Obama endorses same-sex marriage (Page 6)

Paul Harvey does a good job of summing things up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3Az0okaHig&feature=youtu.be

Does any of this bear truth? Take from it what you like.

You are clearly out of your depth on your understanding of Mormonism.  The LDS church most assuradly believes in the trinity.  The baptismal prayer for Mormons states you are baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.  And who gets to say who is or isn't orthodox??  Evangelicals differ in doctinal beliefs from Catholics and the Greek Orthodox churches.  They could just as easily argue that the doctrinal schisms that fueled the protestant movement make anyone besides them 'non-christian'.  I appreciate your 'allowing' that since mormons belive in Christ they technically get to be counted as Christians... but frankly, that decision is not yours to make. 

This topic exposes the seams of our society, the seam of what constitutes a family, and who gets to decide what that definition is.  You are in a stalemate of the concept of equality vs the role religion plays in our culture.

This and many other issues is boiling down to the separation of church and state.  It's like the whole prayer in school issue.  Why does this even need to be included in schools?  You want to pray, do it at home, do it at church, do it because it's FOR YOU.  Don't impose this upon others who may not agree with your views.  The beautiful thing about this country is the fact that we can separate church and state, the sad fact is that it is becoming a power struggle for control of human rights.  

If my buddhist philosophy is wrong, I still say why do you care?  I might not agree with your religion, but I am not going to stop you from doing it, just don't assert yourself in my freedoms and civil rights, I don't assert mine in yours.  

So again, I pose this question:  What does allowing someone a legal piece of paper affect your everyday life?  Does it affect YOUR salvation somehow, I was under the impression that this was a personal journey?  

The Arians were also not trinitarian but were considered Christian.
So I guess it's a similar thing. 

For many the majority of Christians in the world, understanding the Catholic Magisterium to be the living authority on doctrine and dogma is axiomatic.
Where does one draw the line on heterodoxy.  

There are a number of old CoJ threads that explored that issue in depth.

You can probably find it googling robert p. george and beginnertriathlete.com.

George is the leading architect of the philosophical foundation for considering
marriage to be between one man and one woman. 

It doesn't matter, thank you Not to over simplify things, but WHO CARES? Pretty much this sums up how I feel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q

Tony, those threads took days and weeks to fully flesh out these issues.
The arguments are all there.

mr2tony -  These issues will never be fully fleshed out because they're a matter of opinion and subject to an individual's religious beliefs. Argue all day long and you will never change anybody's mind. I personally think these threads are kind of a way for people to pump up themselves and say ``look at how much I know.'' But they sure can be entertaining. I give this one, however, a four out of 10.

Well those arguments changed my mind.
I was in support of gay marriage before being in support of gay marriage was cool.
The facts of the argument won out though and swayed my opinion.

That's what having an open mind is suppose to be about after all.
Isn't it? 

On top of knowing how much I don't know, I'm no entertainer,
so if that's what this thread is about I've got nothing to add.

I changed my tune on gay marriage as well.  When younger I opposed it.  As I matured and met a few gay couples that I am now very close to, I realized I was being silly.  It took a while.  It was not overnight.

However to come out and support it the DAY AFTER the NC vote is nothing but politics.  If he had stuck out his neck, been true to his "supposed" convictions and supported it before the vote something might have happened.  But he was too scared to do so.

I have read his "manifesto" all 4700 words of it.  The Manhattan Declaration's School of Salmanaca thought is devoid of any new thought of "natural law" since the days of St. Thomas Aquinas.

I find it interesting that when it comes to reproductive rights, stem cell research, and equality in marriage are discussed it is through the lens of religious orthodoxy.  There is no mention of economic justice except for a brief mention of it on the outset and then it is completely forgotten.  

For all of his "acclaimed" intellect, he still fails to square a conclusion with a Jesus who spent an inordinate amount of time emphasizing economic justice and virtually no time addressing homosexuality and abortion.  

This topsy turvy view of the Gospels seems like a convenient way to rationalize the the economic views of neoconservatism.  Amazing how Jesus's views of economic justice are at odds with his views.  I find it interesting that his views follow those of Irving Kristol's the godfather of neoconservatism.  The view that RAW christianity is counter-cultural.  I thought Christianity in RAW form was bout serving the poor and oppressed. 

In his "declaration" he gives lip service to other religions, but in truth his statements content is actually promoting religious supremacy.  Read his statements and he is saying that American Law should be based upon the unyielding orthodox form of Catholicism.  

Other forms of Christianity can be "tolerated" as long as they cede to his subjective interpretation of Christianity's issues of life and death.  

mr2tony - 2012-05-10 11:09 AM

dontracy - 2012-05-10 11:00 AM

mr2tony - You're talking about procreation as his reasoning for marriage between a man and a woman. So should people who are incapable of procreation not be allowed to marry?

