jasJis Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 Since the other post got cluttered up and had limited choices, I thought this would generate some additional enlightened conversation. Please respect the thread and keep the rants on the other thread : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 Give me door number 1 please! My personnal opinion is that Cathlics could learn from the muslims and have Catholic states. Since when is the law suppose to be independant of morality!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 OK, Jas, Here's the first of the points I made yesterday: [quote]2) My position from the beginning has been that the state should not be in the business of defining marriage. As Theoketos said (emphasis added): [quote]Once the State thinks it has the right to decide what is true and what is false, [b]it thinks it can become something like a god[/b]. This leads to tyranny. Ironically, these tyrannical states usually advocate personal autonomy, thereby equating freedom from limitations as the greatest freedom. True freedom however is not having an infinate amount of choices, but being able to what is best for both self and and others (in faith we would also add for the glory of God).[/quote][/quote] To which you replied: [quote]#2. The State does not define marriage, but is in the business of reflecting and promoting what is naturally right.[/quote] So in reply to your answer on this point, I'd say the state most certainly DOES define marriage. I can't see how you'd be able to say it does otherwise. If the state (us) didn't think it could define marriage, there would be no referendum vote -- it wouldn't be up for discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photosynthesis Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 "Freedom is the ability to do what we ought." - Pope John Paul II Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted November 18, 2005 Author Share Posted November 18, 2005 Soj, Let's start from the basics. Marriage is a social institution that was established by God as and element of human nature. I think that's what q and I are refering to Natural Law. Agree or Disagree? Marriage (the social institution) has been built upon and fulfilled by Christ with the endowment of additional graces and can (note 'can') become a Sacrament. Agree or Disagree? I think this will help us clarify what Marriage is and identify areas of athority, but let's do it slow. I can't think too fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 [quote name='jasJis' date='Nov 18 2005, 11:46 AM']Soj, Let's start from the basics. Marriage is a social institution that was established by God as and element of human nature. I think that's what q and I are refering to Natural Law. Agree or Disagree? Marriage (the social institution) has been built upon and fulfilled by Christ with the endowment of additional graces and can (note 'can') become a Sacrament. Agree or Disagree? I think this will help us clarify what Marriage is and identify areas of athority, but let's do it slow. I can't think too fast. [right][snapback]794203[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I'd agree that marriage was instituted by God -- as Pope John Paul II called it, the "primordial [or original] sacrament." Edited to say: I'm still working on lining out exactly what that means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 i don't know what the fuss is all about!!! Homosexual marriages will be seen as a stepping stone in the future, and those who advocate it will be seen as pioneers to a brave new world! See this little article for example; [url="http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05111703.html"]http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05111703.html[/url] Gay marriage sets us free to do so many things that past generations simply could not because they where ignorant and narrow minded. i'm certain my father would have loved to have a better relationship with the family dog, and that everyone would have greatly benefitted from the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jezic Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 are you sure you want to open this thread .... the last one hasn't turned out very well yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 [quote name='jezic' date='Nov 18 2005, 02:37 PM']are you sure you want to open this thread .... the last one hasn't turned out very well yet [right][snapback]794503[/snapback][/right] [/quote] We're hoping the other one will keep people occupied, allowing us to carry on intelligent conversation under the radar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 (edited) [quote name='Sojourner' date='Nov 18 2005, 02:41 PM']We're hoping the other one will keep people occupied, allowing us to carry on intelligent conversation under the radar. [right][snapback]794517[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Is that your polite way of telling me to keep out of the thread? No one is a prophet in their own land. Edited November 18, 2005 by Didacus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 [quote name='Didacus' date='Nov 18 2005, 03:03 PM']Is that your polite way of telling me to keep out of the thread? No one is a prophet in their own land. [right][snapback]794567[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I didn't name any names. I personally would welcome anyone who wishes to discuss the issues at hand. BTW, your article moved me to look at Indiana's statutes. I haven't found anything yet in our criminal code which outlaws bestiality, although I suppose it could be interpreted as a crime under the "cruelty against animals" statutes. Apparently we're farther along the road to destruction than Massachusetts is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted November 18, 2005 Author Share Posted November 18, 2005 The idea is to discuss and debate about Gay marriages in a fundamental way so that people of differing opinons and view points can share them in an orderly way and try to understand exactly WHY each other holds their particular opinion. For some of us (me) it will be enlightenting. I believe I know why. Soj and I are going to try to do this in an orderly way from what marriage is and isn't. Areas of authority or no authority. What we should do or shouldn't do as citizens and as Christians. We will ignore those who call us haters or we can't understand or understand us. We are too simple minded and confuse easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 [quote name='jasJis' date='Nov 18 2005, 04:05 PM']The idea is to discuss and debate about Gay marriages in a fundamental way so that people of differing opinons and view points can share them in an orderly way and try to understand exactly WHY each other holds their particular opinion. For some of us (me) it will be enlightenting. I believe I know why. Soj and I are going to try to do this in an orderly way from what marriage is and isn't. Areas of authority or no authority. What we should do or shouldn't do as citizens and as Christians. We will ignore those who call us haters or we can't understand or understand us. We are too simple minded and confuse easily. [right][snapback]794604[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Yep! Hey look, jas! I'm agreeing with you! Don't tell anyone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 [quote name='Sojourner' date='Nov 18 2005, 03:21 PM']I didn't name any names. I personally would welcome anyone who wishes to discuss the issues at hand. BTW, your article moved me to look at Indiana's statutes. I haven't found anything yet in our criminal code which outlaws bestiality, although I suppose it could be interpreted as a crime under the "cruelty against animals" statutes. Apparently we're farther along the road to destruction than Massachusetts is. [right][snapback]794579[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I disagree... If your state never felt a need to legislate these acts, that is because they where not occuring enough to be a concern. If a state actually makes laws towards beastiallity, then I'd say these states felt there was enough of that going on that they where actually pushed into doing something about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted November 18, 2005 Author Share Posted November 18, 2005 (edited) Didicas, Bring it back to this thread topic. Do you agree or disagree to the two statements in my earlier post. Give a why, if possible. Edited November 18, 2005 by jasJis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now