Obama and gay marriage...

[Archaeopteryx]

so? gay ppl can have civil rights, they just can't get 'married' , why? because God said so.... hey take it up with God.

this is not a Catholic issue, it is universal one. God made marriage, just like he made the earth and the sky and the air that we breath. We can not over ride him and change what we have no power to change. We can't change the definition of marriage anymore then we can change the sun from rising and setting. It is not with in our power to change it.

Actually, marriage is a social institution constructed by humans and defined by their culture. It is we who made marriage and it is thus in our power to alter its meaning or abolish it entirely.

 

[AMDG]

Actually, marriage is a social institution constructed by humans and defined by their culture. It is we who made marriage and it is thus in our power to alter its meaning or abolish it entirely.

No. God decided that marriage is between one man and one woman for the benefit of the children of said union as well as to help each other to heaven. People usually make a mess of things (like that case where a poor child, Isabella, is caught in a legal battle between her now Christian biological mother and the anti-Christian lesbian stranger that her mother once had a civil union with in another state that doesn't even recognize same-sex unions!)

 

[JustOneWay]

No. God decided that marriage is between one man and one woman for the benefit of the children of said union as well as to help each other to heaven.

What does God say about a couple who have passed child-producing years, or an infertile couple? Is the only reason for their union to help each other to heaven? If so, then cant a same sex couple do the same?

 

[Zlex]

No. God decided that marriage is between one man and one woman for the benefit of the children of said union as well as to help each other to heaven. People usually make a mess of things (like that case where a poor child, Isabella, is caught in a legal battle between her now Christian biological mother and the anti-Christian lesbian stranger that her mother once had a civil union with in another state that doesn't even recognize same-sex unions!)

No. You believe that God decided marriage is between a man and a woman.

There is a difference between practicing your religion and holding your beliefs and attempting to impress your personal religious beliefs on the entire Tribe. The attempt to enforce a single religious definition of marriage on the entire tribe is just the same old same old, and that is, religion as politics instead of philosophy on the way to war.

Our First Amendment prevents any one of us from attempting to impress a singular religion upon the entire Tribe. Instead, we are each free to seek our own personal spirituality and beliefs about God/The Universe from whatever source we wish. And folks are free--that is the whole point of religious freedom--to seek out their own answers to those religious questions. An idea so great that, it has left a long trail of individuals willing to sacrifice all to defend a tribe dedicated to that idea, so that it might exist somewhere on Earth, much unlike our dark-age friends across the Ocean still busy blowing up children over the Dusty Bones of the Warrior Prophet.

From whatever branch of philosophy we want to home those questions, either with or without God, the nexuis to war is not the boogeyman, but the lurch from 'I' to 'we.' Because indeed, they are not universally answerable, except by force, after politics fails to convince us all to swallow 'the' answer to those questions.


Do you know 'everyone?' Neither do I. An example of a society is a group of people who meet once a month to discuss bird migration. The ASME is a society. PETA is a society. The 82nd Airborne is a society. The folks who bring us Outback Steakhouses form a society. The agregate of all of them has no single voice or practical meaning, and leg lifting attempts to monopolize their religious beliefs is political nonsense.

The earlier period of a secular state, not overtly over-run by a Christian religion intending, by design, to take over the machinery of state was indeed uncharacteristic of the 20th century.

Whose perfect singular vision is it that we are asked to trust, either as contemporaries or dusty names in a dusty book? Trust me, God has sent me a message for you, and this is what it is? A God totally unable to communicate without the intermediary of divine middle men --self proclaimed saints, prophets, apostles, and Uber True Believers, is an absolute necessity for the ageless politics of ... carny hucksterism.

What non-God among us, living or dead, makes 'Rules for God?' Or claims to 'Speak for God.' Gods that require carny huckster naked apes to proclaim their very existence --trust them -- are funny Gods indeed.

Using religion to drive others away from those whom they love for what may very well be their one and only ride is just pathetic tribalism at its worst. It has nothing to do with religion, even less to do with God, and everything to do with politics. But, let the naked sweaty ape leg lifting continue. Might as well, it clearly can't be stopped. Just ignored.

 

[Gishin]

Today's news:

President Obama criticizes concept of 'traditional family,' commits to repeal DOMA

all very sad

Sad this isn't happening sooner.

 

[Gishin]

The whole reason ppl wanted recognised is for insurance purposes,,,,and with the new UHC - what's the difference?
Really?
Why now are they after the marriage?