Tony, those threads took days and weeks to fully flesh out these issues.
The arguments are all there.

These issues will never be fully fleshed out because they're a matter of opinion and subject to an individual's religious beliefs. Argue all day long and you will never change anybody's mind. I personally think these threads are kind of a way for people to pump up themselves and say ``look at how much I know.'' But they sure can be entertaining. I give this one, however, a four out of 10.

Some of us belong to the Derek Zoolander Center for Children Who Can't Read Good....changed my life

deleted response

I don't understand.

Are you saying that we should be following your subjective interpretation of Christianity?

Nope not at all, I don't think their should be a subjective view on any religion. I find his views antiquated and that dissent is something that should be healthy in the on going interpretation of the Gospels.  

While George claim's that his view of natural law "... disavows dependence on divine revelation or biblical Scripture - or even history and anthropology" it all-too-subjectively draws upon a thirteenth century version, one where the state and Catholic Church were  intertwined.

Nowhere in this calculation is any reliance upon Richard Hooker, the sixteenth century Anglican theologian whose views on natural law, latitudinarianism and religious tolerance greatly influenced John Locke and in turn, the Founding Fathers.

I'm sorry, I don't understand.

If there shouldn't be a subjective view on any religion,
doesn't that mean that there is an objective view?
If so, where does that come from?

And if there is an objective view, then why is dissent from that in interpreting the Gospels a good thing?

That would be like dissenting from the law of gravity.
That would be an interesting intellectual exercise
as long as you don't go walking off of any cliffs. 

I will defer to Immanuel Kent on this one: 

So far as morality is based upon the conception of man as a free agent who, just because he is free, binds himself through his reason to unconditioned laws, it stands in need neither of the idea of another Being over him, for him to apprehend his duty, nor of an incentive other than the law itself, for him to do his duty. At least it is man’s own fault if he is subject to such a need; and if he is, this need can be relieved through nothing outside himself: for whatever does not originate in himself and his own freedom in no way compensates for the deficiency of his morality. Hence for its own sake morality does not need religion at all (whether objectively, as regards willing, or subjectively, as regards ability [to act]); by virtue of pure practical reason it is self-sufficient. For since its laws are binding, as the highest condition (itself unconditioned) of all ends, through the bare form of universal legality of the maxims, which must be chosen accordingly, morality requires absolutely no material determining ground of free choice,* that is, no end, in order either to know what duty is or to impel the performance of duty. On the contrary, when it is a question of duty, morality is perfectly able to ignore all ends, and it ought to do so. Thus, for example, in order to know whether I should (or indeed can) be truthful in my testimony before a court, or whether I should be faithful in accounting for another man’s property entrusted to me, it is not at all necessary for me to search for an end which I might perhaps propose to achieve with my declaration, since it matters not at all what sort of end this is; indeed, the man who finds it needful, when his avowal is lawfully demanded, to look about him for some kind of [ulterior] end, is, by this very fact, already contemptible.

Really?  You would choose someone who is a liar and a cheat over someone who agrees with something you disagree with?  Interesting.

I'm in Canada, and do not follow politics closely, so don't have much to say on the political aspect.  But I do say good on Obama.

What I don't understand is why I am judged by ANYONE of any religion based on who I marry (or live with/love).  I work with a woman who is Mormon.  Her husband is an Elder in their church.  Pretty religious by any standards.  She has had me and my partner over for lunch, has never treated me with anything but respect and I consider us friends.  I have no experience with the Mormon church, so I asked her one day what the church said about homosexuality.  With great respect, she told me she thought it was wrong, but that it was not up to her to judge me, that was between me and God.  To me, that is someone who is living their religion.  

Well if Kant was correct, then no one would disagree about what constitutes a moral act.

Yet, clearly that's not the case.

Natural law may be written on every human heart,
but hard hearts can obscure the understanding of what that law is.

Reason is required to come to an understanding,
but reason alone is not enough. 

From what I can tell, we're still waiting... and no, none of the other threads have answered these questions to my satisfaction. 

I truly don't understand why it's anyone else's business if two consenting adults wish to enter into a contract between the two of them. 

I have already stated that Mormons confess the Trinity but Mormons mean something different than what Christianity has generally held since at least its official acceptance at the council of Nicea in 325...  

Evangelicals, Catholics, Orthodox (which is not the same as what I referred to as "orthodox") hold very closely to the same doctrine where the Trinity is regarded.  The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct but not separate. Mormons hold that the three are in fact separate. This is not my interpretation but from some excellent conversation I have had with Mormon friends. 

I am not allowing... I was noting a distinction in why there is such disagreement in their identity. Jesus makes Christians.