Biden: I'm 'absolutely comfortable' with gay marriage

[Scott_Lafrance]

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

No it doesn't.

We are a multicultural society.

Jim

I'm assuming your going to refute my point somewhere.

[oldcelt]

Nope. The reason was at the end of your quote: "The diocese said the bill was an “incremental improvement” toward the goal of the “full restoration of justice” and urged Catholics to contact their local representatives." "Full justice" would be no civil unions or "gay marriage." Your incorrect analysis would be the equivalent of saying the Church may be in favor of abortion in the case of rape and incest because a diocese urged voters to vote for an abortion ban with exceptions for rape and incest.

So, the local church in Manchester is merely engaging in a lesser of two evils argument....that is apparent. However, the Bishop in England stands in direct defiance to the absolutist position on civil unions. Thus, my contention that there are cracks in the Catholic wall on this issue.

I will also state that, in my opinion, this is an issue upon which the Church cannot obtain absolute victory in secular societies. For better or worse, civil liberties trump religious edict in the modern world.

John

[JimR-OCDS]

Originally Posted by Scott_Lafrance

I'm assuming your going to refute my point somewhere.

We are a multicultural nation, which has not failed.

If you want other examples, check out Singapore, which is more multicultural that the USA.

Jim

[fix]

Originally Posted by oldcelt

So, the local church in Manchester is merely engaging in a lesser of two evils argument....that is apparent. However, the Bishop in England stands in direct defiance to the absolutist position on civil unions. Thus, my contention that there are cracks in the Catholic wall on this issue.

No cracks, just the usual amount of dissent or heterodoxy. Does not make the church position wrong.

I will also state that, in my opinion, this is an issue upon which the Church cannot obtain absolute victory in secular societies. For better or worse, civil liberties trump religious edict in the modern world.

Civil liberities need to be defined. It is not about so-called edicts. The Church opposes these "unions" based on natural moral law. Is the church wrong to oppose murder? Rape? Arson?

[Scott_Lafrance]

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

We are a multicultural nation, which has not failed.

If you want other examples, check out Singapore, which is more multicultural that the USA.

Jim

Multiculturalism only works with totalitarian (or nearly so) governments who can use threat of force to ensure civil tranquility.

[JimR-OCDS]

Originally Posted by Scott_Lafrance

Multiculturalism only works with totalitarian (or nearly so) governments who can use threat of force to ensure civil tranquility.

We have a totalitarian government?

Since when?

Jim

[Scott_Lafrance]

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

We have a totalitarian government?

Since when?

Jim

1865

[JimR-OCDS]

Originally Posted by Scott_Lafrance

1865

I think your definition of what constitutes a totalitarian government is flawed.

Try reading about the former Soviet Union, you'll get an idea.

Jim

[Scott_Lafrance]

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

I think your definition of what constitutes a totalitarian government is flawed.

Try reading about the former Soviet Union, you'll get an idea.

Jim

We're just taking a longer time to get there and it is being done more covertly, but we are close, particularly with the signing of the NDAA, FATCA, and the senate contemplating revoking passports if you owe federal income taxes.

[LisaA]

Originally Posted by meltzerboy

Lisa, I think the "tired old saw" is constantly comparing GRANTING rights to same-sex couples as equivalent to REMOVING rights by means of slavery and, for the unborn child, abortion. Whose individual rights are being REMOVED by granting same-sex couples the right to marry? Allowing slavery and abortion does not exactly follow the principle of "live and LET LIVE," while allowing same-sex marriage can do so.

No the point was that you said those who wish to restrict marriage to a man and a woman (one of each) are "shoving their morals down other people's throats." I am not saying there is any moral equivalence between slavery and abortion, just that this is the very same excuse that is often used by abortion supporters and previously slavery supporters. If you want someone to support your position, you need to have something more compelling than "hey no skin off my nose if you get an abortion."