Marriage is a sacred state instituted BY God - for one man and one woman....so said Jesus.

Who here wants to usurp His Authority??

I don't recall anyone usurping the church's authority to marry. As a matter of fact, the government doesn't tell the church who they can marry and who they can't. Why can't the church do the same?

 

[SithDoughnut]

No. You believe that God decided marriage is between a man and a woman.

There is a difference between practicing your religion and holding your beliefs and attempting to impress your personal religious beliefs on the entire Tribe. The attempt to enforce a single religious definition of marriage on the entire tribe is just the same old same old, and that is, religion as politics instead of philosophy on the way to war.

Our First Amendment prevents any one of us from attempting to impress a singular religion upon the entire Tribe. Instead, we are each free to seek our own personal spirituality and beliefs about God/The Universe from whatever source we wish. And folks are free--that is the whole point of religious freedom--to seek out their own answers to those religious questions. An idea so great that, it has left a long trail of individuals willing to sacrifice all to defend a tribe dedicated to that idea, so that it might exist somewhere on Earth, much unlike our dark-age friends across the Ocean still busy blowing up children over the Dusty Bones of the Warrior Prophet.

From whatever branch of philosophy we want to home those questions, either with or without God, the nexuis to war is not the boogeyman, but the lurch from 'I' to 'we.' Because indeed, they are not universally answerable, except by force, after politics fails to convince us all to swallow 'the' answer to those questions.


Do you know 'everyone?' Neither do I. An example of a society is a group of people who meet once a month to discuss bird migration. The ASME is a society. PETA is a society. The 82nd Airborne is a society. The folks who bring us Outback Steakhouses form a society. The agregate of all of them has no single voice or practical meaning, and leg lifting attempts to monopolize their religious beliefs is political nonsense.

The earlier period of a secular state, not overtly over-run by a Christian religion intending, by design, to take over the machinery of state was indeed uncharacteristic of the 20th century.

Whose perfect singular vision is it that we are asked to trust, either as contemporaries or dusty names in a dusty book? Trust me, God has sent me a message for you, and this is what it is? A God totally unable to communicate without the intermediary of divine middle men --self proclaimed saints, prophets, apostles, and Uber True Believers, is an absolute necessity for the ageless politics of ... carny hucksterism.

What non-God among us, living or dead, makes 'Rules for God?' Or claims to 'Speak for God.' Gods that require carny huckster naked apes to proclaim their very existence --trust them -- are funny Gods indeed.

Using religion to drive others away from those whom they love for what may very well be their one and only ride is just pathetic tribalism at its worst. It has nothing to do with religion, even less to do with God, and everything to do with politics. But, let the naked sweaty ape leg lifting continue. Might as well, it clearly can't be stopped. Just ignored.

If posts could be rated, this one would get 5 stars.

People can follow their own beliefs all they want, but restricting the rights of others just because your beliefs say it is wrong is possibly the worst possible thing organised religion ever gave us.

 

[Gishin]

No. God decided that marriage is between one man and one woman for the benefit of the children of said union as well as to help each other to heaven. People usually make a mess of things (like that case where a poor child, Isabella, is caught in a legal battle between her now Christian biological mother and the anti-Christian lesbian stranger that her mother once had a civil union with in another state that doesn't even recognize same-sex unions!)

There are only humans, and humans who claim to speak for God.

 

[AMDG]

There are only humans, and humans who claim to speak for God.

Well the humans that have caused poor Ms. Miller to flee with Isabella out of absolute fear of their God-given rights being violated have done such an excellent job! (In the case the poor child is scheduled to be wrenched from her biological mother and given to a stranger, a woman who would violate her Christian upbringing and harm her psychologically all because of one state recognized same-sex union, but this is what happens when that ended in "divorce".) How many more poor children will be sacrificed because of the same-sex unions?

What ever happened to religious freedom? It's not freedom "from" religion". It's just an anti-establishment. That's supposed to be protected under the Constitution...or is that to be sacrificed too?

BTW this is OBOB. Or is it now okay that OBOB can be crashed by non-Catholics who want to debate?

 

[Maren]

You care that little for children's rights of having a female mother and a male father? Afterall, it's not about the rights of those who have decided to act contrary to nature--it's about the rights of children.

And I dare say that you might want to be concerned about the Catholic Church having to get out of social service organizations (like orphanages or health care or...) since without the Church's charities, secular organizations would have to carry the whole load themselves, and already they can't.

