Justices rule on SSM (Page 6)

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. 

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.

OK.

That's why I asked her for clarity.

Let's see what she says.

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.

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.  

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. 

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? 

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?

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?

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."

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 :)

OK.

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

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?