Homosexuals have the exact same rights to marry as any other person. No one is saying homosexuals cannot marry, just that the requirements (age, mental competence, etc) are the same for them. That gives them equal protection under the law. If a man wants to marry another man and it's "all about love" then none of the other requirements of marriage could be valid either. I should be able to marry my 6 year old great nephew because I love him right? Or maybe I can marry my sister? My stepson? Three of my best friends?

Marriage has a definiition and while there have been different forms of marriage, it has never been without a male/female component. You cannot change something that has not only been a tradition but is consistent with natural law just because someone wants a white dress and a cake. I am purposely leaving out the Church here because obviously you don't accept her teachings but I suspect you are smart enough to accept that an argument must be internally inconsistent before it has any merit.

Lisa

[Michael C]

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

We have a totalitarian government?

Since when?

Jim

Name one aspect of our lives the government isn’t involved in?

In the morning I wash up with all toiletries that are FDA approved. I use water that is that meets EPA standards. My multi vitamin is FDA approved. My breakfast is FDA approved. I get into my car that is DOT and EPA regulated, I drive to work on roads that are DOT regulated and I am forced to buckle my seatbelt by the NHTSA and I can’t answer my cell that’s ringing which is regulated by the FCC, but I can listen to my radio which is also regulated by the FCC.

I haven’t even arrived to work yet.

[Havard]

Originally Posted by ComputerGeek25

This is correct. Many posters here seem to fixate on one or two concpets (i.e. helping the poor by government support) in scripture and form thier political beliefs on them. Then want to lecture us on how it's important to seperate faith from politics. What's the word for that again?

Haha, well played.

[LisaA]

Originally Posted by oldcelt

MaryannC,



I don't think your aunt would argue with me since I never said that they ended under secular government:



Regarding your question, I would rather live in a society free of such behavior.....the people in the places and times I mentioned are just as dead as anyone persecuted under communist rule...if that is Utopian, then so be it.

John

You know I've always found it rather odd that when people wish to demean religion and talk about religious persecution, they always hearken back several centuries if not millenia. It's the Crusades or the Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials. How many years do we have to dial back to find a Christian based persecution, yet there are people who claim if we wish to uphold man/woman marriage we must be planning to establish a theocracy (such people exist outside this list...I dated one). I have never understood the suggestion that "religions was responsible for more deaths than any other institution) when it's been secular regimes (Stalin, Mao, Hitler, et al) that have slaughtered millions and in the last hundred years as well.

Given there is no evidence for a theocracy, why does this canard appear almost daily?

Lisa

[Rich Olszewski]

Originally Posted by LisaA

It's the Crusades or the Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials. How many years do we have to dial back to find a Christian based persecution, yet there are people who claim if we wish to uphold man/woman marriage we must be planning to establish a theocracy (such people exist outside this list...I dated one). I have never understood the suggestion that "religions was responsible for more deaths than any other institution) when it's been secular regimes (Stalin, Mao, Hitler, et al) that have slaughtered millions and in the last hundred years as well.

Given there is no evidence for a theocracy, why does this canard appear almost daily?

Lisa

How about the the Vel' d'Hiv Roundup (where French police in Paris on 16 and 17 July 1942 with the willing participation of the French bureaucracy, police and army rounded up 13,152 predominantly non-French Jewish emigres and refugees and their French-born children and grandchildren, who were then shipped by rail to Auschwitz where they were murdered).

Those men were predominantly Catholics, though no direct blame lies on the Church for the outrage.

[Maryann C]

Originally Posted by oldcelt

MaryannC,



I don't think your aunt would argue with me since I never said that they ended under secular government:[color="Purple"] Your post implies it otherwise why make the statement? /COLOR]



Regarding your question, I would rather live in a society free of such behavior..What behavior exactly do you mean?...the people in the places and times I mentioned are just as dead as anyone persecuted under communist rule.so your point then is?..if that is Utopian, then so be it.

John