Sorry, the problem with the Catholic's church charities is that they want to get government money in their coffers but don't want to follow the rules that that is a requirement of receiving the money. As an example, the Mormon's have their own charity group that does adoptions (LDS family services) and have no problem operating in places like Massachusetts, despite refusing to do adoptions for gay couples, precisely because they refuse to take government money.

If a private charity requires government money to survive then they aren't a private charity.

 

[Maren]

Well the humans that have caused poor Ms. Miller to flee with Isabella out of absolute fear of their God-given rights being violated have done such an excellent job! (In the case the poor child is scheduled to be wrenched from her biological mother and given to a stranger, a woman who would violate her Christian upbringing and harm her psychologically all because of one state recognized same-sex union, but this is what happens when that ended in "divorce".) How many more poor children will be sacrificed because of the same-sex unions?

What ever happened to religious freedom? It's not freedom "from" religion". It's just an anti-establishment. That's supposed to be protected under the Constitution...or is that to be sacrificed too?

BTW this is OBOB. Or is it now okay that OBOB can be crashed by non-Catholics who want to debate?

Sorry, this argument about Ms. Miller is no different than a woman who becomes fundamentalist Christian and then refuses to turn the child over for court-ordered shared custody to her non-fundamentalist ex-husband. Doesn't matter that she is the birth mother, the other person is legally a parent -- all she has done is become a fugitive and lost all custody rights. Even the Virginia courts agree with this.

And, no, this is not OBOB -- I believe you a page or so ago called for this to be moved and your wish was granted. This thread is now in American Politics.

 

[a_nony_mous]

Well the humans that have caused poor Ms. Miller to flee with Isabella out of absolute fear of their God-given rights being violated have done such an excellent job! (In the case the poor child is scheduled to be wrenched from her biological mother and given to a stranger, a woman who would violate her Christian upbringing and harm her psychologically all because of one state recognized same-sex union, but this is what happens when that ended in "divorce".) How many more poor children will be sacrificed because of the same-sex unions?

What ever happened to religious freedom? It's not freedom "from" religion". It's just an anti-establishment. That's supposed to be protected under the Constitution...or is that to be sacrificed too?

BTW this is OBOB. Or is it now okay that OBOB can be crashed by non-Catholics who want to debate?

This isn't the OBOB section. This is the American Politics section.

And how exactly is the Miller-Jenkins case unique to homosexuals? Like you said in your PM to me, there are such things as messy heterosexual divorces. So why not focus on those as well, then?

And how exactly would legalizing gay marriage nationwide have any effect at all on your religious freedom?

 

[AMDG]

Sorry, this argument about Ms. Miller is no different than a woman who becomes fundamentalist Christian and then refuses to turn the child over for court-ordered shared custody to her non-fundamentalist ex-husband. Doesn't matter that she is the birth mother, the other person is legally a parent -- all she has done is become a fugitive and lost all custody rights. Even the Virginia courts agree with this.

No this is not the same. You are talking about a shared custody order for a biological mother and a biological father. This is not. It is about a biological mother and a total stranger. It is absolutely horrid for the child. (It is far more horrid than what I had to endure as a child of divorce and I'm surprised that social services has not stepped in to protect the child from Jenkins who clearly wants only to indoctrinate the poor child.) Now I see why the Church, in her wisdom, insists that marriage is permanent. And it does pit one state against the other. Virginia does not recognize same-sex marriage.

And, no, this is not OBOB -- I believe you a page or so ago called for this to be moved and your wish was granted. This thread is now in American Politics.

Thank you for this information. No, I did not, and would never ask the thread to be moved since it is about beliefs held firmly by the Catholic Church and IMO does not belong in American Politics. I will now leave you all to debate among yourselves--something I am sure you all do very well.

 

[a_nony_mous]

AMDG, is there a reason why you completely ignored my post to you? It's not very Christ-like to ignore peoples' posts, you know.

 

[Norbert L]

Well... one of the most profound concepts expressed to men is this:

"Would you indeed annul My judgment? Would you condemn Me that you may be justified?" (Job 40:8)

I believe every person, from President to the person on the streets who has even the slightest acknowledgement of a higher authority, should read that as a direct one on one verbally expressed statement from God Himself! Even Atheists should acknowledge that the overwhelming predominant position of all politicians addresses some supreme concept of life beyond mortal man.

Look ... All governments in the world want to portray themselves justified by making convincing arguments that they are doing right, even Atheists. However everyone is faced with one agreed fact.

