowed to do.

I'm not specifically directing this at you Brian, but I get a little annoyed by the "equal rights" argument because I feel it's demeaning to the people who truly suffered through the oppression of their individual rights in our history.

I was mostly directing the question to Switch because I'm curious.

The definition of Sin is an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

If you mean conjugal to mean for the purpose of offspring, there are several arguments that does not apply to opposite sex marriages. If that was the case, then the federal government should only be giving benefits to married couple that produce offspring. There are "dependent" benefits... but that also applies to grandparents.

The "thruth" is "traditional" may be the proper word to use.... but "authentic" does nto apply. "Revisionist" does not apply either. It is a nice buzz word, but the "truth" is, many laws can be changed if the people want. The Constitution can be changed if the people want... it is not a "revisionist" Constitution, it is only an amended one of which we currently have.

The fact is gay marriage only applies to a small percentage of the population, and just because it is legal in some places, does not mean I am going to go out and marry a man. Even if one views homosexuality as "immoral", it still changes nothing to society. One is still able to practice the morals he/she feels are important to them every second of every day.

You are attaching a "moral" standing to marriage. On a legal standing, there is no way the Federal government can give benefits to one state's idea of marriage, and not to another state's idea to marriage. It is the state that gave power to the marriage in the first place, the the Federal government has nothing to do with it.So if the feds recognise one states license, then it has to regognise all.

And this is a very simple problem to solve... just get rid of all benefits for marriage. People can enter into social contracts all they want, and assign powers of attourney for all their affairs. If people of faith feel the need to affirm that relationship before all ansd God, then they are free to do that when ever they want.

No, the mob is coming. Religious liberty is currently under attack and it will only get worse before it gets better.

(Regarding your first point, I stated in an earlier post that the conjugal nature of marriage is within a matrix that is fecund in type if not in actuality. )

I know you asked Don, but you mentioned this before. Powers of attorney, and a will solves most of the problems. The only problem it does not solve is survivor benefits. My wife gets death benefits, but my "friend" does not. So that would be wrong for SS or pension benefits, or benificiaries that need to be "family".

I get every point of your argument......and then I start asking myself why it makes a difference to anyone or anything if Jenny marries Bill or Jenny marries Kathy or Bill marries Joe.  I guess there may be hundreds or thousands of marriages a day in this country.....for the most part I don't kow about any of them....so why do I care?  Two people love each other, they get married, the live their lives together....who gives a rats arse what sex they are.  I have no idea why this has to be a complicated issue.

I may end up agreeing with you on this one. I'm still thinking through it and haven't reached a conclusion.

Going forward, the Catholic Church may vary well decline to be proxy for civil marriage. Can't do it in good conscience if the definition of marriage is in conflict with the Church's understanding of what marriage is.

If that happens, then it will raise the question of whether a Catholic in good conscience can have a civil marriage at all.

Now comes the issue of religious liberty again. Will the state force a Catholic to adopt its version of marriage, even if that version contradicts the Catholic's belief. At that point, do we have a 1st amendment issue regarding the establishment of a religion, in this case secular humanism.

So lots of unintended consequences coming down the pike.  Your solution may be the one that's needed in the short run.

That would work great if this was a theocracy. Help me understand Don. If you want to argue the religious standing on SSM then you win. I mean that is what is held by most religious people. So we write it into law and we are done. Obviously, what aligns with your beliefs works for you.

Yet we don't live in a theocracy, we live in a democratic Republic. It is a form of government so we can all get along in a country. When we decide to do that, then there are going to be some things not everyone agrees on... so we default to individual freedom under the law. That is the Constitution we have. That individual rights trump mob rule. Shacking up with my girlfriend is not against the law. I can look at all the porn I want. And however I choose to live and how much sin I like, has nothing to do with your freedom to live your life however you see fit based on your beliefs... unless somehow I infringe on your rights. And me freely engaging in sin does not infringe on your freedom to practice your religion.

And obviously we can get into the whole argument of society giving into sin and denying God and that whole thing... but that is what has happened since Adam. We live in a world of sin as fallen people. All you can do about it is conduct your life the way you see fit... and sure you can try push laws that align with your faith, but in the big picture it is already written it does not end well.

So then what to do about it... well back to individual freedom to live one's life how they see fit, garanteed by the Constitution. And if the Federal government is going to assign benefits for one, it must to all. The very fact there is "traditional" marriage recognised by governemnt, is the very thing that is going to make the Federal government recognise all marriage under the law.

OK, so I am married... I say that more as a matter of convienience. Everyone understands what that means. Yet My marriage has nothing to do with "God" with me, or my wife.

If you want to take the ownership of the word "marriage" for the church, then ok, it's all yours. I don't care. So what do I call myself now... coupled, unioned, legally joined, contracted? I do not know what we call it... but for say you (assuming) that was "married" before God.... now you need to go file a contract with the state to assign benefits and assets. In fact all "married" people need to file "unioned" contracts with the state to be recognised and legally joined in life.

At that point, "marriage" is nothing more than a ceremony to those of faith to affirm their commitment before God. I do not see the Catholic Church being forced to do anything, because unless you are Catholic, who would want to be married? And even gay Catholics could not be "married" by the Church, or forced to be, because marriage has no legal standing. The same way churches can excommunicate you if you do not hold to the principles of the faith.