Obama, like you or I and the Atheist will die. If there is nothing beyond this life, don't worry.. rape, murder and steal as much as you think you can get away with. Don't worry... sodimize, torture and look at others as inferior, perhaps that can be legalized as well! A person can be the supreme Charles Manson as much as you can and get away with where possible. However the people should ask themselves a question. How much more can a no harm pacifiest idea be rationalised as being "ok" too. That they can believe their lifestyle is actually justified before God and take it to their graves?

Here's the thing with another question. What if some Higher court that knows that the words contained in the Bible are emphatically expressed otherwise... ????

Those who believe in gay marriage should be aware, even some of their own see that it is hypocritical to accept the message within the Bible as the word of God.

 

[a_nony_mous]

Well... one of the most profound concepts expressed to men is this:

"Would you indeed annul My judgment? Would you condemn Me that you may be justified?" (Job 40:8)

I believe every person, from President to the person on the streets who has even the slightest acknowledgement of a higher authority, should read that as a direct one on one verbally expressed statement from God Himself! Even Atheists should acknowledge that the overwhelming predominant position of all politicians addresses some supreme concept of life beyond mortal man.

Look ... All governments in the world want to portray themselves justified by making convincing arguments that they are doing right, even Atheists. However everyone is faced with one agreed fact.

Obama, like you or I and the Atheist will die. If there is nothing beyond this life, don't worry.. rape, murder and steal as much as you think you can get away with. Don't worry... sodimize, torture and look at others as inferior, perhaps that can be legalized as well! A person can be the supreme Charles Manson as much as you can and get away with where possible. However the people should ask themselves a question. How much more can a no harm pacifiest idea be rationalised as being "ok" too. That they can believe their lifestyle is actually justified before God and take it to their graves?

Here's the thing with another question. What if some Higher court that knows that the words contained in the Bible are emphatically expressed otherwise... ????

Those who believe in gay marriage should be aware, even some of their own see that it is hypocritical to accept the message within the Bible as the word of God.

I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here. Are you pro-gay marriage or anti-gay marriage?

 

[Gishin]

BTW this is OBOB. Or is it now okay that OBOB can be crashed by non-Catholics who want to debate?

No it's not.

 

[Maren]

No this is not the same. You are talking about a shared custody order for a biological mother and a biological father. This is not. It is about a biological mother and a total stranger. It is absolutely horrid for the child. (It is far more horrid than what I had to endure as a child of divorce and I'm surprised that social services has not stepped in to protect the child from Jenkins who clearly wants only to indoctrinate the poor child.) Now I see why the Church, in her wisdom, insists that marriage is permanent. And it does pit one state against the other. Virginia does not recognize same-sex marriage.

Thank you for this information. No, I did not, and would never ask the thread to be moved since it is about beliefs held firmly by the Catholic Church and IMO does not belong in American Politics. I will now leave you all to debate among yourselves--something I am sure you all do very well.

Actually, it is the same. She and Ms. Jenkins had a civil union in the state of Vermont, Ms. Jenkins was considered the child's second parent. When they separated, Ms. Miller and Ms. Jenkins were given shared custody by the courts -- both Vermont and Virginia courts upheld the shared custody arrangement and have ordered Ms. Miller to turn over the child to the other parent. The rest that you are trying to insert is your own prejudice. Beyond that, both the Virginia and Vermont supreme courts have ruled in favor of Ms. Jenkins and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case when Ms. Miller appealed. Legally this issue is very clear.

And it is funny how you mention how "Jenkins who clearly wants only to indoctrinate the poor child". May I ask what you are basing that on? I think it has far more to her being a mother to that child and feeling love for the child. If anything, it sounds like Ms. Miller who is wanting to "indoctrinate the poor child" in her new fundamentalist beliefs. After all, it isn't Ms. Jenkins who refused to split custody of the child.

 

[Zlex]

What ever happened to religious freedom? It's not freedom "from" religion". It's just an anti-establishment. That's supposed to be protected under the Constitution...or is that to be sacrificed too?

The government doesn't seem to me to have any power to favor one religious definition of marriage over any other, and if there is a religion that declares same sex marriages as marriages, then Welcome to America and all the rights and privileges afforded therein.

This isn't government getting involved with religious issues and picking favorites; this is the government not getting involved with religious matters and picking favorites. The reaction to this, I think, is 'not in my favorite religion.' Well, I don't see any problem with that; there is no requirement(nor can there constitutionally be)for any particular religion to accept same sex unions as marriage in the context of that religion, but neither is there a power for any religion to define same for all other religions, or to declare that their religion is the only religious context in America.